Distance in Language

Grounding a Metaphor
Edited by

Barbara Sonnenhauser
and Anastasia Meermann

Distance in Language: Grounding a Metaphor

Edited by Barbara Sonnenhauser and Anastasia Meermann
This book first published 2015
Cambridge Scholars Publishing
Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Copyright 2015 by Barbara Sonnenhauser, Anastasia Meermann and
contributors
All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without
the prior permission of the copyright owner.
ISBN (10): 1-4438-7261-X
ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-7261-4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ................................................................................................ 1
Distance in Language: Grounding a Metaphor
The editors
Part I: Approaching Distance
Chapter One ................................................................................................. 7
The Elementary Particles of Distance in Space, Time, Grammar,
and Discourse
Sonja Zeman
Chapter Two ............................................................................................. 37
Distance: Between Deixis and Perspectivity
Anastasia Meerman, and Barbara Sonnenhauser
Part II: Distance in Morphosyntax
Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 69
Distance in Tensed Nominals: A Typological Perspective
Evangelia Adamou
Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 95
Truncated Perfect in Serbian: A Marker of Distance?
Anastasia Meermann
Chapter Five ............................................................................................ 117
Hear-Say, Inference, Surprise: (Self-) Distancing in Bulgarian
Barbara Sonnenhauser
Part III: Distance on the Text Level
Chapter Six .............................................................................................. 145
Distance in Discourse: Evidence from Polish, Russian and German
Imke Mendoza

vi

Table of Contents

Chapter Seven.......................................................................................... 167

Ignorance of Epistemological Distance: Rhetorical Use
of Non-Evidentials in the Work of Frank Kafka
Yoshinori Nishijima
Chapter Eight ........................................................................................... 187
Evidentials in Balkan Slavic as a Text-Structuring Device
Maxim Makartsev
Part IV: Distance in Linguistic Interaction
Chapter Nine............................................................................................ 215
Triangulations: Navigating Distance in Interaction
Grace E. Fielder
Chapter Ten ............................................................................................. 243
Macedonian Da Ne-Questions as Distance Markers
Liljana Mitkovska, Eleni Buarovska, and Marija Kusevska
Chapter Eleven ........................................................................................ 263
The Concept of Privacy and Proxemic Differences
Galina Putjata
Contributors ............................................................................................ 283
Subject Index .......................................................................................... 285

CHAPTER FOUR
TRUNCATED PERFECT IN SERBIAN:
A MARKER OF DISTANCE?
ANASTASIA MEERMANN

Abstract
So far little attention has been paid to the drop of the auxiliary in the
Serbian perfect, which in practice serves as a compound past. However, a
thorough investigation of this phenomenon might shed more light on the
development of the past tense system in Slavic and the emergence of a
verbal evidential category in Balkan Slavic. This paper aims to explore the
function of such truncated perfect forms at the level of discourse. For this
purpose the usage of the truncated perfect in colloquial Serbian has been
analyzed. The findings indicate that the truncated perfect encodes several
meanings, which are similar to those expressed by the Balkan Slavic
evidential forms, and which can be ascribed to the primary function of
distancing. Further, the paper proposes that the encoding of distanced
meanings by the truncated perfect in Serbian and the so called l-forms in
Balkan Slavic is the result of the same All-Slavic development, namely the
process in which the Old Common Slavic perfect changed into a preterit.

1. Introduction
The Old Common Slavic perfect construed by the l-participle plus the
auxiliary to be has lost its perfect meaning in Serbian and functions as a
generalized past. It has replaced the aorist and imperfect in most instances.
While the imperfect has nearly died out in the standard variety as well as
in most dialects, the aorist is still used in narrative contexts. Besides,
Serbian exhibits another verbal form, which has been referred to as the

The research for this paper has been funded by the German Research
Foundation DFG (project Perspectivity in Balkan Slavic: semantic basis and
discourse pragmatic relevance, SO 949/21).

Chapter Four

96

truncated perfect (krai perfekat, Grickat 1954; krnji perfekat,

Stevanovi 1967). It is distinguished from the regular perfect by the
omission of the auxiliary. In the Serbo-Croatian linguistic tradition the
truncated form has been regarded as a stylistic variant of the compound
perfect (Grickat 1954; Stevanovi 1967; Mikelsen 1983). However,
neither the difference between these two forms nor the meaning and
function of the TP seems to be fully clarified.
Since the full form functions as a generalized past rather than a perfect
we will refer to it as compound past (Alexander 2006), and accordingly
to what has been called truncated perfect as truncated past (TP). Both
past tense forms are illustrated in (1).
(1) a.
b.

dala

je

give.PTCP.SG.F

be.AUX.3.SG

dala

give.PTCP.SG.G

compound past
truncated past

The purpose of this paper is threefold: firstly, to analyze the function

of TP in discourse; secondly, to detect its underlying semantic base; and
thirdly, to propose an explanation as to what enables the TP to convey
certain specific meanings.
Furthermore, it will be shown that the usage of the TP in discourse
displays some parallels to the non-confirmative evidential forms in Balkan
Slavic, i.e. Bulgarian and Macedonian. Thus, conclusions concerning the
TP in Serbian will be drawn from previous studies of the Balkan Slavic
evidential forms.1
The nonconfirmative evidential forms in Balkan Slavic have also
developed from the Old Common Slavic perfect and are often referred to
as l-forms owing to the typical l-suffix of the participle. According to
Friedman (2004, 104108) the l-forms constitute an indefinite unmarked
past opposed to definite past tenses, the aorist and imperfect which are
marked for confirmativity. Thus, whereas the aorist and imperfect are used
only in confirmative contexts, the l-forms are applied in both neutral and
nonconfirmative contexts, cf. (2).

The existence of a verbal evidential category in Serbian has been denied so far
(cf. Friedmann 2004, 108; Mieska Tomi 2006, 361). It is not the aim of this
paper to claim the opposite. Nonetheless, section 3 reveals similarities between
the TP in Serbian and the l-forms in Balkan Slavic that might call for a
reconsideration of the predominant assumptions concerning both phenomena.

Truncated Perfect in Serbian: A Marker of Distance?

97

(2) Opposition between confirmative and nonconfirmative forms in

Balkan Slavic (Friedman 2004, 104)
CONFIRMATIVE:

1. witnessed

3. felicitous
a. neutral, resultative
b. reported, hearsay
c. deduction, inference

aorist/imperfect
2. unwitnessed
a. confirmable by speaker
b. confirmable by speaker and
addressee (general, historic, gnomic,
personal facts)
NONCONFIRMATIVE: l-forms
4. infelicitous
a. dubitative (irony, sarcasm)
b. admirative (surprise)

It is sometimes argued that the Bulgarian l-forms, unlike the

Macedonian,2 can still function as the perfect (Fielder 2003). In traditional
Bulgarian grammars, the distinction between the perfect and the nonconfirmative function of the l-forms has been linked to the auxiliary variation
in the third person (for example Bojadiev, Kucarov and Penev 1999).
The l-forms without the auxiliarythe so-called renarrative formsare
supposed to convey the meaning of renarration or unwitnessed by the
speaker, whereas l-forms with the auxiliary are regarded as perfect, cf. (3)
and also Sonnenhauser (this volume) for a more detailed description.
(3) a.
b.

pisal

write.PTCP.M.SG

be.AUX.3.SG

pisal

write.PTCP.M.SG

AUX.3.SG

perfect
renarrative

Several authors (Fielder 1995; Friedman 2004; Levin-Steinmann 2004;

Sonnenhauser 2012), however, have shown that the usage of the l-forms in
spoken and written language undermines this assumption. Instead,
Sonnenhauser (2012; 2014; also this volume) proposes that the omission
of the auxiliary indicates a shift from the narrators or the speakers point
of view to another. Apart from this distinction, both forms can be analyzed
2

Macedonian has developed a new resultative perfect which is construed by the

passive participle and the auxiliary imam have, cf. the following example:
Toj
ima
dojdeno
he
have.AUX.3.SG arrive.PTCP.PASS.N.SG
He has arrived. (Graves 2000, 483)

98

Chapter Four

as variants of a general past (cf. Sonnenhauser 2012, 351355 for an

overview of the discussion on the nature of the l-forms in Bulgarian).
Notwithstanding theat least formalrelationship between the variation of the auxiliary in Bulgarian and in Serbian, most prior research has
disregarded the correlation between these two phenomena. Some authors
(Dejanova 1970; Levin-Steinmann 2004, 15; Sonnenhauser 2012, 352),
however, presume that there might be semantic and functional similarities
between these features.
Section 2 of this paper gives an overview over previous approaches to
the TP phenomenon in Serbian. Section 3 summarizes the findings of the
analysis of the usage of the TP in discourse mostly based on the Serbian
dialogues recorded by Savi and Polovina (1989). Section 4 moves on to
interpret the observations of section 3, arguing that the TP functions as a
marker of distance. Section 5 investigates the factors, which led to the
development of the TP and its function, and proposes an explanation for
the functional parallels between the TP in Serbian and the evidential forms
in Balkan Slavic. The results are summarized in section 6.

2. Previous approaches
As was noted in section 1, the TP is usually described as a stylistic
variant of the compound past. It is assumed to convey the meaning of
unexpected news or an emotional reaction of the speaker, such as surprise,
shock or irony (cf. Belyavski-Frank 1991, 122; Alexander 2006, 161;
Labroska 2011, 84), cf. (4); the TP form and the corresponding form in the
translation are given in italics.
(4) Hej! Doao Petar! (Alexander 2006, 161)
Hey! Peters here!, literally Hey! Peter came/has come.
As well as this, the TP may occur in vivid narrative contexts such as
storytelling or newspaper headlines, where the L-participle alone
frequently transmits the full idea of past tense (Alexander 2006, 161), as
the following examples demonstrate.
(5) Bio jednom jedan kralj (Alexander 2006, 161)
Once upon a time there was a king.
(6) Antropolozi nali mumiju! (Alexander 2006, 161)
Anthropologists find mummy!, literally: Anthropologists found
mummy.

Truncated Perfect in Serbian: A Marker of Distance?

99

Such assumptions lack, however, corroboration by a systematic

investigation of the phenomenon. In contrast to the very similar
phenomenon of auxiliary drop in Bulgarian, which has been the topic of
various linguistic studies, little attention has been paid to the TP in
Serbian. Grickat (1954) presented the only overall analysis of the TP.
Belis (1926/1927) differentiation between the indicative and the
relative usage of tenses in Serbo-Croatian serves as a starting point for
Grickats theses. In the case of the indicative the expressed action is
located on the time axis in relation to the time of speech; in other words,
the speech time serves as reference point. In the case of relative the
expressed action is not related to the speech time. Thus, another time may
occur as a reference time. For example, the pluperfect is restricted to the
relative meaning, since it relates an earlier past action to a later point in
the past. Beli (1926/1927, 122) claims that, whereas the full form is
mostly used to express the indicative, the TP primarily conveys a
relative meaning. This is due to the morphological structure of the TP,
inasmuch as it lacks the auxiliary, which normally links the past action
expressed by the l-participle with the time of speech.
Grickat (1954) and later Stevanovi (1967), point out that the
expression of relative meaning by the TP is more of a tendency than a
fully developed feature since the compound past can also convey relative
meaning. According to Stevanovi (1967, 59), the compound past bio je
he was in the second clause in (7) provides relative meaning as the
expressed situation is located in time in relation to the event expressed in
the first clause, priala mi je mati mother told me.
(7) Nekad, priala mi je mati, bio je drugi ovek. (L. Lazarevi,
Celokupna dela; cited from Stevanovi 1967, 59)
Once, my mother told me, he was a different person.
Grickat (1954), nevertheless, adopts Belis term relative in her
analysis of the TP. Yet she provides a broader definition of the term
relative, namely as the expression of expressive and resultative
meanings. Furthermore, she (ibid., 188190) argues that the drop of the
auxiliary dissolves not only the link between the proposition and the time
of speech but also the predicative component of the clause. In this way the
sentence loses its predicative character and becomes more static.
Consequently, the lack of the auxiliary emphasizes the result rather than
the process of a past action, which is therefore perceived as a given state
(ibid.), cf. (8).

100

Chapter Four

(8) Magla pala. (Grickat 1954, 189)

A mist arose.
Grickat (1954, 191) considers resultativity as the primary meaning of
the TP. She claims that this is also the reason for why it occurs mostly
with perfective verbs. However, the data analyzed in this paper regularly
shows TP forms of imperfective verbs lacking the resultative component,
as in (9). It seems that resultativity is due to the perfective aspect of the
verb rather than to the TP itself.
(9) Zvao mene, mislio, pa nisam ila. (Savi and Polovina 1989, 166)
He [repeatedly] invited me, he was thinking, but I didnt go.
Further, Grickat (1954, 190) argues that the TP may also convey
expressive meanings such as surprise or unexpected news. This results
from a shift of focus caused by the omission of the auxiliary from the
predicate of the sentence to the subject or its attribute expressed by the
l-participle, cf. (10).
(10) Umro kralj! (Grickat 1954, 190)
The king is dead!, literally: The king died.
It has already been mentioned in section 1, that it has been claimed on
several occasions that functional similarities between the omission of the
auxiliary in Serbian and Bulgarian exist (Dejanova 1970; Levin-Steinmann
2004, 15). Dejanova (1970, 853) argues that both forms share the feature
of stylistic and expressive markedness (stilistino-ekspresivna
markiranost, ibid.). Albeit, the sphere of usage of the l-forms without the
auxiliary in Bulgarian, according to Dejanova (ibid.), is more defined.
Therefore its usage is more restricted, whereas in Serbian the usage of the
TP without an explicit functional motivation is quite common (ibid.). At
this point, it has to be pointed out that the usage of the l-forms without the
auxiliary in Bulgarian is often described as inconsistent as well (see
section 1). Another difference between the phenomena in Bulgarian and in
Serbian, noted by Dejanova (1970, 847), is that in Bulgarian, the omission
of the auxiliary is restricted to the 3rd person, whereas in Serbian it may
occur in all three grammatical persons. This assumption has to be adjusted
since the Serbian dialogues analyzed for this paper show an omission of
the auxiliary mostly in the 3rd person and also regularly in the 1st person,
but only once in the 2nd person.
Besides the similarities between the TP and the unauxiliated l-forms in
Bulgarian, parallels can be found between the Serbian and Balkan Slavic

Truncated Perfect in Serbian: A Marker of Distance?

101

perterital systems in general. It has already been pointed out in section 1

that the compound past forms in Serbian function as a neutral preterit,
whereas the synthetic past tensesat least the aoristhave been
preserved in narration as a highly marked variant expressing the physical
or psychological involvement of the speaker (Samilov 1957, 101;
Belyavski-Frank 1991, 116; Labroska 2003, 7879). Therefore, Samilov
(1957, 101102) defines the aorist and imperfect as evidential past tense
being preserved for events witnessed by the speaker. In contrast, the not
necessarily evidential (Samilov 1957, 102) forms, i.e. the compound and
truncated past, are applicable for witnessed and unwitnessed events but are
obligatory in the latter case. This correlates with Friedmans findings
(2004) in which he points out the distinction in Balkan Slavic between the
confirmative aorist and imperfect, and the nonconfirmative l-forms (cf.
section 1).
Mikelsen (1983, 60), however, argues that the oppostition between
confirmative and nonconfirmative verbal paradigms in Serbian is not as
well-defined as in Balkan Slavic. He mentions two reasons for this state of
affairs. Firstly, the spread of the perfect as a generalized past has led to a
decline of the synthetic tenses and consequently to the regression of the
confirmative member of the opposition. Secondly, the TP, which
according to Mikelsen (1983, 60) was the nonconfirmative counterpart of
the synthetic tenses, has been reinterpreted as a stylistic variant of the
compound past. His explanation for this reinterpretation is the loss of the
synthetic past tenses (ibid., 2526). It could, however, be pointed out that
wether a language has a grammaticalized nonconfirmative category is not
necessarily dependant on the existence of a confirmative counterpart. For
example, Albanian has specific nonconfirmative verbal forms, which are
opposed to unmarked neutral forms, but there are no specific confirmative
forms (cf. Friedman 2004). Consequently, the TP in Serbian does not
obligatorily lose its function with the decline of the aorist and imperfect.
Besides, the analysis of the TP as a stylistic variant of the compound past
appears to be unsatisfactory since it does not specify the stylistic nuances
of this form.
The given overview shows that a thorough investigation of the TP is
still necessary both as regards its function and usage patterns and as
regards its position within the Serbian tense system. The theoretical
explanations given by Beli (1926/1927) and Grickat (1954) appear not to
correlate with the actual use of these forms. It further remains not fully
clarified whether the existence of the synthetic past tenses influences the
role of the TP in Serbian and to what extent it influences the comparability
with the l-forms in Balkan Slavic.

102

Chapter Four

The following section summarizes the findings of my analysis of TP

usage in dialogues. It once more demonstrates that the previous
assumptions concerning the TP have to be revisited.

3. TP in discourse
The following observations are based on the analysis of Serbian
dialogues recorded by Savi and Polovina (1989).3 Thus, the analysis is
restricted to colloquial language. Yet, the few examples of TP from
literary texts given in Samilov (1957) and Belyavski-Frank (1997) confirm
the findings presented below. Moreover, these examples are restricted to
the passages of direct speech, which in turn simulate spoken language.4
Thus, it might be concluded that TP is more of an oral phenomenon.
The usage of the TP in the analyzed dialogues does indeed agree to a
certain extent with the descriptions of its use introduced in section 2 as the
TP occurs in expressive and emotive contexts. There it seems to display an
admirative meaning, i.e. surprise, as in (11); or emphasis of a contradiction
to some otherwise stated, assumed or expected information as well as
indignation, cf. (12).
(11) Jao! On izmislio? (Savi and Polovina 1989, 134)
Oh! He made it up?
(12) S: Od ponoi do jedan dva [...] i to / je / bilo / svaki drugi trei dan.
Ja sam izila / ja sam luuudila [sic!] u svojoj sobi, ali nikad nisam
otila da kaem ta taj deko radi?
M: A oni doli! (Savi and Polovina 1989, 133)
S: From midnight to 1 or 2 [a.m.] and that was every second, third
day. I was tossing and turning, I was fuming in my room, but I
never went [to the neighbors] to say What is your boy doing?
M: But they came!
Further, the TP is used for expressing irony as in the following
example, where the speaker ironically discredits her own behavior.
3

Savi and Polovina (1989) label the dialogues as colloquial Serbocroatian.

From todays point of view, it is more appropriate to regard the recordings as
Serbian since all the participants come from either Belgrade or Novi Sad.
Grickat (1954) also provides a wide range of examples for the TP from belle
lettres. These, however, are given without the appropriate context so that it is
hard to decide whether the utterances belong to direct speech or not and to
interpret them in general.

Truncated Perfect in Serbian: A Marker of Distance?

103

(13) [on the phone]

Alo! Da, jeste... Da. Ajd, Paja! / Paja zove. (smeju se) Radim,
zauzela ovde tvoju poziciju i ne mrdam... Pa ta radim... (Savi and
Polovina 1989, 118)
Hello! Yes, there is Yes. Hey, Paja! Paja is calling. (laughter) Im
working, I have occupied your position and do not move Thats
what I do
The sphere of TP usage, however, appears to exceed expressive
contexts. In examples (14) and (15) the TP is used for renarration.
(14) Pa seam se Paule. Priala je da je pala to nije znala neke podatke.
Kae! Ona ne zna kad su uhapsili Gavrila Principa, i kae oborili je
ispitu. (Savi and Polovina 1989, 93)
And so I meet Paula. She told me that she had failed [the exam], that
she had not known some dates. So she says! She doesnt know when
they arrested Gavrilo Princip, and she says [they, the examiners]
flunked her in the exam.
(15) I Milica, umesto da sprema svoj ispit // jue // celi dan radi so njom
hemiju. I danas je zove / i kae dobila peticu. [] Imala danas
porpravni ispit i dobila peticu. (Savi and Polovina 1989, 106)
And Milica, instead of preparing for her exam, yesterday practices
chemistry with her [i.e. her friend] all day. And today she calls/and
says she got a five [i.e. very good mark]. She had a reexamination
today and got a five.
Example (14) demonstrates that the TP may occur in indirect speech
introduced by the verbum dicendi kae he/she says; although it is not
obligatory since it is only used in one of the two instances of indirect
speech. It seems that the speaker chooses the TP form to express her doubt
or indignation towards Paulas claim that she has been deliberately
flunked. In (15) only the first TP form is introduced by a verbum dicendi.
The two others TP forms, nonetheless, indicate renarration as the speaker
did not witness the reexamination of Milicas friend, but must have heard
about it from Milica. The TP in (15) conveys a renarrative rather than an
expressive meaning.
Furthermore, some occurrences of the TP such as in (16) propose an
inferential reading.

104

Chapter Four

(16) Zna ti da su naem jednom profanu, ovaj se vraao iz inostranstva i

nosio knjige odavde tamo, svoje, zato to je iao tamo due, trebale
mu. Doe otuda na carinu, ovde mu naplate. [] Zato to su na /
valjda stranom jeziku. Zna / recim Englez iao u Englesku
(Savi and Polovina 1989, 89)
Do you know what they [did] to one of our professors, he was
returning from abroad and carried some books from there, his own,
because he went there for a long time, he [apparently] needed them.
He comes from there to the customs, and there they made him pay.
[] Probably because they are in a foreign language. You know,
lets say Englishman went to England
The first TP form in (16), trebale needed them seems to indicate that
the speaker does not know for sure, but rather infers, that the professor
needed his books abroad since he took them with him. Thus, the addition
of a modal adverb such as apparently in the English translation appears
to be quite necessary. The second TP form, iao he went seemingly
signals that the speaker infers the line of thought of the customs officers
from what she knows about the situation. Obviously, the speaker utters her
speculations.
Examples (11)(16) illustrate cases of the TP being used to express
distinctly emotional or nonconfirmative (i.e. admirative, renarrative,
inferential) meanings. In the majority of its occurrences, however, the TP
appears to simply refer to a past situation,5 cf. (17).
(17) Imam neki mali [i]talijanski [mikser], davno sam ga kupila / i odmah
nije mogao da radi, pa ga bacila / u pajzu i / ne gledam ga. (Savi
and Polovina 1989, 158)
I have one small Italian [mixer], I have bought it long ago / and it
didnt work from the beginning, so I threw it / into the larder and / do
not look at it.
Nevertheless, I would argue that even in such cases the TP still differs
from the compound past. By using a TP form, the speaker expresses the
mere occurrence of a situation without referring to the process of its
emergence. Doing so, the speaker may appear less involved in the stated
situation. For example, in (18) the speaker seems not to be actively

Situation is used as the umbrella term for event, action, and state. This
broader term appears to be appropriate since, for example, in (17) the TP refers
to an event, whereas in (18) it rather refers to a resultative state.

Truncated Perfect in Serbian: A Marker of Distance?

105

involved in the situation she sketches by using the TP, even though she is
the subject of the utterance.
(18) Pa da / ti se vrati iz vojske. Ja nema meu Americi. Otila da se
probijam. (Savi and Polovina 1989, 163)
So you will return from the army. Im not therein America. Gone
to make a living.
Due to the specific kind of representation of a situation by the TP, i.e.
referring to the fact of the occurrence of a situation, the resultative nuance
may appear stronger than in the compound past. However, I would argue
that expressing resultativity is not the primary function of the TP. As
already mentioned in section 2, the TP of imperfective verbs lack the
resultative nuance, cf. examples (5), (9), (16), (19).
Instances of the TP expressing the mere observation of the occurrence
of a situation are regularly found at the beginning of a new narrative unit,
not only in storytelling as in (5) but also in everyday narratives as in (19).
(19) S: Sluajte, ali gledajte! Sad kod mene / pre mesec dana / bili Jelkica
i Miko, unuad moje sestre, i deca se igrala ovde, nisu mnogo
skakala, kad ona zove telefonom: Kominice, meni se drma
luster, deca skau. (Savi and Polovina 1989, 133)
S: Look, but listen! The other day, a month ago, at my place there
were Jelkica and Miko, the grandchildren of my sister, and the
children played here, werent hopping around much, when she
phones in: Hey neighbor, my chandelier dangles, the children are
hopping around.
It seems that by using the TP at the beginning of a narrative the
speaker introduces the setting of the story.
The observations presented in this section suggest that the TP is not
restricted to expressive contexts but allows a manifold interpretation.
Further, examples (11) to (19) show that the TP does neither necessarily
mark a different localization in time in respect to the full forms as argued
by Beli (1926/1927) nor does it seem to express a lesser degree of
predicativity of the utterance as argued by Grickat (1954) (cf. section 2).
The interpretation of the TP varies according to the context between (i)
expressive meaning; (ii) nonconfirmative meaning as defined by Friedman
(2004, 104; also section 1), i.e. admirative, renarrative, inferential, ironical
meaning; (iii) a neutral meaning focusing on the mere fact of the
occurrence of a situation. The latter occurs most frequently. Besides, the
meanings detected for the TP in Serbian coincide with those attributed to

106

Chapter Four

the l-forms in Balkan Slavic. Thus, we can conclude that parallels in

function between the two phenomena do indeed exist. Moreover,
Levin-Steinmann (2004) argues that the mere observation of a state
(Zustandskonstatierung) constitutes the semantic base of the l-forms
without the auxiliary in Bulgarian. This may also hold for the TP in
Serbian since the majority of TP cases appear to express a similar
meaning. I propose, though, that the primary meaning of the TP includes
not only the observation of the occurrences of states but also of events and
actions, i.e. any kind of past situation. The following section deals with the
question how the various nuances expressed by the TP are linked to its
semantic base.

4. The truncated past as a marker of distance

In the previous section we have seen that the TP in Serbian displays
similar meanings to the evidential l-forms in Balkan Slavic. Thus,
examining the issue of why and how the different meanings of the TP are
linked together, we can draw on previous studies of the evidential forms in
Balkan Slavic. Several authors (Lunt 1952; Topolinjska 2009; Fielder
1996; Sonnenhauser, this volume) have applied the notion of distance in
their analysis of these forms. Lunt (1952) defines the general meaning of
the l-forms in Macedonian as distancing.
[T]hese forms show an action viewed as distanced in time or reality. This
may be realized in two ways. The speaker may be disclaiming
responsibility for the accuracy of the statement by specifying that he was
not a witness to the event, or he may be stating an action which started or
took place in the past, but which is still relevant at the moment of
utterance. (Lunt 1952, 91; emphasis in original)

The definition given by Lunt may also be applied to the TP in Serbian.

What Lunt has called distanced in reality corresponds to the noncomfirmative meanings conveyed by the TP; distanced in time referring to
the rather neutral usages. This might appear as a quite free interpretation
of what Lunt calls distanced in time. What he describes by this term is
rather a current relevance perfect. However, as Friedman rightly notes, it
is unclear how an actions present relevance has the effect of distancing it
in time or reality from the speaker (Friedman 1977, 36). Besides, the
l-forms in Macedonian do not necessarily convey the meaning of a current
relevance perfect. Thus, it seems more appropriate to understand
distanced in time as referring to an indefinite past, which is, according to
Friedman (1977, 8081), one of the major contextual meanings of the

Truncated Perfect in Serbian: A Marker of Distance?

107

l-forms in Macedonian. In turn, indefinite past coincides with what has

been called the mere observation of a situation by the speaker.
Lazard (1999, 95) shows that the observation of a situation
constitutes the basis for nonconfirmative evidential meanings. Since, by
the acknowledgement of the event, without specifying how it happened
(ibid.) speakers are placing themselves at a distance from what they are
saying. In other words, what they [i.e. evidential forms, AM] add to
unmarked speech, is only what may be worded as as it appears (Lazard
1999, 96). In this way the speaker withdraws herself as the reference point
of the proposition and serves rather as the physical producer of the
utterance (Sonnenhauser 2012, 362). Thus, another reference point that is
different from the speaker can be implied. Lazard (1999, 95) describes this
as a split [of the speaker] into two persons, the one who speaks and the
one who has heard or infers or perceives. Consequently, the speaking
entity is mediately linked to the event through the observing entity. In
contrast, using non-distanced forms speakers present the facts purely
and simply as they know them (ibid.) serving as reference point by
default. (20) illustrates the difference between distanced and nondistanced discourse.
(20) Non-distanced and distanced discourse: In non-distanced discourse the speaker states the facts as she knows or perceives them; in
distanced discourse there is a split between the observing instance,
which perceives the facts, and the speaking instance, which simply
states their occurrence.
non-distanced
O=S

distanced
O

S
O = observer, perceives e
S = speaker, states e
e = event

The basic meaning of a simple observation of a situation is actualized

in discourse according to the context, particularly to the way in which the
relationship between the speaker, the observer, and the event is
represented (cf. Sonnenhauser, this volume). Renarrative contexts, for
example, imply that there must be another origo of the utterance than the
speaker. For example, in (14) and (15) the speaker is stating the events as
she has heard them from Paula in (14) respectively from Milica in (15) and
not as they appear to her.

108

Chapter Four

In contrast, inferential meaning does not imply an external origo of the

proposition. The split between the speaking and the observing entities is
located within the speaker. The speaker in the role of the observing entity
infers from some information at hand that a particular situation has
occured in the past. At the same moment, in the role of the speaking entity
the speaker distances herself from her own proposition as she did not
witness the situation.
This is also true for the admirative meaning, which is based on the
discrepancy between the speakers awareness of a situation and her
previous conscious state, in which she did not expect this situation to
occur (Nicolova 2006, 42). With other words, the event is somehow NOT
CONSONANT WITH THE CURRENT STATE OF MIND OF THE SPEAKER (AksuKo and Slobin 1986, 162; emphasis in original). In this case, the split
within the speaker is between the speaking entity, which was not prepared
for the event to happen, and the observing entity, which perceives the
event. Nicolova (2006, 42) points out that the contrast between these two
cognitive states of the speaker, i.e. the sudden awareness of an event and
the previous unawareness, results in an emotional reaction of the speaker.
The expression of admirativity is therefore emotionally marked (ibid.), i.e.
exclamative.
Besides, it seems that the underlying principle of construing irony is
quite the same as that of nonconfirmative evidential forms, namely a
distancing of the speaker from what she is saying (also cf. Sonnenhauser,
this volume). Wilson and Sperber (2012) describe irony as follows:
[I]rony consists in echoing a thought (e.g. a belief, an intention, a normbased expectation) attributed to an individual, a group, or to people in
general, and expressing a mocking, sceptical or critical attitude to this
thought. (Wilson and Sperber 2012, 5)

Thus, the speaker is not the origin of the utterance but merely
reproduces, what may have been uttered by another person. In this way the
speaker distances herself from the proposition. Additionally, the
interpretation of a statement as ironic requires a characteristic tone of
voice, which is a natural cue to the particular type of mocking, sceptical
or contemptuous attitude that the speaker intends to convey to the thought
being echoed (Wilson and Sperber 2012, 36).
In conclusion, if the context or the tone of voice of the utterance, in
which the TP is used, do not indicate a nonconfirmative or an expressive
meaning, the TP is interpreted in its basic sense, namely as the mere
observation of a situation, which is not necessarily anchored with the
speaker. This is the case, for example, when the speaker wants to refer to

Truncated Perfect in Serbian: A Marker of Distance?

109

the simple fact that an event took place in the past and not to its process.
Another instance, in which the speaker uses the TP in its primary meaning,
is to indicate his or her non-involvement in a situation, or to introduce a
setting for a narration, cf. (18), (19).
To sum up, the semantic base of the TP has been defined as the
observation of a situation, which lacks an overt link with the speaker.
This basic meaning allows the inference of an unspecified reference point,
i.e. an observer different from the speaker. In this way the speaker
distances herself from the utterance. Finally, the relationship between
speaker and observer has to be interpreted according to the context,
leading to renarrative, inferential, admirative etc. meanings. This threefold
connection between the semantic base of the TP, its primary function and
the interpretation on the discourse-pragmatic level is illustrated in (21).
(21) The relationship between the semantic base of the TP, its primary
function and interpretation on the discourse-pragmatic level.
semantic base

function

interpretation

observation of a
situation
no anchoring with the
speaker, i.e. un-specified
reference point

distancing of the
speaker from what she is
saying

according to the context

renarrative
infrential
admirative
irony
non-involvement
neutral

In the following section we will investigate the factors that are crucial
for the TP to encode particularly distanced meanings.

5. The truncated past from a diachronic point of view

It has been pointed out in section 4 that distanced forms, in our case
the TP, detach the speaker from what she is saying and in doing so
interpose an unspecified reference point different from the speaker. In
contrast, non-distanced forms, i.e. the compound forms, which function
as a neutral past, imply an anchoring of the utterance with the speaker by
default. Consequently, considering the presence of the auxiliary as the
formal and functional feature, which distinguishes the compound past
from the TP, it can be assumed that the auxiliary constitutes the link
between the speaker and the proposition. In turn, as Sonnenhauser (2012)

Chapter Four

110

proposes for Bulgarian, the drop of the auxiliary leads to a deletion of the
anchoring of the proposition with the speaker.
In what follows, we will discuss the factors, which enable (i) a drop of
the auxiliary in the first place, (ii) the functional interpretation of auxiliary
variation in Bulgarian and Serbian, and which (iii) also seem relevant for
the establishment of an evidential verbal category in Balkan Slavic.
As has already been outlined by Fielder (2003) and Dickey (2013),
these factors seem to originate in the change of the l-forms from a
resultative perfect in Common Slavic to the only past tense in North
Slavic, and to nonconfirmative evidential forms in Balkan Slavic,
respectively. Within the Common Slavic resultative perfect, the
l-participle plus auxiliary to be expressed the presence of a subsequent
state resulting from a past event at the moment of utterance (Dickey 2013,
8586). This is illustrated in the example (22) from Old Church Slavic.
The originally adjectival l-participle pril refers to the subsequent state;
the present tense auxiliary jesm links this state with the time of utterance.
(22) pril
come.PTCP.M.SG

jesm
be.AUX.1.SG

I have come
The perfect construction, however, underwent subjectification passing
from the originally objective construal of a stative construction to the more
subjective construal of an eventive perfect, which expressed a past event
having some present relevance (Dickey 2013, 88). At this stage, the
l-participle is reinterpreted as a more verbal than adjectival form, referring
not only to the consequent state but to the event itself (Fielder 2003, 114);
and the auxiliary no longer functions as a deictic marker, but displays the
reference point from which the event expressed by the participle is
represented; in the default case it is the speakers domain of experience
(Dickey 2013, 8687). The reinterpretation of the l-participle as a verbal
form enables a further functional shift of this construction from a current
relevance perfect to a preterit. The difference between these two
paradigms is the subjective component of the current relevance perfect,
i.e. the anchoring of the event with the speaker displayed by the auxiliary.
Consequently, in cases where the old perfect form functions as a preterit
rather than a perfect the auxiliary is dropped since the subjective nuance
conveyed by it appears inappropriate. The described change of the l-forms
from a resultative perfect to a neutral preterit is illustrated in (23).

Truncated Perfect in Serbian: A Marker of Distance?

111

(23) The development of the l-forms from perfect to preterit

L-FORMS:

resultative perfect >

cr perfect >

preterit
verbal

L-PARTICIPLE:

adjectival

>

verbal

>

AUXILIARY:

deictic

>

subjective >

(based on Fielder 2003, 124)

Dickey (2013) describes the situation, which results from these

changes for Old and Middle Czech as follows:
[I]n Old and Middle Czech the l-participle with a third-person auxiliary
[] signaled that the event was being accessed from a reference point, the
speakers experiental domain as an element of the ground by default, with
the concomitant effect of a perfect construal or emphasis on the current
relevance of an individual event. The unauxiliated third-person l-participle
[] was a neutral preterit. (Dickey 2013, 8990)

In their further development the North Slavic languages lost the

functional distinction between auxiliated and unauxiliated forms. The
auxiliary was completely dropped in East Slavic and preserved as a mere
grammatical person marker in West Slavic. The l-form entirely replaced
the aorist and imperfect and became the only past tense.
In contrast, Bulgarian and Serbian show a situation similar to what is
described by Dickey (2013) for Old and Middle Czech, though with
reversed markedness relationships. In Old and Middle Czech the
unauxiliated l-forms constitute the unmarked forms that function as a
neutral preterit, whereas auxiliated l-forms are marked in terms of
subjectivity. In Serbian and Bulgarian, the l-form with the auxiliary
conveys the neutral unmarked meaning of a generalized past, which
implies an anchoring of the proposition with the speaker by default.
Additionally, the auxiliated l-form can express a perfect meaning in
Bulgarian. The unauxiliated l-forms are marked with respect to the lack of
the anchoring of utterance with the speaker. This, in turn, allows a
nonconfirmative or distanced interpretation. Thus, we can conclude that
the drop of the auxiliary functions as a zero marker of distance. Both the
auxiliated and unauxiliated l-forms are opposed to the synthetic past
tenses, the aorist and imperfect, which express confirmativity of the
speaker towards the uttered event. This opposition, however, is more
present in the Bulgarian tense system as the synthetic past tenses are far
more vivid than in Serbian.

Chapter Four

112

In Standard Macedonian the development of the l-forms from a perfect

to a neutral preterit appears to be complete. The auxiliary functions as a
grammatical person marker in the first and second person and has been
entirely dropped in the third person. In contrast to the North Slavic
languages, the l-forms in Macedonian have maintained their distanced
meaning. This is due to the fact that in Macedonian the synthetic past
tenses were preserved and reinterpreted as marked for confirmativity and
as opposed to the l-forms as a neutral or nonconfirmative past.
It might be argued that in respect to the function of the l-forms as well
as the auxiliary variation, Standard Bulgarian, Serbian and Macedonian
display different stages of the same All-Slavic process of change of the
Common Slavic resultative perfect into a preterit. (24) illustrates this
development along a continuum for Bulgarian, Serbian and Macedonian.
(24) Development of the Common Slavic perfect in Bulgarian, Serbian
and Macedonian
Serbian

Bulgarian
+ aux

+ aux

aux

perfect / past distanced past past

Macedonian

aux

distanced past

distanced past

[ confirmative]

aux

[ confirmative]

vs.

vs.
[+ confirmative]
aorist/imperfect

The schema in (24) represents an extension of Fielders classification

of Standard Serbian, Bulgarian and Macedonian which she states display
different stages of grammaticalization of the verb to be from a fully
tonic verb in OCS [i.e. Old Church Slavic; AM] to an atonic form,
typically an auxiliary which may exhibit the properties of either a clictic or
an affix, to complete loss (Fielder 2003, 112). She proposes the following
order:
(25) verb
jst

aux
je

(clitic affix )
je ~

OCS >
Serbian >
Bulgarian >
Earlier
>
(Fielder 2003, 112 emphasis in original)

Macedonian
Later Codification

Truncated Perfect in Serbian: A Marker of Distance?

113

However, Fielder does not consider that there is also an auxiliary

variation in Serbian, which has, in fact, in general, hardly been taken into
account since Grickats study (1954).
Considering the development of the Slavic past tense system we may
draw the following conclusions. The drop, respectively the variation, of
the auxiliary is due to the change of the Old Common Slavic resultative
perfect into a neutral preterit, which seems to affect all Slavic languages.
During this change the auxiliated forms express, according to the
markedness relations, either a neutral or a subjective past meaning. In
opposition, the unauxiliated forms express, correspondingly, either
distanced or neutral meaning. Consequently, the distinction between
distanced and non-distanced forms is primarily due to the auxiliary
variation caused by the functional change of the l-forms.
At this point, the parallels between the TP in Serbian and the evidential
forms in Bulgarian and Macedonian are hardly surprising, since both
phenomena result from the same process of change. The emergence of an
evidential category in Balkan Slavic, which distinguishes between
confirmative evidential and nonconfirmative evidential forms, seems to be
a secondary development resulting from the preservation of the synthetic
past and the reinterpretation of the whole past tense system.

6. Conclusions
This paper has argued that the definition of the truncated past in
Serbian as an expressive variant of the compound past is insufficient. The
TP provides manifold meanings, which are also found with nonconfirmative evidential forms in Balkan Slavic, and which can be subsumed in
terms of distance. These are renarrative, inferential and admirative
meanings as well as irony and the expression of the observation of a
situation. The latter has been proposed as the semantic base of the TP. By
the mere observation of the occurrence of a situation rather than referring
to the process of its emergence, the speaker withdraws herself as the
reference point of the utterance, and in doing so she distances herself from
the proposition. This kind of distance between the speaker and her own
utterance is interpreted in discourse according to the contextual cues in
terms of renarrative, inferential and admirative meanings.
The detachment of the speaker from her own utterance in the TP
results from the omission of the auxiliary in the TP. Otherwise, in the
compound past the auxiliary constitutes the link between the speaker and
the proposition by default.

114

Chapter Four

The emergence of the auxiliary drop as well as the functional

interpretation of the auxiliary variation can be ascribed to the process of
change of the l-forms from a resultative perfect to a neutral preterit. In the
course of this processes the auxiliary underwent a shift from a deictic
marker to a subjective marker. It can be assumed that this change affected
all Slavic languages. This, in turn, could explain the functional similarities
between the TP in Serbian and the l-forms in Balkan Slavic. Additionally,
the Balkan Slavic past system underwent a reinterpretation. The aorist and
imperfect have been maintained and reinterpreted as marked for confirmativity and opposed to the rather neutral l-forms, which can express
both neutral and nonconfirmative or distanced meanings.
Further research concerning not only the TP in Standard Serbian but
also the l-forms in South Slavic dialects and in earlier periods of other
Slavic languages might be useful to fully reveal the development of these
forms as well as the resulting functions and usage patterns.

References
Aksu-Ko, Ayhan A., and Dan I. Slobin. 1986. A psychological account of
the development and use of evidential in Turkish. In Evidentiality: the
linguistic coding of epistemology, edited by Wallace Chafe and
Johanna Nichols, 159167. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing.
Alexander, Ronelle. 2006. Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian. A grammar with
sociolinguistic commentary. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Beli, Aleksandar. 1926/1927. O upotrebi vremena u srpskohrvatskom
jeziku. Junoslovenski Filolog 6, 102132.
Belyavski-Frank, Masha. 1991. Narrative use of tense forms in Russian
and Serbo-Croatian. The Slavic an East European Journal 35(1), 115
132.
Bojadiev, Todor A., Kucarov, Ivan K., and Penev, Jordan. 1999.
Svremenen blgarski ezik. Sofia: Kta Petr Beron.
Dejanova, Marija. 1970. Izjavitelnijat perfekt bez spomogatelen glagol v
blgarski ezik v sravnenie ss srbochrvatski. Izvesitja na Istituta za
blgarski jezik 19, 843853.
Dickey, Stephen M. 2013. See, now they vanish: third perfect auxiliaries
in Old and Middle Czech. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 21(1), 77121.
Fielder, Grace E. 1995. Narrative perspective and the Bulgarian
l-participle. The Slavic and East European Journal 39(4), 585600.
. 1996. DISTANCE as a prototypical verbal category in Bulgarian.
Balkanistica 9, 211225.

Truncated Perfect in Serbian: A Marker of Distance?

115

Fielder, Grace E. 2003. A phoenix from the ashes: the resurrection of the
Bulgarian perfect. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and
Poetics 44/45, 109127.
Friedman, Victor A. 1977. The grammatical categories of the Macedonian
indicative. Columbus: Slavica.
. 2004. The typology of balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics. In
Balkan Syntax and Semantics, edited by Olga Mieska Tomi, 101
134. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Grickat, Irena. 1954. O perfektu bez pomonog glagola u srpskohrvatskom
jeziku i srodnim sintaksikim pojavama. Beograd: Nauna Knjiga.
Graves, Nina. 2000. Macedoniana language with three perfects? In
Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe, edited by sten Dahl,
479494. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Labroska, Veselinka. 2003. Upotreba na aorist i imperfekt vo srpskiot
jazik. Paraleli so makedonskiot jazik. Studia Linguistica PolonoMeridianoslavica 11, 7582.
. 2011. Inventarot i funkcionalnata optovarenost na paradigmite so
pomonite glagoli esse i habere vo srpskiot jazik. In Perifrastini
konstrukcii so esse i habere vo slovenskite i vo balkanskite jazici,
edited by Zuzanna Topolinjska, 8392. Skopje
(http://damj.manu.edu.mk/zbornik/, accessed May 10, 2012).
Lazard, Gilbert. 1999. Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other?
Linguistic Typology 3(1), 91109.
Levin-Steinmann, Anke. 2004. Die Legende vom bulgarischen Renarrativ.
Bedeutung und Funktionen der Kopulalosen l-Periphrase. Mnchen:
Sagner.
Lunt, Horace G. 1952. A grammar of the Macedonian literary language.
Skopje: Dravno Knigoizdatelstvo.
Mikelsen, Hans K. 1983. Poloaj aorista i imperfekta u savremenom
srpskohrvatskom jeziku posmatran u svetlosti situacije u drugim
slovenskim jezicima. Aarhus: Slavistik Institut Aarhus Universitet.
Mieska Tomi, Olga. 2006. Balkan sprachbund morpho-syntactic
features. Dodrecht: Springer.
Mushin, Ilana. 2000. Evidentiality and deixis in narrative retelling.
Journal of Pragmatics 32, 927957.
Nicolova, Ruselina. 2006. Vzaimodejstvie videncialnosti i
admirativnosti s kategorijami vremeni i lica glagola v bolgarskom
jazyke. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 4, 2745.
Samilov, Michael. 1957. The witnessed past in Serbo-Croatian. Canadian
Slavonic Papers 2, 98105.

116

Chapter Four

Savi, Svenka, and Vesna Polovina. 1989. Razgovorni srpskohrvatski

jezik. Novi Sad: Institu za junoslovenske jezike, filosofski fakultet.
Sonnenhauser, Barbara. 2012. Auxiliar-Variation und Textstruktur im
Bulgarischen. Die Welt Der Slaven 57(2), 351379.
. 2014. Constructing Perspectivity in Balkan Slavic. Auxiliary Variation
and Tripartite Article. Balcanistica 27, 3166.
. This volume. Hear-say, inference, surprise: (self-)distancing in
Bulgarian.
Stevanovi, Mihailo. 1967. Funkcije i znaenja glagolskih vremena.
Beograd: Nauno Delo.
Topoliska, Zuzanna. 2009. Semantika/grammatika kategorija distanca?
In Predavanja na XLI meunaroden seminar za makedonski jazik,
literatura i kultura (Ohrid, 11. VIII 28. VIII 2008), edited by Velimir
Stojkovski, 4552. Skopje: Univezitet Sv. Kiril i Metodij.
Wilson, Deidre, and Dan Sperber. 2012. Explaining irony. Originally
published in Deidre Wilson, and Dan Sperber. Meaning of relevance
Cambridge: University Press, 2012 (http://www.dan.sperber.fr/wpcontent/uploads/WilsonSperber_ExplainingIrony.pdf, accessed January
8, 2014).