nglish anguage verseas erspectives and nquiries Volume XI – Spring Journal Editors: SMILJANA KOMAR and UROŠ MOZETIČ Editors of Volume XI – Spring: TOMAŽ ONIČ and SIMON ZUPAN he Play’s the hing: Eclectic Essays in Memory of a Scholar and Drama Translator Slovensko društvo za angleške študije Slovene Association for the Study of English Oddelek za anglistiko in amerikanistiko, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani Department of English, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana ISSN 1581-8918 nglish anguage verseas erspectives and nquiries Volume XI – Spring Editors: SMILJANA KOMAR and UROŠ MOZETIČ Slovensko društvo za angleške študije Slovene Association for the Study of English Oddelek za anglistiko in amerikanistiko, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani Department of English, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana nglish anguage verseas erspectives and nquiries Volume XI – Spring he Play’s the hing: Eclectic Essays in Memory of a Scholar and Drama Translator Editors of Volume XI – Spring: TOMAŽ ONIČ and SIMON ZUPAN Slovensko društvo za angleške študije Slovene Association for the Study of English Oddelek za anglistiko in amerikanistiko, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani Department of English, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana DOI: 10.4312/elope.11.1.5-10 From Knowledge to Wisdom: he Arc of a Scholarly Life Coincidence has it that this year’s Spring issue of ELOPE will be published one year almost to the day since Professor Darja Hribar, a long-term member of the Slovenian branch of ESSE, passed away. Even though a sad anniversary in itself, this nevertheless is also an occasion that brings back many fond memories. Professor Hribar was one of the most popular and esteemed professors among generations of English and translation students at the University of Maribor; for those of us who worked with her, she was a competent scholar with human qualities that can only be wished for in a colleague; to those of us who knew her more intimately, Darja was a warm, gentle friend with that unique, indelible smile on her face, someone who was always prepared to help and with whom one could always engage in an intriguing conversation. She was graciously welcoming to newcomers when the department absorbed three new professors from abroad. hat her name is regularly mentioned in conversation among us is just one indication of the lasting legacy of her personality. Despite her noble personal and professional traits, life did not always treat her well. She lost a father to whom she was closely attached at a very young age; as a result, she had to ind her own way in life and support herself from early on. After completing grammar school in Ptuj, she studied English and Italian at the Faculty of Arts in Ljubljana, from which she graduated in 1975. After graduation, she irst gained experience as an in-house translator for a company in Ljubljana, then worked as a librarian and translator at the University of Ljubljana’s Faculty of Law, and served as a secretary for the International Sociological Association. In between, she was a freelance literary translator and an oicial court interpreter. For her own enjoyment, she occasionally worked as a tour-guide and spent time abroad, the longest stay being two years in London, which partly explains her cosmopolitan character. In between, her ainity for Romance languages and cultures led her to study Spanish part-time at the University of Zagreb (1978-82). Because of the same ainity, she was later invited to co-author the Slovene encyclopedic lexicon of world literature Svetovna književnost (World Literature; Hribar and Dolinar 1984), to which she contributed over 50 entries about Spanish literature. In 1989 she became professor of English and American literature at the Faculty of Arts in Maribor, where she continued to work even past her oicial retirement in 2008. Her career at the University of Maribor unfortunately was often overshadowed by her health problems. She was irst diagnosed with cancer in the mid-1990s. She successfully fought the illness and recovered from it, only to have it return a second time several years later. However, she beat it once again. She probably would not have been able to do so without her incredibly strong desire to live, combined with a healthy lifestyle and support from her partner Niko. hose who knew her better will also remember the importance of Bučko, the cat that was Darja’s and Niko’s companion and source of joy for 19 years. However, to everyone’s concern, the cancer returned for a third time in 2012; this time Darja’s body was already too weak to ight back and she succumbed in May 2013. Although health concerns dogged her for most of her academic career, Darja’s output was still considerable. As the only in-house professor of English and American literature at the University of Maribor in the early 1990s, in what was still a very young Department of Germanic Languages, she faced a demanding task: not only did she have to develop from scratch most of the literature courses in English, but she also had to teach them. Her teaching thus ranged from medieval to 20th-century literature. However, she was up to the task. Even though her teaching was versatile, throughout her career her main focus was drama, in particular the theatre of the absurd. Her research into absurdist drama and its inluence on contemporary Slovene playwrights was among the earliest in Slovenia. In her Master’s thesis (1993), she analyzed the impact of absurdist philosophy and aesthetics on Peter Božič and Drago Jančar; she then revised and broadened her indings in a more recent article (2004), where she provided a macrostructural as well as stylistic analysis of Jančar’s Stakeout at Godot’s (Zalezujoč Godota (1988)). Her indings highlight a strong link between Jančar and Samuel Beckett in terms of structural and linguistic features; the former follows the latter in dramatic composition, monotonous plot development as well as the choice to merge emphatically philosophical modes of expression with the decidedly banal, a choice which we also ind in Stoppard and Pinter. She pursued the same topic in her Doctoral thesis (1999b) focusing on the dramatic opus of Harold Pinter, one of the greatest contemporary British playwrights, particularly his speciic “Pinteresque” style, which – interestingly – entered the dictionary while he was still alive (Hribar and Onič 2011). It comes as no surprise that she became the Slovenian authority on this Nobel Prize winning playwright, particularly on the translation of his stylistic features (2004). Her extensive, detailed knowledge of the conventions of modern drama allowed her research to broaden into the ield of drama translation (e.g., 2005a). Not only was she a proliic literary translator with over 40 translations of prose, drama and radio plays from various languages, but she also dealt with approaches to the theory of literary translation (e.g., 1999a, 2002a). It is thanks to Darja Hribar that many of the most recent international theoretical approaches to drama translation (e.g., van Leuven-Zwart, Bassnet, Pavis, van den Broeck, Merino, and Lefevere, to name just a few) were introduced almost simultaneously into Slovene scholarship. Among other things, she drew attention to the phenomenon of adaptation, an integral part of practically every translation for the stage. She irmly believed – and also proved in both her research as well as translation practice (see, e.g., 2005b) – that the contemporary theoretical perception of drama translation cannot function properly without the translator’s elaborate insight into all poetic elements as well as various other semiotic systems involved in the encoding and decoding of theatrical pieces. Darja Hribar also dealt with non-verbal semantic theories and their application in theatre translation (2001, 2002b, 2007a). She constantly stressed the value of the translator’s awareness of non-verbal phenomena in theatrical texts, since these possess a considerable meaning potential that is often overlooked in translation practice. Relying mainly on the theoretical foundations of Fernando Poyatos (1997) and Reba Gostand (1980), she claimed that non-verbal elements should receive as much attention by the translator as the verbal ones. he same applies to stylistic features, which in importance almost equal and overlap with the lexical ones. Professor Hribar was particularly interested in register, i.e., the varieties of language used in diferent language settings. She examined the levels of source and target languages in several articles and conference papers (2006, 2007b). She proved that even though lexical choices in translation allow considerable freedom, they are subject to a number of intratextual and extratextual factors deining the genre, the kind of translation, and speciic features of individual plays. Professor Hribar successfully implemented her practical and theoretical insights into her academic career. Starting in the early 1990s, she published over 30 papers in international publications or presented them at international conferences. She taught courses in drama, literary translation, stylistics and audiovisual translation and played a key role in the development of Translation Studies in Maribor at the turn of the century. As a dedicated teacher, whose main priority throughout her academic career remained students, Darja supervised independently or in collaboration several dozen diploma papers in literature and translation. She also supervised one PhD thesis. In addition, she co-authored all the recent undergraduate and graduate study programs in English and translation at the University of Maribor. Besides being a founding member of SDAŠ, she was part of the editorial board of ELOPE. Because of Professor Darja Hribar’s contribution to English Studies in Slovenia, ELOPE has decided to dedicate this volume to her memory. he papers in it are a selection of papers that were submitted to the journal in response to a special call that was issued in 2013. To open the linguistic section, Katja Plemenitaš’s paper deals with the contrastive approach to the concept of linguistic sexism in the English and Slovene cultural contexts. It analyses two manuals for non-sexist use of English and discusses the reasons for diferences between the two languages regarding the linguistic expression of gender, as well as the cultural and historical context in which both languages have developed. he paper proceeds to the examination of various linguistic and social concepts that inluence the debate on linguistic sexism. Frančiška Lipovšek focuses on two signiicant aspects in which the prepositions from and to difer from other prepositions of movement. he reason for this diference is the existence of two place-functions in their conceptual structure: the irst one is the same as that found in the conceptual structure of at, and the second one is not speciied but can be lexicalized separately. he structure with two place-functions allows for a second preposition, but can at the same time account for the unacceptability of from at and to at. he paper proceeds to examine the reasons for this diference and problematizes the traditional deinitions of from and to. Rounding up the language section, Klementina Jurančič Petek’s paper addresses the issue of L1 dialect interference in the pronunciation of English as a foreign language. he author’s own research completed in 2007 complements a previous study from 1991 by Wieden and Nemser, in which the researchers investigate the development of pronunciation of English as a foreign language in Austria. Jurančič Petek employs a contrastive analysis of Slovene Standard pronunciation and English as well as that of the sound systems of individual Slovene dialects and English. In the literature section, Michelle Gadpaille analyzes an early German detective novel from the nineteenth century via its English translation. he story is set in the time of the Austro-Hungarian Empire on the territory of today’s Slovenia. Apart from seeing the novel as an example of the developing genres of crime and detective iction, Gadpaille also explores the ethnic tensions on the frontiers of the Empire, which is relected in the novel’s depiction of intra-ethnic tension in the Slovenian village where the crime occurs. his study aims to rehabilitate an almost forgotten work of literature with a Slovene component. Nursen Gömceli’s paper focuses on Timberlake Wertenbaker’s recent play Credible Witness and considers the ways in which the playwright shapes her multi-national characters to address the concepts of history, nationality and identity in modern society. he play is set in a London detention centre where the asylum-seeking immigrants from various Asian, African and European countries efectively open the issues of how human personality changes under the inluence of losing or changing one’s identity and what emotional consequences this entails. he literature section concludes with a paper from the ield of poetry. In his research, Victor Kennedy examines a selection of songs from Martin Simpson’s 1976 debut album, Golden Vanity, and observes them through the lens of the traditional ballad genre. Apart from analyzing typical ballad characteristics like “leaping” and “lingering”, Kennedy traces the historical origins of individual ballads and argues that, despite their early origin, they are still relevant for the contemporary listener. Also in the domain of literature, but from a perspective of language teaching, Janez Skela’s article addresses the question of using literary texts in the pedagogical process of learning English as a foreign language. he paper presents the results of research into the inclusion of literary texts or excerpts in EFL course books and attempts to explain the decline of literature in English language teaching. Melita Kukovec starts her paper by addressing and evaluating the issue of cross-curricular and interdisciplinary teaching, which allows the teacher to activate more of the learners’ senses and intelligences. he paper later focuses on a concrete literary text that can be used to join English and Mathematics, two school subjects from the opposite poles of preference of an average learner, i.e., Mark Haddon’s he Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time. he inal part of the paper demonstrates how the usage of this or a similar text in class can help learners to achieve the whole range of Bloom’s levels of educational objectives. Bringing together the ields of teaching and translation, Primož Jurko’s article discusses the relatively modest inclusion of language corpora in the pedagogical process. After suggesting some possible reasons for this situation, the author presents the results of a survey conducted among Slovene university students of translation, which focused on the usage of a target language corpus in the course of Slovene-to-English translation in terms of English collocation. he results show that fewer collocation errors in translation are made if the translator uses an L2 corpus, which yields a translation with a higher level of idiomaticity. In another contrastive translation study, Simon Zupan and Marko Štefanič analyze translation shifts between the original and the translation of the non-iction novel Hostile Waters. Special attention is dedicated to technical jargon, which represents a salient feature of the novel’s language. What is more, the authors report that most translation shifts arise from incorrect interpretation of jargon in the original, which results in a modiied perception of the target-text readership. To conclude the volume, Tina Cupar and Alenka Valh Lopert’s article deals with the process of characterization as achieved through linguistic means in an animated fairy tale. heir research into the speech of a cartoon character is based on a speech transcript and includes an analysis of the English original as well as the Slovene translation. Special care is given to the use of dialect in the target language. he analysis proceeds to a multi-layered contrastive comparison of the language varieties used, which serves for the qualitative evaluation of the impact of these shifts on the macrostructure of the text. We believe that the articles in this issue are an appropriate homage to Darja for various reasons: their authors comprise not only her colleagues from the University of Ljubljana and the University of Maribor but also some who were her students; the issue also has an international, even a cosmopolitan character, similar to Darja’s; last but not least, thematically, the papers cover all the areas that were of interest to her throughout her career: from literature and translation to teaching and stylistics. Simon Zupan and Tomaž Onič Editors of Volume XI – Spring References Bassnet, Susan. 1990. “Translating for the heatre: Textual Complexities.” Essays in Poetics 15: 71-84. Broeck, Raymond, van den. 1986. “Translating for the heatre.” Linguistica Antwerpiensia 20: 96-110. Gostand, Reba. 1980. “Verbal and Non-Verbal Communication: Drama in Translation.” In he Languages of heatre: Problems in the Translation and Transposition of Drama, edited by Ortrun Zuber-Skerritt, 1-9. Oxford and New York: Pergamon Press. Hribar, Darja Darinka, and Ksenija Dolinar. 1984. Svetovna književnost. Edited by Ksenija Dolinar. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba. Hribar, Darja Darinka. 1993. “Dramatika absurda in njen vpliv na slovenska dramatika Petra Božiča in Draga Jančarja [Inluences of the drama of the absurd on the Slovene playwrights Peter Božič and Drago Jančar].” Master’s thesis. Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana. – – –. 1999a. “Some general notions on translating the absurd drama for the stage and Harold Pinter’s plays in particular: a Slovene perspective.” In Crossing borders: interdisciplinary intercultural interaction, edited by Bernhard Kettemann and Georg Marko, [299]-312. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. – – –. 1999b. “Sestavine sloga Harolda Pinterja v slovenskih prevodih: vpliv slogovnih posebnosti na sprejemanje na Slovenskem [Elements of Harold Pinter’s style in Slovene translations: the inluence of stylistic features on the reception in Slovenia.” PhD diss. Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana. – – –. 2001. “Nebesedna komunikacija v prevodu [Nonverbal communication in translation].” Vestnik 35 (1/2): 385-398. – – –. 2002a. “Teoretski pogledi na prevajanje dramskih besedil [heoretical views on drama translation].” Vestnik 36 (1/2): 437-455. – – –. 2002b. “Dramski prevod in nebesedna komunikacija [Drama translation and nonverbal communication].” In Prevajanje srednjeveških in renesančnih besedil. 27. prevajalski zbornik, edited by Martina Ožbot, 342-362. Ljubljana: Društvo slovenskih književnih prevajalcev. – – –. 2004. “Vplivi estetike absurda na slovenskega dramatika Draga Jančarja [Inluences of the aesthetic of the absurd on the Slovene playwright Drago Jančar].” Vestnik 38 (1/2): 241-249. – – –. 2005a. “Rewriting the dramatic convention of the theatre of the absurd in Slovene translation.” In On the Relationships between Translation heory and Translation Practice, edited by Jean Peeters, 141-149. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. – – –. 2005b. “An examination of lexical choices in Slovene translations of British and American drama.” ELOPE 2: 269-276. – – –. 2006. “Register and Slovene translator.” Slovar in prevajanje [Dictionary and translation]: abstracts, 16. – – –. 2007a. “Culturally conditioned non-verbal communication and drama translation.” International conference ELLSSAC: English language and literature studies: structures across cultures, 7-9 December 2007, Belgrade, Serbia: [book of abstracts], 19. – – –. 2007b. “Formality and informality in translation.” English language, literature and culture in a global context: [Maribor, May 11-12, 2007]: abstracts, 14. Hribar, Darja Darinka, and Tomaž Onič. 2011. “Slog – pomembna prevajalska kategorija pri prevajanju Pinterja.” Gledališki list Mestnega gledališča Ptuj, 12-13. Jančar, Drago. 1988. Tri drame. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga. Lefevere, André. 1992. Translating Literature. Practice and heory in a Comparative Literature Context. New York: he Modern Language Association of America. Merino, Raquel. 1991. “Translation and the (Re)production of Culture.” In Selected Papers of the CERA Research Seminars in Translation Studies, 1989-1991, edited by Clem Robyns, 139-150. Leuven: CETRA. Leuven-Zwart, Kitty van. 1989. “Translation and Original, Similarities and Dissimilarities I.” Target 1(1): 151­ 181. – – –. 1990. “Translation and Original, Similarities and Dissimilarities II.” Target 2(1): 69-95. Pavis, Patrice. 1989. “Problems of translation for the stage: interculturalism and post-modern theatre.” Translated by Loren Kruger. In he Play out of Context. Transferring Plays from Culture to Culture, edited by Hanna Scolnikov and Peter Holland, 25-44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Poyatos, Fernando. ed. 1997. Nonverbal Communication and Translation: New Perspectives and Challenges in Literature, Interpretation and the Media. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CoNTeNTS Language Katja Plemenitaš Gender Ideologies in English and Slovene: A Contrastive View Ideologija spola v angleščini in slovenščini: kontrastivni pogled Frančiška Lipovšek Deining the conceptual structure of from and to Opredelitev konceptualne strukture predlogov from in to Klementina Jurančič Petek 17 31 45 he “Magnet Efect” – A Powerful Source of L1 Dialect Interference in the Pronunciation of English as a Foreign Language “Magnetni učinek” – močan vir vpliva narečja materinščine na izgovorjavo angleščine kot tujega jezika Literature Michelle Gadpaille 67 Elementary Ratiocination: Anticipating Sherlock Holmes in a Slovene Setting Osnove logičnega sklepanja: napoved Sherlocka Holmesa v slovenskem prostoru Nursen Gömceli 83 Questioning History, Nationality and Identity in Timberlake Wertenbaker’s Credible Witness O zgodovini, nacionalnosti in identiteti v drami Verodostojna priča Timberlake Wertenbaker Victor Kennedy 93 Aspects of Evil in Traditional Murder Ballads Podobe zla v tradicionalnih baladah o umorih English Language and Literature Teaching Janez Skela 113 he Quest for Literature in EFL Textbooks – A Quest for Camelot? V iskanju književnosti v učbenikih angleščine kot tujega jezika – V iskanju Kamelota? Melita Kukovec 137 Cross-Curricular Teaching: he Case of Mark Haddon’s he Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time Medpredmetno poučevanje z obravnavo romana Marka Haddona he Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time Translation Studies Primož Jurko 153 Target Language Corpus as an Encoding Tool: Collocations in Slovene-English Translator Training Vpliv ciljno-jezičnega korpusa na prevajanje kolokacij pri študentih prevajanja iz slovenščine v angleščino Simon Zupan, Marko Štefanič 165 Military Jargon in the Slovenian Translation of Hostile Waters Vojaški žargon v slovenskem prevodu Sovražnih vod Tina Cupar, Alenka Valh Lopert 179 he Function of Language in Characterization: Dialectal Speech in the Animated Film Chicken Little Karakterizacijska vloga jezika: narečni govor v animiranem risanem ilmu Mali Pišček I. LANGUAGE DOI: 10.4312/elope.11.1.17-29 Katja Plemenitaš University of Maribor Slovenia Gender Ideologies in English and Slovene: A Contrastive View Summary he article deals with the concept of linguistic sexism in the cross-cultural context. It compares the generally accepted guidelines for avoiding linguistic sexism in English and Slovene, exempliied by two guides on non-sexist use of English. It is argued that in English non-sexist language strives for gender neutrality, whereas in Slovene it strives for gender speciicity. he reasons for the diferences between the perceptions of sexism in English and Slovene are examined by taking into account the linguistic expression of gender and the cultural and historical context in which both languages have developed. he use of semantic gender in English, as opposed to the use of grammatical gender in Slovene, is treated as one of the factors inluencing the approach to the non-sexist use of language in both languages. Strategies for non-sexist expression and their rebuttals are discussed in the context of predominant cultural ideologies about gender and presuppositions regarding the link between social change and linguistic reform. Key words: sexism, language, gender, neseksistična raba jezika, English, Slovene Ideologija spola v angleščini in slovenščini: kontrastivni pogled Povzetek Članek obravnava pojmovanje jezikovnega seksizma v medkulturnem kontekstu. Predstavljena je primerjava splošno sprejetih priporočil, kako se izogniti jezikovnemu seksizmu v angleščini in slovenščini na primeru dveh priročnikov o neseksistični rabi jezika. Postavljena je trditev, da v angleščini neseksistična jezikovna raba stremi k spolni dvoumnosti oz. nevtralnosti, v slovenščini pa k spolni speciičnosti. Razlogi za razliko v dojemanju seksizma v angleščini in slovenščini so postavljeni v kontekst jezikovnega izražanja spola in širšega kulturnega in zgodovinskega razvoja obeh jezikov. Raba semantičnega spola v angleščini v nasprotju z rabo slovničnega spola v slovenščini je obravnavana kot eden izmed dejavnikov, ki vpliva na pristop k neseksistični rabi jezika v obeh jezikih. Strategije za neseksistično izražanje in zavrnitev njihovih argumentov so postavljeni v kontekst predominantnih kulturnih ideologij o spolu in predpostavk o povezavi med družbenimi spremembami in jezikovno reformo. Ključne besede: seksizem, jezik, spol, neseksistična jezikovna raba, angleščina, slovenščina UDK 81’366.52’272 LANGUAGE 17 Gender Ideologies in english and Slovene: A Contrastive View 1. Introduction he concept of linguistic sexism has long played an important part in discussions on the general nature of sexism as a form of prejudice and discrimination based on sex or gender. he ight against general sexism returned to the forefront of social movements in the so-called second wave of feminism, thus forming a part of the social movements of the 1960s and 1970s against discrimination of underprivileged groups. he concept of linguistic sexism, as one of the most prevalent forms of sexism, has thus always had strong historical ties to the political left, the feminism of the 1970s and the concept of political correctness. As Cameron (1992) has observed, an interest in the use of the English language as an essential part of sexist practice was revived in second wave feminism and linguistic issues were made central to the ight against gender-based discrimination. here have always been strong links between the concept of linguistic sexism and political correctness. It is thus no coincidence that the irst mention of the term “politically correct” is attributed to the African-American feminist Toni Cade Bambara (1970). Although, nowadays, the term political correctness is primarily used pejoratively, its dictionary deinition still contains its original meaning, deining it as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against” (Oxford Dictionaries Online). Similarly, the concept of linguistic sexism has been subject to much criticism from the outset (cf. Blaubergs 1980) Guidelines for non-sexist language are often viewed as another form of political correctness and certain aspects of the ight against sexism in language thus face similar criticisms to those levelled at the general concept of political correctness. Some critics even accuse the proponents of non-sexist language of applying the argument of political correctness against any criticism of their ideas. For example, Ross complains that any criticism of the concept of sexist language “is usually strongly inhibited by quick charges of ‘sexism’ and by other intimidating tactics of political correctness” and calls the tendency to eliminate gender-speciic references in the English language “an Orwellian goal” (Ross, Against the heory of “Sexist Language”, 1). Far from being resolved, the issue of sexist use of language and its non-sexist variants is thus still part of an ongoing debate. he term sexism has gained international currency, at least in the western world, and has thus become an internationalism, accepted into the vocabulary of many languages, including the vocabulary of Slovene (‘seksizem’). As opposed to the general term sexism, the concept of linguistic sexism and suggested non-sexist expressions seem to be more culturally diverse and shaped by a variety of factors. he following comparative analysis of the concept of linguistic sexism and non-sexist language in English and Slovene draws attention to the above-mentioned assumption that the view of what constitutes linguistic sexism and the appropriate way to ight it is not culturally neutral and universally applicable; instead, it should be interpreted as a result of factors such as the speciic cultural context in which it arose, including the relevant linguistic research paradigms, as well as the typological characteristics of the languages in question. he second-wave feminist work on linguistic gender focused mainly on the English language (e.g., 18 Katja Plemenitaš Gender Ideologies in English and Slovene: A Contrastive View Lakof 1975, Spender 1980), although other languages are also sometimes mentioned in passing. Cameron (1992), for example, acknowledges this by saying that “though I shall stick to talking about the English language here, the challenge could and still can be found among speakers of many languages, including French, German, Dutch, Italian and Japanese”. Besides English, French is another language which has received much attention with regard to gender expression and sexism, inspired by the proponents and scholars of the French feminist movement (e.g., Simone de Beauvoir, Luce Iragaray). As Livia (2001, 5) notes, it is in English and French that the most daring experimental works have been produced. Nevertheless, most of the debate about sexism in language uses the English language as the implicit norm for the discussion. hus, discussions focusing on linguistic sexism are often based on implicit assumptions about what linguistic sexism means and how it should be fought. In order to make these assumptions explicit, linguistic sexism should be conceptualized as part of an intellectual framework that relies on a particular view of the relationship between language and society and is also partly inluenced by linguistic diversity, such as the morphosyntactic structure of particular languages. In this article we illustrate these dependencies by comparing the concept of linguistic sexism in English and Slovene, looking in particular at what constitutes non-sexist language in both languages. 2. Linguistic relativism and the concept of linguistic sexism he concept of linguistic sexism, just like other types of linguistically expressed discrimination, implies at least some degree of linguistic relativism. Linguistic relativism is based on the postulate that certain properties of a language have consequences for patterns of thought about reality (cf. Lucy 1997). According to this theory, language embodies an interpretation of reality and can at the same time inluence thought about that reality. he use of language considered demeaning to women is thus considered an interpretation of reality which itself is demeaning to women; moreover, it is also considered an inluence on reality by reinforcing the values of the society in which we live. Cameron (1992) notes that feminists revived pre-war anthropology and its claims that language afects the world-view (such as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis). Kunst Gnamuš (1995) says that the question of the inluence of grammar on reality cannot be answered since we do not know what the conscious and unconscious efects of linguistic rules are on the representation of reality and forming of concepts. More recent research (e.g., Boroditsky, Schmidt and Phillips 2003) shows that grammatical gender has some inluence on the non-linguistic representations of reality. Some form of linguistic relativity is usually taken for granted in more sociologically-oriented Slovene writing on the subject of language and gender, which presupposes that language both relects and constructs reality and has the power to reinforce values (e.g., Leskošek 2000). he main assumption on which the use of non-sexist language is based is that the use of language not only relects the changing nature of society, but that it can also facilitate that change. his view underlies the rationale for the use of non-sexist language, but similar to the concept of linguistic relativism, the concept of non-sexist language has not been universally accepted. he challenge to this view often comes in the form of citing examples of languages that have no grammatical gender, but there is gender inequality in the society itself. Ross, for example, mentions the example of Farsi, a language with no grammatical gender distinctions and no distinctions in the titles for married and unmarried women (Ross, Against the heory of “Sexist Language”, 4), pointing out that this gender neutrality does not relect gender equality in society. Such counterarguments show that the correlation between language use and reality is a complex matter and cannot be reduced to simple determinism. However, they do not convincingly prove that changes of what is perceived as degrading use of grammatical forms in language are just LANGUAGE 19 a matter of semantic trivia with no concrete efect on society. What such arguments do not consider is the question of perception and self-identity. Cameron and Culick (2003, 25) note that “politically correct” renaming challenges others’ prejudices while at the same time having more ‘inward-directed’ objectives. New forms of expression can satisfy the desire of group members themselves for names, linguistic forms and self-descriptions that they can readily identify with. In the case of non-sexist language it is thus of secondary importance if linguistic relativity can be fully empirically proven or if the new non-sexist forms of expression can by themselves eliminate social disadvantage. What matters even more is that non-sexist alternatives ofer symbolic representations of women that women themselves can perceive as fair and can identify with. hus, it can be argued that the notion of linguistic sexism can be sustained even without invoking the concept of linguistic relativism, rendering counterarguments based on the dismissal of linguistic relativism insigniicant. 3. he core beliefs of sexism underlying the concept of linguistic sexism In order to understand the roots of and diferences in the concept of linguistic sexism, we should irst look at the reference of its superordinate term, i.e., sexism. As mentioned above, the word sexism has become an internationalism describing discrimination based on gender, most often discrimination against women. he dictionary deinitions of the terms are very similar in English and Slovene. he term ‘seksizem’ in the Slovene language is deined in the dictionary part of the Slovene Orthography (2001) as “discrimination against the members of a certain gender, usually women” (in Slovene: “zapostavljanje pripadnikov določenega spola, navadno žensk”), whereas the English dictionary deinition is “prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex” (Oxford Dictionaries Online). When the meaning of sexism as the speciicity of female oppression is discussed, it becomes clear that the deinition of what constitutes sexism is very similar across cultures. Feminist theories are uniied in their interpretation of the term sexism by interpreting it as the traditional belief, and practices based on such a belief, in the diference between the sexes whereby women are in some way inferior to men. A very useful deinition of sexism invokes two component core beliefs of sexism and the ethics to ight against it, which help to explain the cultural context, i.e., the traditions and beliefs that led to the current understanding of the linguistic sexism in diferent cultures, and which have also inluenced the culture-speciic guidelines for the use of non-sexist language. According to the second-wave feminist Jo Freeman (1971), traditional feminist theory about sexism recognizes at least two diferent concepts on which the belief of the inferiority of women is based: men are more signiicant or important than women, e.g., it is more important for a man to be paid well, to secure a promotion, etc. It is the basis for the belief that if women enter a particular occupation they will degrade it, often described as the “feminization of a profession”. Men are then forced to leave such “feminized” professions or be themselves degraded, and women can only raise the prestige of their profession by recruiting men. According to Freeman (ibid.), the second core concept of sexism is that women have a complementary role, meaning that they are here for the pleasure and assistance of men and that they should fulill their natural “feminine” functions. heir identity and social value is deined solely by their relationship to men they are related to. he mentality of this second concept, which 20 Katja Plemenitaš Gender Ideologies in English and Slovene: A Contrastive View puts women on a pedestal as long as they fulill their natural complementary role is still present in modern society and is often defended by both men and women, especially by politicians who ight for the restoration of “natural” order in society. hese two principles are accepted by mainstream feminism as something that should be fought against; the approaches to ighting sexism can be, according to Freeman (ibid.), broadly divided into two ethics that have received a varying degree of emphasis across cultures: the egalitarian ethic and the liberation ethic. he egalitarian ethic proclaims that the sexes are equal; therefore, the sex roles should be completely eliminated. In practice this ethic can be interpreted to mean that women simply need to assume the same roles as men, so society should change accordingly to grant women the opportunities to act like men. he liberation ethic, on the other hand, proclaims that it is primarily the content of the roles assumed by men and women that must change. According to the liberation logic, a society that discriminates against women also forces men to it a certain mold, thus oppressing men as well. he social institutions which oppress women thus also oppress people in general, so the social institutions themselves have to be changed. he application of both of these logics has undergone criticism. Certain feminists argue that pursuing the egalitarian ethic alone assumes that women want to be like men, and that they just need more opportunity in society, to get their piece of the pie, so to speak (ibid.). Real equality between the sexes, so the argument goes, will also inevitably lead to basic structural change. Conversely, criticism levelled against the liberation ethic suggests that when you try to liberate society as a whole, you cannot simply expect that the liberation of women will follow automatically. As Freeman notes (ibid.) a combination of elements from both these ethics is necessary to overcome sexism. Some of the cultural diferences in the treatment of linguistic sexism have been inluenced by a varying emphasis on them. We will specify these dependencies in the sections below. 4. Linguistic sexism in the context of culture Although individual elements of the concept of sexism may have had varying inluences on the ight against it, the view itself on what constitutes sexism is now accepted by the majority of feminist theories with roots in western tradition. Both of the above-mentioned ethics have played a role in the development of the concept of linguistic sexism and thus form a part of its cultural context. he view on what constitutes non-sexist language seems to be shaped by several factors, including the cultural context of feminist traditions with their own understanding of what sexism is and how it should be fought. heorists usually speak of three waves of feminism (cf. Krolokke and Sorensen 2006), which commonly refer to the development of feminism in English-speaking countries. he irst wave was about achieving basic legal rights, while the second wave focused on the control of the human body, including issues such as the right to abortion, birth control, and other social rights (hence the slogan “the personal is political”). he current third-wave feminism stresses the heterogeneity of female identity, by giving voices to bisexual, lesbian and transgender women and by discussing racial and postcolonial issues. In terms of the proposed ethics used for ighting against sexism, the irst wave focused on the egalitarian ethic of women’s rights, while second-wave feminism also incorporated the liberation ethic in its more radical groups. he liberation ethic was associated with the activist environment of student politics and had connections with civil rights movement. he third-wave movement combines the two ethics, with some groups focusing more on the women’s ability to choose what kind of role they want to assume in life by opening up further opportunities for them in an “equal” competition with men, while others ight to change the social institutions LANGUAGE 21 and the content of the gender roles by stressing heterogeneity based on human traits other than the biological sex. A certain kind of stigma has been attached to the word feminism in the mainstream English-speaking media in the last two decades, with some media outlets even declaring feminism to be dead (e.g., Mumsnet). On the other hand, the younger generation of feminists such as Kat Baynard (2010) talk about the illusion of equality and turn their attention to social phenomena, such as the sex industry and violence against women, that have efects on the whole of society. In Slovenia, on the other hand, feminist ideology is closely connected to the post-war socialist ideology which oicially proclaimed sexual equality. After the second world war, when Slovenia was a federal state of socialist Yugoslavia, feminism was incorporated into the oicial ideological discourse. Boskovik (1999) notes that the feminist movements of the pre-war periods were rejected as something essentially elitist; Western feminism was viewed with suspicion as a potential threat to the oicial ideology, which supported social feminism. he oppression of women was seen as a part of a larger pattern that was inherent in the capitalist system and its patriarchal society, and the ight against this oppression as an issue of class struggle. he intellectual framework used by the most prominent feminists of this period, such as Maca Jogan, was thus based mainly on the liberation ethic. Feminist eforts were focused on changing society as a whole, which was also supposed to bring an end to the discrimination of women in particular. Certain positives were achieved in this period (day care, maternity leave, equal pay) but the problem of gender inequality did not disappear. Moreover, society in general remained dominated by the patriarchal legacy of Catholicism. A younger generation of Slovene feminists, who became more prominent after the fall of socialism, took up issues similar to those dealt with in second-wave and third-wave western feminism. Institutionally, an important role was also played by the Oice for Women’s Policy, which was later renamed the Oice for Equal Opportunity. More recent authors and activists working on feminist issues mainly come from the sociological and psychoanalytical traditions, or the lesbian movement (e.g., Darja Zaviršek, Renata Šribar, Renata Salecl, Suzana Tratnik). hese feminists are associated with academia or the creative arts. heir views are heterogeneous and can be placed in the context of third-wave feminism. he positions assumed by these feminists range from the focus on gender diferences to the desire for a complete elimination of sex roles. However, there are few women in the mainstream population who would willingly describe themselves as feminists, and there is a social and intellectual divide between feminist scholars and the “everyday” woman. his is probably one of the reasons preventing more women from participating in political-decision making. 5. In search of non-sexist linguistic alternatives he theory of sexism that has its roots in the period of second-wave feminism produced important linguistic research into language and gender. Cameron (1992) notes that feminism has always focused on representations of femininity, so it is logical that it has also turned its attention to language as a symbolic system of representation. he seminal work by Robin Lakof Language and Woman’s Place (1975) challenged the ways in which women were talked about and the way in which women’s speech was limited. Since the 1970s, the production of academic articles on connections between language and gender has vastly increased and linguistic discrimination based on gender has become a common topic in sociolinguistic and feminist studies. Not all studies in this area have confronted the problem of discrimination, focusing instead on the diferences between female and male use of language, based on the supposedly diferent nature of men and women (e.g., Tannen 1990). However, linguistic sexism has always been at the forefront of the study of gender 22 Katja Plemenitaš Gender Ideologies in English and Slovene: A Contrastive View in language. As a result, guidelines on non-sexist language are a common part of ethical codes of conduct in English-speaking countries at various institutions, including universities and colleges. In Slovenia, it is the post-socialist feminists, mostly from the social sciences and psychoanalysis (e.g., Bahovec, 1992), who have drawn attention to the problems of terminology and gender. In the 1990s the main political force driving the linguistic debate on sexism in language was the Oice for Women’s Policy, which encouraged much of the more recent scholarly work on this topic. Slovene linguists focused on various aspects of linguistic sexism, treating it either as a lexical problem, i.e., as part of the broader concept of ofensive speech (e.g., Gorjanc 2005) or as a grammatical problem, the solution to which is impractical because of the grammatical nature of the Slovene language (e.g., Stabej 1997). Purely linguistic accounts of the expression of gender in Slovene usually stress the grammatical nature of using masculine forms as unmarked forms in the case of Slovene dual gender nouns (e.g., Kunst Gnamuš 1995), or provide a word-formational inventory of possible feminine – masculine pairs (Vidovič Muha 1997). he deinition of linguistic sexism itself is broadly similar in both English and Slovene, i.e., the use of male-centred expressions for women or for generic terms including both genders, but there are considerable diferences in solutions proposed for non-sexist language. While the non-sexist English language tends to achieve gender neutrality, the non-sexist Slovene language strives for gender speciicity. It can be assumed that the diferences in solutions are primarily motivated by the linguistic typological diferences between the two languages. It can also be argued that diferences in the speciic cultural context of the development of feminism also had some inluence on the diferences in the conceptualization of non-sexist language which underlies the guidelines on non-sexist language. 5.1 Semantic and formal gender in English and Slovene here is a distinct typological diference in the expression of gender between English and Slovene. While in English the expression of gender is overt, dependent on the meaning of the word, i.e., the biological sex of the referent (cf. Biber et al. 1999), the main division within gender is thus based on the semantic content of words. Gender is divided into the following categories: human and non­human, with human further divided into masculine, feminine and dual gender. Gender in English can thus be called semantic gender. he semantic gender is grammatically relected through the use of singular personal pronouns (he, she, it) and corresponding possessive and relexive forms; the human v. non-human distinction is also relected through certain relative and interrogative pronouns (human who v. non-human which), and indeinite pronouns (someone v. something). Nouns with dual gender have who – he or she pronoun coreference. he speciication of semantic gender as feminine and masculine gender can be indicated in various ways: with lexical pairs (wife, husband), grammatical endings (actor – actress), gender premodiication (female, male teacher) and gender­speciic compounding (congressman, congresswoman). Some nouns can shift their gender category, for example, nouns denoting vehicles, countries, etc. can shift from the non-human category (it), to the human category (she). Nouns denoting animals also frequently shift from the non-human (it) into the human gender category (he, she). It is very rare for a human noun to shift into the non-human use – this usually happens in the case of derogatory use (it instead of he or she) and is also possible with nouns such as baby, infant (it instead of he or she). Gender is thus seen as a less important grammatical category in English than in many other languages (e.g., Biber et al. 1999). LANGUAGE 23 Slovene belongs to languages in which gender is a more visible feature of the morphosyntactic structure. As opposed to semantic gender in English, the Slovene language has grammatical gender, which means that every noun grammatically expresses one of the following types of gender: masculine, feminine or neuter. Gender is not based on the semantic content of words in the same way as in English, because Slovene inanimate and non-human nouns are all ascribed feminine, masculine or neuter gender. However, there is partial overlap with semantic gender, insofar as the grammatical gender of Slovene human nouns usually agrees with the semantic gender of the word. his rule has exceptions, however, in particular when it comes to words with dual semantic gender, i.e., words that can refer to both females and males. Grammatical gender is expressed through grammatical suixes, typical of each gender category. hese suixes, however, are not an absolute predictor of the gender of Slovene nouns. For example, while the suix -a in the nominative case of singular nouns usually indicates feminine gender, it can also indicate masculine gender (e.g., vodja ‘leader’). Gender is embedded into the morphosyntactic structure of Slovene to such a degree that it also afects the agreement between subject and predicator (i.e., the predicator agrees in gender with the subject), between the headword and the modiiers (i.e., certain types of modiiers agree in gender with the headword), and between the antecedent and the anaphor in coreference (i.e., anaphor agrees in gender with the antecedent). As Kunst Gnamuš (1995) notes, gender in Slovene is a morphosyntactic category which fulills two roles: irst it is an inherent morphosyntactic category which helps to express syntagmatic relations and textual cohesion, second it is a category that has representational semantic function. It marks the biological sex, the distinction between female and male as a feature of reference. Kunst Gnamuš (ibid.) mentions the clash between the morphosyntactic function and the representational (referential) function of gender in Slovene: there is a hierarchy of genders, meaning that masculine gender is used as the unmarked gender in the cases of words with dual semantic gender (e.g., generic reference). Conversely, it is marked or even ungrammatical to use feminine forms for words with dual semantic gender. Economy of expression is thus achieved at the expense of the feminine forms. his means that the semantic diference between males and females is neutralized in favour of nouns with masculine grammatical gender. Kunst-Gnamuš (ibid.) avoids the potential ideological implications of such grammatical rules by noting that she cannot answer the question about the inluence of such grammatical rules on identity and possible social discrimination because it is still unknown what kind of conscious or subconscious efect the interfacing role of grammatical rules has on the representation of reality and in the formation of concepts. Slovene uses grammatically masculine nouns to refer to mixed gender groups, either generic or speciic. his means that plural masculine nouns are ambiguous in whether they refer exclusively to males or to a group of males and females (pisatelji (‘writers’), prebivalci (‘inhabitants’)). he masculine gender is used even if the reference implies only one male in an otherwise female group. Moreover, singular masculine nouns can also be used generically to refer both to male and female referents (delavec mora biti bolje plačan (‘the worker has to be paid better’)). Additionally, singular masculine nouns can be used for non-referential designations even if they are ascribed to a female referent (Ona je arhitekt. ‘She is an architect.’). In contrast, plural feminine nouns and singular feminine nouns by deinition exclude male referents (pisateljice, prebivalke, pisateljica). Examples of grammatically feminine nouns with dual semantic gender are rare and, interestingly, such feminine nouns often have derogatory or negative meanings (e.g., baraba ‘bastard’, reva ‘weakling’, žrtev ‘victim’)), although there are also examples with a neutral meaning (e.g., priča ‘witness’, oseba ‘person’). 24 Katja Plemenitaš Gender Ideologies in English and Slovene: A Contrastive View 5.2 Non-sexist language in English and Slovene: a comparison of guidelines We have argued above that there is one general distinction in the conceptualization of non-sexist language in English and Slovene, i.e., English tends towards gender neutralization, whereas Slovene tends towards gender speciication. For illustration, we have examined two manuals on non-sexist language, one for the English language and one for the Slovene language. In English-speaking universities, it is common for new students to be presented with guidelines on how to communicate and behave appropriately in their study environment. Below we present the content of a guide produced by the Committee on Equality of Opportunity by University College Cork (1994), entitled Non-sexist Language, which exempliies guidelines on the use of English free from sexism. he deinition of non-sexist language as gender-neutral language is explicitly stated by the committee in the introduction explaining the policy of equality (1994, 1): “he use of non-sexist, gender-neutral language is an essential part of this policy.” he authors of the guidelines are quick to point out that their intention is not to limit or censor language, but to include all people on an equal basis (ibid., 2). he propositions on how to achieve language use free of sexism can be divided into three general categories: the use of dual gender forms instead of gender-speciic forms, the avoidance of gender-related stereotypes, the use of parallel terms of address. In the irst category, the generic use of the word man is considered a false generic and should be replaced by appropriate dual gender forms (humans, person, people, to staf etc.) (ibid., 2). his includes even somewhat revisionist modernized versions of proverbs and sayings (e.g.’ one man’s meat is another man’s poison’ rewritten as ‘what is food to one is poison to another’; ‘to each his own’ rewritten as ‘to each one’s own’) (ibid., 3). he gender neutralization of job titles regardless of the actual sex reference of the noun also belongs to this category (maintenance men – maintenance staf, cleaning woman – cleaner, female poet – poet, male nurse – nurse, poetess – poet, actress – actor, usherette – usher) (ibid., 7). Nouns of dual gender denoting professions are thus preferred to gender speciic nouns even when the reference is not generic and the sex of the referent is known (e.g., chairperson instead of chairman or chairwoman). It is interesting that terms which were originally used as masculine nouns can be used as duals (e.g., actor) as long as they do not contain the word man. When it comes to the neutralization of pronouns, it is suggested that the generic use of male pronouns is misleading and exclusive (ibid., 2). herefore, simply stating that male pronouns should be understood to include females does not suice. he alternatives ‘she and he’, ‘she/he’ or ‘s/he are recommended in addition to some other ways of avoiding the use of the singular he, such as the use of the plural, the use of the passive voice, the use of an indeinite pronoun, (each student must complete his essay on Friday – students must complete their essays on Friday; he must return it by the due date – it must be returned by the due date; a student who wants his essay returned – anyone who wants an essay returned) (ibid.). Interestingly, the dual gender pronoun ‘they’ with the singular meaning of ‘he’ or ‘she’, which is frequently mentioned as an alternative to male pronouns, is not recommended in this particular guide, perhaps because it causes grammatical disagreement in number between the antecedent and the pronoun. Similarly, the possibilities given in this section do not include the use of generic ‘she’ instead of ‘he’ (e.g., child – she), the use which has become more prominent in the last decade. LANGUAGE 25 he category of gender-based stereotypes includes stereotyped assumptions (lecturers and their wives – lecturers and their partners, i.e., lecturers may be female, homosexual, single, cohabiting), patronizing expressions (the girls in the oice – administrative assistants), and sex-role stereotyping (she is a tomboy – she is adventurous; he is a sissy – he is a sensitive boy). Here it is also recommended that a balance between male and female referents should be achieved, for example in textbooks (ibid., 8). Personiication of inanimate objects is also rejected on the assumption that it reinforces stereotyped notions of femininity and masculinity (e.g., the sun as a ‘he’, the moon as a ‘she’) (ibid., 10). he guide also suggests varying the word order when listing pairs of female and male nouns and pronouns, so that the hierarchy of importance and status is challenged (ibid., 11). he document concludes with the presentation of the Equality Committee, data about its establishment, and its main aim – committed to “equality of opportunity for men and women.” (ibid., 14) For the Slovene language, we present the guide entitled Nekaj izhodiščnih prizadevanj za odpravo seksistične rabe jezika ‘Some basic eforts for the elimination of the sexist use of language’ (Žagar and Milharčič Hladnik 1996). his is the irst oicial document conceptualizing the use of sexist language in Slovene and ofering guidelines on how to avoid it. It was drawn up at the instigation of the Oice for Women’s Policy, and was politically motivated by Slovenia becoming a member of the European Union and consequently, of various European institutions. he authors refer to the general recommendation by the Council of Europe that the national languages of member states should achieve equality in the grammatical expression of female and male forms and parallel designations for both genders. he member states were left to adapt the detailed guidelines to the individual languages in question. According to the document the elimination of sexist use is necessary for a change in cultural thought patterns (cf. Chapter 2), for the achievement of equality in social life and employment and for the elimination of gender-based prejudice and stereotypes. his can be achieved by treating both genders equally or at least neutrally (ibid., 3). he authors point to several ways in which this goal can be achieved. Generically used (dual gender) masculine terms or feminine terms excluding male referents should be avoided in designations for professions, and parallel feminine and masculine terms should be used instead (električar, električarka ‘male electrician’, ‘female electrician’, čistilka, čistilec ‘female cleaner’, ‘male cleaner’). One of the reasons given for mentioning both forms is for women not to be the “invisible” half of the population: “If women are not present in language, they are much harder to notice and establish themselves in public life (ibid., 4)”. At the same time the authors concede that the ideal of parallel feminine and masculine forms is easier to achieve for the Slovene language in comparison to languages such as English because of its diferent word-formation potential in the creation of feminine forms. he use of non-sexist forms can be achieved in various ways: the coordinated use of both forms (dijak/ dijakinja ‘male student/female student’, the use of neutral dual gender forms (oseba, ki je nosilka pravice ‘the person who is the owner of this right’), the use of the creative method (variation of masculine and feminine forms throughout the text) and the use of the legal deinition (a footnote stating that masculine grammatical forms are used for both genders). he authors (ibid.) ind the use of legal deinition the least satisfying, and at the same time point to the potential awkwardness of legal texts that consistently use parallel forms, which is further complicated by the required agreement in gender between the subject and verb. Another area of sexist use mentioned in the document (ibid., 6) is the asymmetric use of terms of address where parallel terms of address should be used instead of non-parallel terms. For example, it is suggested that the asymmetric Janez Marolt, manager, in Sonja (‘Janez Marolt, the manager, and Sonja’), should be replaced with the symmetric Janez Marolt, manager, in Sonja Horvat, knjigovodkinja 26 Katja Plemenitaš Gender Ideologies in English and Slovene: A Contrastive View (‘Janez Marolt, the manager, and Sonja Horvat, the accountant’). Interestingly, the authors do not problematize the distinction between ga. (‘Mrs.’) and gpd. (‘Miss’) based on marital status. he third area of sexist use of language mentioned in the document points to the stereotypical descriptions of men and women alongside their characteristics and typical role in society (lepi spol/šibki spol ‘the fair sex/the weak sex’, direktor in njegova šarmantna tajnica ‘director and his charming secretary’). he document concludes by recommending further research in this area, the modiication of administrative forms, and the establishment of a special work group to elaborate detailed guidelines for all areas of public life. 5.3 Gender neutrality v. gender speciicity A comparison of English and Slovene guidelines shows that there are similarities between the conceptualizations of sexist language based on the common ground of the similar social values relected in both languages. For both languages, these social values are historically closely connected with a male-dominated and a male-centred society that has treated males as the unmarked norm. Very similar recommendations are thus given for the avoidance of biased and stereotyped assumptions, patronizing and demeaning expressions and sex-role stereotyping and terms of address. Here the English guidelines go even further than the Slovene guidelines in recommending changes to old sayings and proverbs. he diferences in recommendations arise mainly in the area of dual gender nouns and parallel feminine and masculine expression, and can be attributed to the diferences in the semantic and morphological expression of gender in the two languages. As we have seen above, English expresses gender primarily at the semantic level, while Slovene expresses gender grammatically. his means that the Slovene nouns which can be considered as dual gender on the semantic level are grammatically still gender-speciic. Consequently, the English ideal of gender-free language is very diicult to achieve. Nouns with semantic dual-gender in Slovene, i.e., nouns which can be used to refer both to females and males, are expressed mainly through masculine grammatical gender. In Slovene, dual gender inds expression on the semantic level, but not on the grammatical level (e.g., priča ‘witness’– feminine gender, otrok ‘child’– masculine). he use of plural forms or semantically neutral forms does not solve the problem of male-biased language in Slovene. he only way to avoid the use of the masculine form for both genders is to use parallel gender-speciic terms. his is similar to the problem of the non-existent neutral singular third person pronoun in English, but in the case of Slovene this problem extends over nouns in general. he word-formation potential of Slovene enables a relatively regular formation of feminine terms parallel to masculine terms through suixation. Feminine forms, while avoided in non-sexist English in favour of dual gender forms (e.g., actor instead of actress), are actively encouraged in Slovene, even though they are usually formed from masculine terms. he consistent use of the existing feminine forms and the creation of new feminine forms is considered to fulill the function of rendering women visible, even if we take into account that the created feminine forms for diferent professions do not necessarily coincide with real-life statistics (e.g., varilec ‘welder’ – varilka ‘female welder’). Reference to inanimate nouns as masculine or feminine, which is seen as an example of sexist use of language in English, is not treated as such in Slovene. Masculine or feminine gender is ascribed to inanimate nouns as an inherent part of the grammatical system of the Slovene language. Consequently, this is not seen as a problem for the non-sexist use of language, because it does not involve personiication, and moreover, there is no alternative expression. LANGUAGE 27 Gender neutralization, on the other hand, is more in tune with the linguistic typology of gender expression in English. One of the main problems of sexist English is considered to be the dual gender use of nouns containing the word man or the pronoun he. he primarily semantic nature of gender expression in English allows the existence of truly dual gender nouns, although sometimes these nouns are an extension of an originally masculine noun (e.g., actor in reference to women). In addition to this, the word-formation potential of creating feminine forms is in English much more idiosyncratic than in Slovene. However, it seems that the decision about which approach to adopt regarding the sexist use of language also has parallels with a particular approach to women’s liberation. If we take into account the above-mentioned egalitarian ethic and liberation ethic in the feminist movement, the ideal of gender neutralization seems to be based on the assumption that women are not served by the practice of mentioning gender in each case. If women are not represented equally strongly among all occupations at all levels, the feminine forms could be seen as marginalized forms. his position relects the egalitarian ethic, which strives to change the gender roles, encouraging women to assimilate and emulate male roles to achieve success and equality. he ideal of consistent feminization of forms, on the other hand, seems to stem from the liberation ethic, based on which the change of society as a whole will automatically bring about equality of the sexes and make both genders equally prominent. 6. Conclusion he comparison of assumptions about linguistic sexism in various languages shows that the conceptualization of non-sexist use of language is a linguistic-cultural concept that has to be evaluated in its speciic linguistic and cultural context. he ideals of non-sexist use of language in English and in Slovene difer to a certain extent. In English, the non-sexist use of language encourages gender-neutral language and strives for the elimination of speciic use of feminine or masculine gender. In Slovene, on the other hand, semantic gender-neutrality clashes with grammatical gender, so the ideal of non-sexist language consists in the consistent use of feminine forms in reference to females. However, in English there is also an opposite trend toward the feminization of nouns (song – songstress, murder – murderess, adventurer – adventuress), at least in some types of texts. his indicates a step away from gender invisibility towards a more explicit linguistic expression of feminine identity. Further research will show if this trend is more than simply an expressive style of popular writing, or if it can have any signiicance for the concept of the non-sexist use of language in English. References Bahovec, Eva. 1992. “O feminizmu in psihoanalizi: onstran problema poimenovanja.” Problemi-Eseji 30 (1-2): 131-136. Bambara, Toni Cade. 1970. he Black Woman. New York: New American Library. Banyard, Kat. 2010. he Equality Illusion. London: Faber and Faber Ltd. Biber, Douglas et al. 1999. Spoken and Written English. Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited. Blaubergs, Maia S. 1980. “An Analysis of Classic Arguments Against Changing Sexist Language.” Women’s Studies International Quarterly 2 (3): 135-47. 28 Katja Plemenitaš Gender Ideologies in English and Slovene: A Contrastive View Boroditsky, Lera, Lauren A. Schmidt, and Webb Phillips. 2003. “Sex, syntax, and semantics.” In Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought, edited by Dedre Gentner and Susan Goldin-Meadow, 61–79. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Boskovik, Aleksandar. 1999. What’s in a name? Feminist discourses in the Republic of Slovenia. Universidade de Brasilia, Departamento de Antropologia. Cameron, Deborah. 1992. Feminism & Linguistic heory. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Cameron, Deborah and Don Kulick. 2003. Language and Sexuality. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Freeman, Jo. 1971. he Women’s Liberation Movement: Its Origin, Structures and Ideals. Pittsburgh: Know, Inc. Gorjanc, Vojko. 2005. “Neposredno in posredno žaljiv govor v jezikovnih priročnikih. Diskurz slovarjev slovenskega jezika.” Družboslovne razprave XXI 48: 197-209. Krolokke, Charlotte and Anna Scott Sorensen. 2006. Gender Communication. heories and Analyses. London: Sage Publications. Kunst Gnamuš, Olga. 1995. “Razmerje med spolom kot potezo reference in spolom kot slovnično kategorijo.” Jezik in slovstvo 40 (7): 255-262. Lakof, Robin. 1975. Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper & Row. Leskošek, Vesna 2000. “Med nevtralnostjo in univerzalnostjo uporabe moškega spola.” Časopis za kritiko znanosti 28 (200-201): 409-426. Livia, Anna. 2001. Pronoun Envy. Literary Uses of Linguistic Gender. Oxford: Oxford UP. Lucy, John A. 1997. “Linguistic Relativity.” Annual Review of Anthropology 26: 291-312. Mumsnet. Accessed September 20, 2012. http://www.mumsnet.com/. Ross, Kelly L. “Against the heory of ‘Sexist Language’”. Accessed September 15, 2012. www.friesian.com/ language.htm. Spender, Dale. 1980. Man made language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Stabej, Marko. 1997. “Seksizem kot jezikovnopolitični problem.” In XXXIII Seminar slovenskega jezika, kulture in literature, edited by Aleksandra Derganc, 57-68. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta. Oddelek za slovanske jezike in književnosti. Tannen, Deborah. 1990. You Just Don’t Understand. London: Virago. Vidovič Muha, Ada. 1997. “Prvine družbene prepoznavnosti ženske prek poimenovalne tipologije njenih dejavnosti, lastnosti.” In XXXIII Seminar slovenskega jezika, kulture in literature, edited by Aleksandra Derganc, 69-79. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta. Oddelek za slovanske jezike in književnosti. Dictionaries Oxford Dictionaries Online. Accessed September 12, 2012. http://oxforddictionaries.com/. Slovenski pravopis [Slovene Ortography]. 2001. Ljubljana: Inštitut za slovenski jezik Frana Ramovša and SAZU. Accessed September 12, 2012. http://bos.zrc-sazu.si/sp2001.html. Guides on non-sexist language: Žagar, Igor Ž. and Mirjam Milharčič Hladnik. 1996. “Nekaj izhodiščnih prizadevanj za odpravo seksistične rabe jezika.” In Spol: Ž, ISH, edited by Lenca Bogovič and Zoja Skušek. Accessed September 5, 2012. http:// www.igorzagar.net/clanki/nekaj-izhodiscnih-prizadevanj-za-odpravo-seksisticne-rabe-jezika. Non-sexist Language. A Guide. 1994. Committee on Equality of Opportunity. University College Cork. Accessed September 5, 2012. http://www.ucc.ie/equlcom/language.html. LANGUAGE 29 30 DOI: 10.4312/elope.11.1.31-43 Frančiška Lipovšek University of Ljubljana Slovenia Deining the conceptual structure of from and to Summary From and to difer from other prepositions of movement in two signiicant respects: they entail point-apprehensibility and leave the actual trajector-landmark arrangement unspeciied. he diference is due to the presence of two place-functions in their conceptual structure. he irst place-function is the same as the one found in the conceptual structure of at. It triggers a point-like conceptualization and is lexicalized together with the path-function. he second place-function is not speciied but can be lexicalized separately. he conceptual structure with two place-functions allows for a second preposition, but can at the same time account for the unacceptability of from at and to at. he paper highlights the vagueness of the traditional deinitions of from and to, arguing that what is conceptualized as a point is not the landmark but the place of location. Key words: prepositions, from, to, conceptual structure, path-function, place-function, landmark, trajector Opredelitev konceptualne strukture predlogov from in to Povzetek From in to se od ostalih predlogov za izražanje premikanja razlikujeta v dveh bistvenih pogledih: implicirata točkovno konceptualizacijo in ne speciicirata prostorskega razmerja med trajektorjem in orientacijsko točko. Omenjena razlika je posledica prisotnosti dveh funkcij lokacije v njuni konceptualni strukturi. Prva je enaka funkciji lokacije v konceptualni strukturi predloga at. Sproži točkovno konceptualizacijo in je leksikalizirana skupaj s funkcijo poti. Druga funkcija lokacije ni speciicirana, lahko pa je leksikalizirana ločeno. Konceptualna struktura z dvema funkcijama lokacije omogoča rabo dodatnega predloga, vendar lahko še vedno utemelji nesprejemljivost kombinacij from at in to at. Članek med drugim izpostavi nenatančnost tradicionalnih deinicij predlogov from in to z vidika konceptualizacije: predmet točkovne konceptualizacije namreč ni orientacijska točka, temveč mesto lokacije. Ključne besede: predlogi, from, to, konceptualna struktura, funkcija poti, funkcija lokacije, orientacijska točka, trajektor UDK 811.111’23 LANGUAGE 31 Deining the conceptual structure of from and to 1. Introduction Spatial prepositions express static and dynamic relations that can be described schematically as geometric conigurations between a TRAJECTOR (TR) and a LANDMARK (LM): the former is the primary focus and the carrier of the relation, and the latter a secondary focal participant viewed as the reference point for locating the TR (Langacker 1987, 217, 231-243; 2000, 171-174, 2008, 113). If movement is involved, the TR moves through a spatial trajectory determined by a speciic relationship with the LM. From and to belong to the spatial prepositions that express movement along a bounded path. he conceptualization involves not only a dynamic scene, with the TR moving away from or towards the LM, but also a static scene describing a speciic TR-LM arrangement at the beginning or end of the path (for example, out of evokes the image of the TR located inside the LM). From and to are exceptions in this respect: they (i) remain vague about the actual TR-LM arrangement and (ii) evoke the image of the LM as a “point or blob” (Lindstromberg 2010, 31). It can be assumed that the reason lies in diferent conceptual structures. he aim of the paper is to identify the component(s) responsible for the two diferences and propose a structure that accounts for both. he paper is organized as follows. Section 1 discusses the role and lexicalization of functions in the conceptual structure of lative prepositions and identiies the problem of from and to in this respect. Section 2 focuses on the place-function AT and its lexicalization. Section 3 examines the occurrence of from at and to at to argue for a conceptual structure with two place-functions. A short discussion follows in section 4. he main points are summed up in the Conclusion. 2. Towards the conceptual structure of from and to Arguing that “semantic structure is conceptual structure” (cf. also Heine 1997, Talmy 1983), Jackendof (1983) refers to prepositions as FUNCTIONS and uses the following notations to represent their conceptual structure: (1) a. [Place PLACE-FUNCTION ([hing THING])] b. [Path PATH-FUNCTION ([Place PLACE-FUNCTION ([hing THING])])] For example: (2) a. he cat was hiding in the basket. [Place IN ([hing BASKET])] b. he cat jumped out of the basket. [Path FROM ([Place IN ([hing BASKET])])] c. he cat jumped into the basket. [Path TO ([Place IN ([hing BASKET])])] he preposition in in (2a) is the lexicalization of the place-function IN, which involves the conceptualization of the LM as some kind of container. In (2b) and (2c), the conceptual structure 32 Frančiška Lipovšek Deining the conceptual structure of from and to of the preposition consists of a path-function (with FROM standing for the source-path-function and TO for the goal-path-function) and the place-function IN. he two functions are lexicalized together as out of and into, respectively. Some prepositions express place- as well as path-functions. In the locative use, the conceptual structure of the preposition consists of a place function only; in the lative1 use, its conceptual structure consists of a path-function and a place-function. For example: (3) a. he child was hiding in the closet/under the bed/behind the tree. [Place IN/UNDER/BEHIND ([hing CLOSET/BED/TREE])] b. he child hid in the closet/under the bed/behind the tree. [Path TO ([Place IN/UNDER/BEHIND ([hing CLOSET/BED/TREE])])] By contrast to locative-allative prepositions (i.e., those used for locations as well as goal-paths), locative-ablative prepositions (i.e., those used for locations as well as source-paths) are few in number. In fact, there are only two true representatives of the kind: of and out of. Furthermore, their primary function is not locative but ablative:2 (4) a. he glider lifted of the ground. [Path FROM ([Place ON ([hing GROUND])])] b. he plane’s nose is already of the ground. [Place OFF ([hing GROUND])] c. hey drove out of town. [Path FROM ([Place IN ([hing TOWN])])] d. hey’re out of town. [Place OUT OF ([hing TOWN])] In their lative uses, the prepositions in (2–4) above share one signiicant property: their conceptual structure consists of a path-function and a place-function, which are lexicalized together as one lexical item. he two functions can also be lexicalized separately: (5) he cat ran from under the sofa. [Path FROM ([Place UNDER ([hing SOFA])])] In example (5), the path-function is lexicalized as from, and the place-function as under. As pointed out by Keizer (2008), from combines with another preposition if the latter expresses a TR-LM relationship that difers from the expected, default one (as implied by the semantics of the TR and LM). For illustration (adapted from Lipovšek 2013): (6) a. I heard an angry voice coming from under the table/behind the closet/above the balcony. Used throughout the paper as the cover term for the ablative use (i.e. with the TR moving in a direction away from the LM) and the allative use (i.e. with the TR moving in a direction towards the LM). 2 Perhaps a more appropriate designation would be ablative-locative. LANGUAGE 33 It appears that the lexicalization of each function separately occurs only with source-paths. With goal-paths, prepositions are used that can lexicalize both functions together: (7) a. All of a sudden, the cat jumped on/under/behind the sofa. b. *All of a sudden, the cat jumped to on/under/behind the sofa. By contrast to from, to is not normally followed by another preposition, irrespective of the TR-LM relationship. Moreover, from wihout the second preposition entails a default relationship, while to does nothing of the kind: if the apple in (8a) was most certainly IN the bag, the ball in (8b) did not end IN the hole: (8) a. he apple rolled from the bag. b. he (golf) ball (bounced of the ground and) rolled to the hole. he LM in (8a) is conceived of as a container, while the conceptualization of (8b) involves the LM as the endpoint of the TR’s path, with the TR located within the LM’s range. his diference suggests the following conceptual structures in (8): (9) a. [Path FROM ([Place IN ([hing BAG])])] b. [Path TO ([hing HOLE)])] Notation (9a) implies that the path-function FROM and the place-function IN are lexicalized together as from. In other words, it implies that the conceptualization of the LM in (8a) as a container is evoked by from. he problem of this implication is that it makes from polysemic. Compare: (10) he apple rolled from the table. [Path FROM ([Place ON ([hing TABLE])])] Polysemy would suggest that the conceptual structures of from in (8a) and from in (10) contain the same place-functions as out of and of, respectively.3 Nevertheless, the actual TR-LM arrangement is not contained in the meaning of from but must be derived from the semantics of the TR and LM and the context. he conceptual structure of from remains the same irrespective of the actual TR-LM arrangement: (11) [Path FROM ([Place PLACE-FUNCTION ([hing THING])])] he source-path-function is lexicalized as from, while the place-function is lexicalized only if the TR-LM relationship difers from the expected one. If the place function is lexicalized, the TR-LM arrangement is implied by the conceptual structure of the second preposition. If the place-function is not lexicalized, the TR-LM arrangement is derived from the semantics of the TR and LM. he place-function in (12b-c) is printed in italics4 to indicate that the speciication of the TR-LM For their possible interchangeability, see Lipovšek 2013. Proposed by the author for the sake of clarity. 34 Frančiška Lipovšek Deining the conceptual structure of from and to (12) a. he ball rolled from under the table. [Path FROM ([Place UNDER ([hing TABLE])])] b. he apple rolled from the table. [Path FROM ([Place ON ([hing TABLE])])] c. he apple rolled from the bag. [Path FROM ([Place IN ([hing BAG])])] With to, the place-function is not normally lexicalized. We used notation (9b) to illustrate the conceptual structure of to in (8b) above, repeated below as (13): (13) he ball rolled to the hole. [Path TO ([hing HOLE)])] he most likely interpretation of (13) is that the ball ended right on the edge of the hole, which means that the TR is located within the LM’s range. his proximity relationship may turn into coincidence, especially if viewed from afar or if the path is foregrounded. hat could explain the missing place-function in the notation under (13). Indeed, Jackendof (1983, 163) states that the internal structure of lative prepositions often consists of a path-function and a reference OBJECT, as in to the loor. He continues by pointing out that the path-function can alternatively be followed by a reference PLACE, as in from under the table. He also states that the “path-function TO tends to combine with place-functions into a single lexical item” (ibid., 165), which suggests not only that the conceptualization of to involves a place-function, but also that the place-function and the path-function are lexicalized together. he presence of the place-function in the conceptual structure of to becomes evident in cases where the LM clearly keeps its dimensionality. Nevertheless, it cannot be considered lexicalized because the speciication of the TR-LM arrangement is not part of the semantics of to: (14) a. he cat jumped to the windowsill. [Path TO ([Place ON ([hing WINDOWSILL])])] b. I’m going to the kitchen to make some cofee. [Path TO ([Place IN ([hing KITCHEN])])] he recognition of the place-function with to calls for a revision of (13) above. With the LM conceptualized as a point on a line and the TR located in proximity to that point, the place-function is best represented by AT: (15) he ball rolled to the hole. [Path TO ([Place AT ([hing HOLE])])] he point-apprehensibility of the LM is the key component of at. As stated by Huddleston and Pullum (2002, 654), the “core lexical meaning of at expresses location in a speciic geographical position conceived as a point in the plane.” From and to are traditionally viewed as dynamic counterparts of at. he conceptualization of the goal-path involves not only a dynamic scene with the TR traversing the path but also a static scene, with the TR located at the endpoint of LANGUAGE 35 the path. Similarly, the conceptualization of the source-path involves a dynamic scene as well as a static scene, with the TR located at the beginning of the path. he use of from ... to, for example, foregrounds the path and evokes the image of a line between two points: (16) We swam from one end of the pool to the other. [Path FROM ([Place AT ([hing POOL END])])] + [Path TO ([Place AT ([hing POOL END])])] Example (16) suggests that the point-like conceptualization of the LM is evoked by from and to and that their conceptual structures contain the place-function AT: (17) a. [Path FROM ([Place AT ([hing THING])])] b. [Path TO ([Place AT ([hing THING])])] Nevertheless, the notations in (17) are not unproblematic. he inclusion of AT in the conceptual structure of each preposition is in perfect accordance with the view that when from or to is used, the LM’s dimensionality and physical properties are largely ignored (cf. Lindstromberg 2010, 31, 44); however, the question arises whether from and to actually ENTAIL point-apprehensibility. Cienki (1989, 134), for example, argues that to cannot be a “motional counterpart” of at. He points out that Tom pushed Bill to the ground does not entail that Bill is AT the ground. Another argument he provides is that humans as LMs readily combine with to (e.g., Simon went home to his wife) but not with at (e.g., *He was at Fred), the reason being that humans are not point-apprehensible. He argues for a very general meaning of to without any further speciication of the place function. his line of reasoning can be extended to from: the sentence Peter fell from the tree does not entail that Peter was AT the tree. he notations in (17) should be revised accordingly: (18) a. [Path FROM ([Place PLACE-FUNCTION ([hing THING])])] b. [Path TO ([Place PLACE-FUNCTION ([hing THING])])] he presence of the place-function in the structure of from is evident from cases where it is lexicalized separately (e.g., He crawled from under the table). With to, by contrast, the place-function is not normally lexicalized. Instead, a preposition that lexicalizes both functions together is used (e.g., He jumped into the pool / climbed behind the sofa / hid under the table). Nevertheless, actual usage shows that to is occasionally followed by a preposition as well. he following examples are taken from the BNC: (19) a. His dark eyes directed to beyond the window where the Expo lights sparkled colourfully into the distance. b. An elderly woman does not want to take the risk, hastily glances at the sharp blades of the door, retreats back to behind the faded white line and waits for the next train. c. It was a stretched Telecaster, using the same slab ash body with no contouring whatsoever, while its elongated top horn extended to above the twelfth fret and ofered good balance for an instrument of its considerable weight. 36 Frančiška Lipovšek Deining the conceptual structure of from and to d. A scar ran from the corner of his eye to under his jawbone, and his tattooed arms rested on the desk in front of him, which was covered with mementoes of his Legion career. e. And then his hand moved to under her chin. As can be inferred from the above sentences, a second preposition may be needed to specify the location of the TR with regard to the LM. here is a diference, for example, between reaching a point and reaching beyond that point. Alternatively, to may be needed to avoid misinterpreting the allative use as locative (cf. (19e)). With the second preposition lexicalizing a function of its own, this usage conirms the presence of the place-function in the conceptual structure of to. One fact is indisputable: the conceptual structures of from and to contain a place-function that can be lexicalized. he key question is whether this function can be AT. 3. he place-function AT in the conceptual structure of from and to he function of AT can best be explained by looking at its typical lexicalization, the preposition at. Lindstromberg (2010, 173-182) describes spatial at as imprecise about the TR-LM relationship, vague about possible physical contact between the two entities and neutral about their relative sizes. Keizer (2008) observes that, despite its vagueness, at has a narrower range of application than other prepositions, concluding that at must have a speciic meaning of its own, namely, expressing location at some non-dimensional, geometric point in space. he point-like conceptualization of the LM and its indeiniteness regarding the exact TR-LM relationship make at unique not only among English prepositions but also crosslinguistically. In the title of his paper, Cuyckens (1984) refers to at as “a typically English preposition”, while Cienki (1989, 128) comments on that, suggesting that an even more appropriate designation would be “a peculiarly English preposition” because it has no direct equivalent in other languages. he point-apprehensibility entailed by at does not mean that the TR is necessarily COINCIDENT with the LM. According to Cuyckens (1984), the TR must be included in the REGION of the LM, which covers the area taken by the LM itself as well as the surrounding area outside the LM. It follows that the TR-LM relationship can be that of coincidence or that of proximity. Cuyckens argues that coincidence and proximity are not part of the semantics of at, but rather further speciications that are derived from the semantics of the sentence and the context. Coventry (2003, 255-6) states that the use and comprehension of at depends on the relative distance between objects and their possible interaction. Cienki (1989, 104) proposes a centrality condition that is based on the relative distance between the TR and the LM: the applicability of at decreases with distance because the TR should not move out of the LM’s region. Furthermore, their distance from the observer also plays a role: the relationship may be that of proximity from a close-up view but will turn into coincidence from a more remote point of view because from a distance the whole LM region tends towards a point-like conceptualization. In other words, the TR and the LM will merge into a single point owing to the “mental act of ‘zooming out’” (Lindstromberg 2010, 173). If at evokes the picture of a zero-dimensional LM, its conceptual structure consists of a place-function that takes a point-like argument. his does not imply that the LM is actually a point but rather that it is APPREHENDED as a point, irrespective of its dimensions: LANGUAGE 37 (20) [Place AT ([hing POINT])] As counterparts of at, the prepositions from and to should lexicalize the same place-function (together with the path-function): (21) a. [Path FROM ([Place AT ([hing POINT])])] b. [Path TO ([Place AT ([hing POINT])])] If from and to are used alone, the notations in (21) seem perfectly plausible. he path-function and the place-function are lexicalized together: FROM and AT as from, and TO and AT as to: (22) We swam from one end of the pool to the other. (= 16) [Path FROM ([Place AT ([hing POINT: POOL END])])] [Path TO ([Place AT ([hing POINT: POOL END])])] (23) he apple rolled from the table. (= 10) [Path FROM ([Place AT ([hing POINT: TABLE])])]5 A problem arises when a second preposition follows: (24) He crawled from under the table. If we want to apply notation (21a) to (24), it looks as if the place-function AT was either lexicalized as under (25a) or supplanted by the place-function UNDER (25b): (25) a. ? [Path FROM ([Place AT ([hing POINT: TABLE])])] b. ? [Path FROM ([Place UNDER ([hing TABLE])])] Both are problematic: (25a) implies that from lexicalizes only the path-function and that the place-function AT can be lexicalized by prepositions other than at; (25b) implies that the place-function AT and its point-like argument are not part of the structure. What, on the other hand, speaks in favour of (21) is the unacceptability of from at and to at: the place-function AT cannot be lexicalized as at because it is already lexicalized together with the path function as from or to. To put it simply, at is redundant because the point-like conceptualization is already entailed by from or to. he reasoning behind this argument, however, is challenged by the fact that combinations with at are not, in fact, non-existent. Keizer (2008), for example, provides several examples with from at, pointing out that although from and at are both grammatical prepositions and as such mutually exclusive,6 the combination from at may not be entirely unacceptable. his could have important implications for the conceptual structures of from and to. For the purposes of the paper, the occurrence of to at and from at has been checked in the BNC he notation difers from that in (10). It implies point-apprehensibility and leaves the actual TR-LM arrangement unspeciied. 6 Keizer draws on the theory of Functional Discourse Grammar and the classiication of spatial prepositions as proposed by Mackenzie (1992), who distinguishes ive grammatical prepositions: at, from, via, to and towards (cited in Keizer 2008). 38 Frančiška Lipovšek Deining the conceptual structure of from and to 4. Arguing for a second place-function he corpora search has conirmed the supposed unacceptability of to at. At irst sight, the search results might suggest that to at occurs in contexts of sending something to a speciic address (referred to by the name of an institution/service, a web page or the noun address). All these occurrences of to at, however, are to be crossed out as insertion mistakes. For example: (26) a. *Full details of these arrangements are given in Annexes to this paper. General Enquiries on this area should be directed to at SCOTVEC. (BNC) b. *hese CDs can be ordered from Pinecastle at P.O. Box 456, Orlando Florida 32802 or write to at pinecast@inspace.net or http://pinecastle.com. Happy listening! (ukWaC) c. *Orders for copies of the Licensed Software shall be communicated in writing, by telefax or by telex to at the above address. (BNC) If to at is practically non-existent, the occurrence of from at ranges from purely spatial uses to temporal ones. As to the former, from at is found mainly with locations implying a part-whole relationship and with the noun home. For example: (27) a. he presenter, who was Brian Conley, came on at the beginning of the show from at the back of the stage instead of down the stairs and through the audience. (ukWaC) b. New entries are added all of the time, so if you come across a word, acronym or phrase you would like Jargon Busted please let us know via the online contact from at the bottom of this page. (ukWaC) c. Students can access the project from BOKU or from at home via Internet. (ukWaC) As to temporal uses, from at occurs mainly with expressions telling the exact time or marking the beginning or end of a time period. For example: (28) a. We will also celebrate mass in Streatham Court LTE on hursdays from at 6pm. (ukWaC) b. Prices of essential foods were controlled from at the start of the war but this often meant subsidy. (ukWaC) c. Hundreds of pedigree bitches can be kept on the same farm, producing a constant supply of puppies. hey are often bred from at a very young age and on a frequent basis. (ukWaC) It can be concluded that from at is “less unacceptable” than to at. he TR-LM relationship is that of proximity or coincidence (for example, the presenter in (27a) had been waiting AT the back of the stage; the mass in (28a) begins AT 6pm). What is relevant to the discusion is that at now behaves like any other preposition lexicalizing the place-function: (29) a. He came on from at the back of the stage. (cf. (27a)) [Path FROM ([Place AT ([hing POINT: BACK-OF-STAGE])])] LANGUAGE 39 b. He jumped from behind the wall. [Path FROM ([Place BEHIND ([hing WALL])])] Nevertheless, what makes uses like (29a) only marginally acceptable is the requirement that the place-function should not be lexicalized unless the TR-LM relationship difers from the expected, default one. For comparison: (30) a. He came on from the back of the stage. [Path FROM ([Place AT ([hing POINT: BACK-OF-STAGE])])] b. He jumped from the wall. [Path FROM ([Place ON ([hing WALL])])] he notations in (29) leave us with the same question as (24) above: How can the second preposition lexicalize the place-function if the latter is already lexicalized together with the path-function? he problem can be solved by recognizing a second place-function in the structure. he following notations are proposed: (31) a. [Path FROM ([Place AT ([Place POINT: PLACE-FUNCTION ([hing THING])])])] b. [Path TO ([Place AT ([Place POINT: PLACE-FUNCTION ([hing THING])])])] he irst place-function is speciied and lexicalized together with the path-function. he speciication of the second place-function is not part of the semantics of from and to and can be lexicalized separately by a second preposition. It follows that at in from at (the same would, theoretically, hold for to at) occurs as a lexicalization of this second function. 5. Discussion he notations in (31) are applicable irrespective of whether from and to are used alone or in combination with other prepositions: (32) a. He came on from the back of the stage. (= 30a) [Path FROM ([Place AT ([Place POINT: AT ([hing POINT: BACK-OF-STAGE])])])] b. He jumped from the wall. (= 30b) [Path FROM ([Place AT ([Place POINT: ON ([hing WALL])])])] c. He jumped from behind the wall. (= 29b) [Path FROM ([Place AT ([Place POINT: BEHIND ([hing THING])])])] (33) a. he ball rolled to the hole. (= 15) [Path TO ([Place AT ([Place POINT: AT ([hing POINT: HOLE])])])] b. he scar ran to under his jawbone. (cf. (19d)) [Path TO ([Place AT ([Place POINT: UNDER ([hing JAWBONE])])])] Furthermore, they can account for occasional occurrences of at as the second preposition, but 40 Frančiška Lipovšek Deining the conceptual structure of from and to at the same time also for its unacceptability: at is precluded not because the place-function AT is already lexicalized but because at as a lexicalization of the SECOND place-function would be redundant or would clash with the intended meaning: (34) b. *he ball rolled to at the hole. (cf. (33a)) a. *He jumped from at the wall. (cf. (32b)) hat at lexicalizes the second place-function is also evident from examples where the lexicalization is required by adverbial modiication: (35) a. Pour the batter from just above the pan. (ukWaC) b. his procedure is repeated but now the tip of the tongue moves further forward still, to just behind the front teeth, before the ‘i’ is sounded. (ukWaC) c. I watched his speech from right at the front, among the photographers. (ukWaC) d. You, with your million citizens in Birmingham and your 40,000 plus employees, delegating responsibility, still had to get the message down even to Handsworth. Can you share with us how that is best achieved, getting the message down to right at the delivery point? (ukWaC) his use, too, is in perfect accordance with the conceptual structures proposed by (31). It conirms not only that the argument of AT is a place of location with its own place-function, but also that the place of location is conceptualized as a point. It occurs with adverbs that typically signal coincidence and, as Mackenzie (1992) puts it, indicate “that the spatial relation holds with more than normal geometrical precision” (quoted in Keizer 2008). he last observation brings us to the most important part of the discussion. It is crucial to note that what is apprehended as a point is the PLACE OF LOCATION. Cienki (1989), for example, argues that the place-function in the structure of to cannot be speciied as AT because to does not entail point-apprehensibility (cf. (18) in section 1). His argument, however, applies to the LANDMARK and the actual TR-LM arrangement, and the two approaches should be kept clearly apart. In (35b) above, for example, it is not the teeth that are conceptualized as a point, but rather the space behind the teeth. he place of location comprises a multitude of possible locations of the TR with regard to the LM. For example, the place of location in (36) below refers to every single space under the sofa as a possible location. Owing to the place-function AT in the conceptual structure of from, this multitude of possible locations is apprehended as a point: (36) he cat ran from under the sofa. (= 5) [Path FROM ([Place AT ([Place POINT: UNDER ([hing SOFA])])])] he point-like conceptualization evoked by from and to should be understood in the following way. he path is conceptualized as a line that begins or ends with a point. hat point is the place of location (under the sofa rather than the sofa in (36)). By the mental act of zooming out, however, the place of location can merge with the LM into a single point. LANGUAGE 41 Last but not least, the notations in (31) apply only to from and to. he conceptual structures of other lative prepositions lack the place-function AT and evoke a conceptualization foregrounding the TR-LM arrangement speciied by the second place-function. his diference can be relevant to the choice of the preposition, which depends on “the scale of our mental image” of the LM (Lindstromberg 2010, 31). For example (adapted from Lipovšek 2013): (37) a. Take the butter from the fridge and cut it into slices. [Path FROM ([Place AT ([Place POINT: IN ([hing FRIDGE])])])] b. Take the butter out of the fridge and wait till it softens. [Path FROM ([Place IN ([hing FRIDGE])])] 6. Conclusion What sets from and to apart from other lative prepositions is the conceptual structure with two place-functions, each responsible for one distinctive aspect of their meaning: the irst place-function in the structure accounts for the point-apprehensibility, the second one for the vagueness regarding the TR-LM relationship. he second place-function is the same as the one found with other prepositions, but is not speciied and can be lexicalized only separately. With other prepositions, this place-function is speciied and lexicalized together with the path-function. It is the function that speciies the actual TR-LM arrangement. he irst place-function, by contrast, is not found with other prepositions. It is speciied as AT and lexicalized together with the path function. It is the same function as the one found in the conceptual structure of at, only that its point-like argument is the place of location rather than the LM. his appears to clash with traditional deinitions; nevertheless, once the path is mentally viewed from a distance, the place of location, the TR and the LM will inevitably merge into a single point. References Cienki, Alan. 1989. Spatial Cognition and the Semantics of Prepositions in English, Polish, and Russian. Munich: Sagner. Coventry, Kenny. 1998. “Spatial prepositions, functional relations, and lexical speciication.” In Representation and Processing of Spatial Relations, edited by Patrick Olivier and Klaus-Peter Gapp, 247-262. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cuyckens, Hubert. 1988. “Spatial prepositions in cognitive semantics.” In Understanding the Lexicon, edited by Werner Hüllen and Rainer Schulze, 316-328. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Heine, Bernd. 1997. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press. Huddleston, Rodney, and Geofrey K. Pullum. 2002. he Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jackendof, Ray. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: he MIT Press. Keizer, Evelien. 2008. “English prepositions in functional discourse grammar.” Functions of Language 15 (2): 216-256. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: heoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press. – – –. 2000. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 42 Frančiška Lipovšek Deining the conceptual structure of from and to – – –. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lindstromberg, Seth. 2010. English Prepositions Explained. Revised edition. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Lipovšek, Frančiška. 2013. “Movement out of, of, and from the landmark: conceptualization of the departure point.” Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik (AAA) 38 (2): 187-204. Mackenzie, J. Lachlan. 1992. „English spatial prepositions in Functional Grammar.“ Working Papers in Functional Grammar 46. Quoted in Keizer, Evelien. 2008. “English prepositions in functional discourse grammar.” Functions of Language 15 (2): 216-256. Talmy, Leonard. 1983. “How language structures space.” In Spatial Orientation: heory, Research and Application, edited by Herbert L. Pick and Linda P. Acredolo, 225-282. New York: Plenum. Corpora BNC: http://www.sketchengine.co.uk ukWaC: http://www.sketchengine.co.uk LANGUAGE 43 44 DOI: 10.4312/elope.11.1.45-64 Klementina Jurančič Petek University of Maribor Slovenia he “Magnet Efect” – A Powerful Source of L1 Dialect Interference in the Pronunciation of English as a Foreign Language Summary Wieden and Nemser (1991) carried out a study investigating the development of pronunciation of English as a foreign language in Austria. One of the main issues in this research was L1 dialect interference. Individual studies have proven that the pronunciation of a second (L2) or foreign language (FL) is not inluenced only by the standard variety of the irst language (L1), but also by the L1 dialect of the speaker’s place of origin (Karpf et al. 1980). Wieden and Nemser’s study wished to prove this on a larger scale. A similar study was carried out also for Slovenia (Jurančič Petek 2007). Contrastive analysis (CA) of the Slovene Standard pronunciation and English was performed as well as that of the sound systems of individual Slovene dialects and the English one. Error analysis (EA) of the obtained results showed that L1 dialect interference did not occur in the instances predicted by contrastive analysis; however the study in itself did prove the existence of such inluence (“magnet efect” in vowels). Key words: “magnet efect”, monophthongs, L1 dialect interference, pronunciation of English »Magnetni učinek« – močan vir vpliva narečja materinščine na izgovorjavo angleščine kot tujega jezika Povzetek Wieden in Nemser (1991) sta v Avstriji izvedla nacionalno raziskavo o razvojnem značaju izgovorjave angleščine kot tujega jezika. Eden glavnih ciljev raziskave je bil vpliv prvega jezika (ali dialekta). Posamezne znanstvene raziskave so pokazale, da na izgovorjavo drugega ali tujega jezika (TJ) ne vpliva le standardna varianta materinščine, temveč tudi dialekt območja, iz katerega govorec/ učenec izvira (Karpf et al. 1980). Raziskava, ki sta jo izvedla Wieden in Nemser naj bi to dokazala na vsej avstrijski populaciji. Podobna raziskava je nastala tudi za območje Slovenije (Jurančič Petek 2007). V njej je bila izvedena kontrastivna analiza slovenske knjižne izgovorjave in angleščine ter tudi analiza glasovnih sistemov slovenskih narečij v primerjavi z angleškim. Sledila je analiza napak, ki je pokazala, da se vpliv narečij materinščine ni pokazal tam, kjer ga je predvidela kontrastivna analiza, je pa raziskava dokazala, da takšen vpliv obstaja (»magnetni učinek« v samoglasnikih). Ključne besede: »magnetni učinek«, monoftongi, vpliv narečja materinščine, izgovorjava angleščine UDK 811.111’355’243 LANGUAGE 45