THE MACEDONIAN TRIPARTITE ARTICLE: A DISCOURSEORIENTED ACCOUNT

Barbara SONNENHAUSER

1. The definite article in Macedonian

Grammars, textbooks and linguistic descriptions usually assume the existence of a
postponed tripartite definite article in the Macedonian literary language (e.g., Lyons
1999: 56, Friedman 2002: 261, Rehder 1998: 337, Weiss 1996: 430, Lunt 1952: 41f,
1996: 228-230, - 2000: 44f, 2007: 51).2 More
recently, the analysis of the respective forms , and as articles is questioned,
mainly on functional and semantic grounds (cf. 2006: 9, Mendoza 2004:
172). The present paper will remain agnostic towards that question, neither will it touch
upon the issue of how to account for these forms morphologically and syntactically.
The focus will rather be on the functioning and the interaction of , and
they will still be referred to as articles on the text level. Since textbooks and grammars
usually cite isolated examples, they fail to recognise the central function of these forms:
the introduction of perspectives into the discourse. These perspectives and the question of
how they can be accounted for in terms of the semantics of the article forms will be
discussed in this paper.
1.1 Deixis
Traditionally, the tripartite article in Macedonian is accounted for in terms of spatial and
temporal deixis, with t being neutral in this respect, expressing the closeness of the
denoted object to the speaker and expressing its remoteness from the speaker, cf. (1):
(1)
a. t (neutral)
b. (proximal)
c. (distal)
The examples in (2) illustrate this function in real life texts:
(2)

a. : ! []

b. , ,
, .
[http://forums.vmacedonia.com/f33/forumski-tsitati-1652/, 01.03.09]
Because of this deictic component displayed by and , (1996: 229) regards
the examples in (3) as infelicitous. In (3a), the request for a second person to hand over a
book which is already close to the speaker indicated by sounds inconsistent
according to him. The same holds for (3b), with the giving of a book which is far from
the speaker indicated by to another person:
(3)

a. ?j ja

b. ? ja
Within an appropriate context, however, these examples may very well be fine. This can
also be seen from examples as (4), where a second person pronoun is combined with the
alleged proximal article :
(4)

a. [] []

b. ,
. []
The deictic component of and illustrated in this section is assumed to
differentiate both from the deictically unmarked and is one of the reasons for why
both forms are sometimes denied their status as articles.
1.2 Anaphora
Despite its deictic component, may also be used anaphorically (cf., e.g.,
- 2000: 128f) and hence assume a function typical of articles.
Accordingly, in (5aii) anaphorically refers to in (5ai), as do
in (5bii) and tt in (5biii) to in (5bi):
(5)
a. . . ,
(i) [] , , , (ii) ,
, . [ , 2000: 56]
b. (i) . (ii)
. , (iii) tt.
, , . [ ,
2000: 72]3
1.3 Further interpretations-expresivity
Besides the expression of deixis and anaphoricity, and are ascribed further
interpretations, such as expressivity (cf. 1974, 2006). Within their specific
context, and t in (6a,b) are assigned a slightly positive evaluation, whereas
o, and in (7a,b) suggest a negative evaluation, again induced by the
context.
(6)
a. , . - - !
[]
b. : .
: , .
.
. []
(7)
a. , , . .
, , ,
- , . []

b. . , ,
. [] Another possible interpretation of
and is possessivity (cf. 2005: 143).
Interpreting in (8a) as in the world close to me/the speaker would
make as little sense as interpreting in (8b) as in the country close to me/the
speaker. Rather, both NPs are interpreted possessively, i.e. my world and our country.
(8)

a. . .

. []
b. ,
. [http://www.novamakedonija.com.mk, 4.5.09]
Due to its unmarkedness with respect to deixis and due to its relation to the other
two forms, may also be interpreted as expressing closeness to the hearer (
1996: 229, - 2000: 127, Tomi 2006: 56). (1996: 229)
illustrates this with the examples in (9):
(9)

a. ( )
b. ( )
c. t ( , )

In cases where the denoted object can be assumed to be close to the hearer, as in
(9c), may thus be interpreted deictically. This can be seen also in (10), where our
stout children ( ) are opposed to your fragile ( ) such
that can be interpreted as indicating closeness to the addressee:
(10) , ,
, , . []
, .
[]
(1996: 230) summarises this interaction of the three forms as follows:
, a -, - a
[cf. (9), B.S.] -,
- - -,
.
This actually amounts to emphasising that the articles need to be analysed within
whole texts, i.e. that analyses of isolated examples have to be replaced by analyses of
their interaction. This direction of research with its focus on the discourse behaviour of
the respective forms is supported also by the various problems arising with traditional
analyses.