Broker or Brokerka? Factors Governing Bulgarian Derivation of Feminine Personal Nouns (2008)

Broker or brokerka? Linguistic factors governing derivation of Bulgarian feminine personal nouns

Paola Bocale

University of Cambridge

Maskulinizacija, i.e. the use of masculine generic nouns, in Bulgarian

Current issue: what factors motivate the use and formation of feminine personal nouns in Bulgarian?

Data collection

Results

Conclusions

Outline of talk

The use of leaving unaltered in the masculine the name of profession (something called maskulinizacija in the Bulgarian linguistic tradition), has been repeatedly condemned by Bulgarian linguists, who considered it an influence of Russian linguistic practice [Andrejčin 1974: 440-441; Babov 1964: 209-214; Molxova 1970: 917; Murdarov 1983: 172-173].

Babov pointed to the fact that Bulgarian morphology allows feminine nouns to be derived from almost all types of masculine nouns because the Bulgarian derivational system doesn’t have the stylistic constraints that, on the opposite, limit feminine derivation in Russian.

Babov also stressed that in Bulgarian seldom there are stylistic differences between masculine nouns and their feminine equivalents: even those feminine derivatives which are more typical of spoken language such as ministărka ‘woman minister’, generalka ‘woman general’, oficerka ‘woman officer’, profesorka ‘woman professor’ are not felt to be derogatory.

Bulgarian masculine generic nouns

Andrejčin [1956; 1969; 1974] devoted several works to the maskulinizacija. What he felt most worried about was the fact that this use was spreading from the formal registers to the more colloquial ones, something he felt was against the Bulgarian linguistic system and even the dignity of Bulgarian women (almost a feminist stance!): ‘In its nature this phenomenon (maskulinizacija) violates the nature and the spirit of our language [...]. A woman should be respected as a woman in any case, in production, in the cultural life, in everyday life, and in the linguistic practice which has been created since long by our people’.

Murdarov [1983], whilst admitting that the use of masculine nouns to refer to women who carry out certain professions or hold some social roles is due to Russian influence, believes that there are some masculine nouns such as akademik ‘academician’, docent ‘lecturer’, ministăr ‘minister’, profesor ‘professor’ from which it is impossible to form feminine equivalents. These nouns are considered by Murdarov nouns of common gender, i.e. nouns who can have both masculine and feminine referents and that have the possibility of selecting both the masculine and feminine agreement depending on the sex of the referent.


After the end of the socialist rule the issue of maskulinizacija has been again the object of the attention of Bulgarian linguists.

Sumrova [2001/2002] gives a detailed report on the issue. She analyzes all the factors brought forward in explaining maskulinizacija:

pragmatic causes (the comunicative relevance of the information on the feature [+woman]), morphological constraints (some masculine nouns block the derivation of feminine equivalents), syntactic constraints (some constructions select a masculine noun in predicative position) and stylistic biases (the use of the masculine form to refer to women is typical of official registers).

Supporting her argumentations with a detailed analysis of different cases, Sumrova notes that many of these factors do not hold up when confronted with examples of contemporary Bulgarian usage, which is characterized by the derivation of new feminine nouns and the use of existing ones even in those syntactic domains where supposedly was not possible.

Sumrova, however, doesn’t explain why Bulgarian systematically derives new feminine nouns. She only notes that a specific and concrete reference usually triggers the use of a feminine noun.


Issue: what factors motivate the use and formation of feminine personal nouns in Bulgarian?

In order to investigate the factors motivating the derivation, use and patters of agreement of feminine nouns, a questionnaire has been prepared, which was administered to three classes of students of ‘Neofit Rilski’ South-West University (Blagoevrad) and to some inhabitants of the capital for a total of 79 responses.

The sentences were formulated on the basis of the literature on the topic, i.e. each one aimed at investigating an aspect of derivational morphology which has been discussed or pointed out as problematic.

Data collection

Пол: Ж / М Възраст: Образование: Месторождение: Постоянно местожителство: 1. Председате_____ на Организацията на българските жени К.Чангърова отпътува за Индия. 2. Детето живее с бабата си, след развода на родителите си и депресията на майката си, счетоводите________ по

професия. 3. Подполковни ____роди момиченце в ямболския гарнизон! Добре си свършили работата д-р Антонета Кристева и

акушерката Гинка Иванова, които помогнали на подполковни ___ да роди. 4. Пристигащата днес в София министъ____- председате____ на Финландия направи изявление пред представителите

на средствата за масова информация. След това министъ______ е участвувала на съвещанието. 5. Невена Иванова, доцен_____ във Велико Търново, била назначена за директо______. 6. Освен спътни_____ в творческата работа на писателя, Катя била и помощни_____ на съпруга си и изпълнит_______на

капризите му. 7. Избраха я за секрета______ на организацията. 8. Аз държа на себе си предимно като артис_______ и много искам да бъда харесвана от почитателите си. 9. С голям интерес беше изслушана лекцията на А. Павлицка, кандида_____ на науките. 10. Следственото дело срещу подуправите________ на БНБ беше образувано на 9 юни т.г. Емилия Миланова е

разследвана заради фалита на ….. 11. Майката стоеше на тия сборове като почет_______ гост________. 12. От няколко дни Амзина е геро_______ на журналистите и многобройните любители на леката атлетика. 13. Това дело стана причина да се срещна с Лиляна, завежда______ отдел «Младежки». 14. На първа страница е публикуван очерк за Безценка Гигова, съдия-изпълните______. 15. Професо_____ Иванова е участвувала на срещата. Доцен_____ е представила новите плани на факултета. 16. Министъ_______ на Финансите е била посрещната на летището 17. В правителството е и Ива Молхова, извест______ лингвис_____. 18. Председате________на Асоциация на българските студенти Ел. Лагадинова е представите_______ на фестивала. 19. Полица____ Славова става за пръв път майка. Полица_______ е заявила, че сега тя иска новата работа. 20. Професорът имал ед______ науч______ сътрудни___ – писате_____ Милена Сумрова. 21. Воде_____ предаването, бивш_______ кмет______ на Русе Йонка Коцева, тръгна за Рим. 22. Завежда_____-отделението М. Йорданова споделя своя опит при двустепенното медицинско обслужване. 23. Член на организацията станала депута_______ Ванина Велева. 24. Като прокуро______, тя е неопитна.

Results: structural factors

Among structural factors stimulating the derivation

and the use of a feminine noun there is the syntactic and semantic role of the noun in the sentence. Subjects favour the use of a feminine noun, as it emerged from the comparison between the results of the sentences no. 1 and no. 2, where the same professional noun, predsedatel ‘president’, when used as an apposition, a subsidiary position without syntactic relevance, activates only 7.8 % of feminine forms, whereas in the sentence no. 2, where is the subject of a clause, the occurrences of feminine forms reach 32.5 %.

1. Predsedate____ na Organizacija-ta na bǎlgarski-te ženi

chair of organization-the of Bulgarian-the women

К. Čangărova otpǎtuva za Indija.

K. Čangărova left for India

“The Chair of the Organization of Bulgarian women K. Čangărova left to India”.

ljat = 70,1 % l = 3,9 %

lkata = 6,5 % la = 2,6 %

lja = 14,3 % lka = 1,3 %

NA = 1,3 %


Results: structural factors The name predsedatel ‘chair’ was included because it is

often mentioned in studies on maskulinizacija among those nouns that are more likely used with female referents, although there is a feminine derivative noun predsedatelka [Manoleva 1996: 64]. Syntactically this sentence was shaped on an example given by Čangărova [1983: 55] as one of the instances when a professional name in attributive position can be used both in the generic masculine form and in a derived feminine form.

The 90.9 % of informants chose the masculine form here, articulated (with the long or short form of the article) or not, whereas the 7.8% the feminine form, in the majority of cases articulated. A small percentage used a plural form, which is not grammatical in this case.

2. Pristigašta-ta dnes v Sofija ministǎr-predsedate _(a)_ na Finlandija napravi arrived.F-the today in Sofija minister.president of Finland did izjavlenie pred predstaviteli-te na sredstva-ta statement in.the.presence.of representatives-the of media-the za masova informacija. for mass information Sled tova ministǎ ___(b)__ e učastvuvala na sǎveštanie-to. after that minister AUX taken.part.F at meeting-the “The prime minister of Finland, who arrived in Sofia today, released a statement in the

presence of the mass media. Afterwards the minister took part in a meeting”. 2.а l = 50,7 % 2. b rǎt = 66,2 % lka = 29,9 % rkata = 24,7 % ljat = 14,3 % ra = 5,2 % lkata = 2,6 % r = 1,3 % lja = 2,6 % eršata = 1,3 %

NA = 1,3 %



If compared with sentence no. 1, here the same professional noun, predsedatel, has a different syntactic function and there is a different linear distance between the target and the controller. It is interesting that a feminine form was selected by the 32.5 % of informants in the first clause and by the 26% in the second, percentages which are significantly higher of the 7.8% we found in the sentence no. 1. A subject, which in the first clause follows a co-referential participial form, marked for gender, and a topical function motivate the use of a feminine form.

3. Nevena Ivanova, docen_(a)_ vǎv Veliko Tǎrnovo, bila naznačena Nevena Ivanova professor in Veliko Tǎrnovo has.been.F appointed.F za direkto_(b)_. for director “Nevena Ivanova, who is a professor in Veliko Tǎrnovo, has been appointed

as director”. 3.а t 83.1 % 3. b r 83.1 % tka 15.6 % rka 15.6 % tkata 1.3 % NA 1.3 %


Results: structural factors In this sentence 16.9 % of informants used a feminine form in

the first clause, an attributive NP, and 15.6 % in the second, predicative NP. These percentages are interesting if we consider that Murdarov [1983: 173] includes docent among those nouns that cannot derive a feminine form. Another factor that could prevent the use of a feminine form here is syntactical. Sumrova [2001-2002: 122] believes that copulative constructions such as raboti kato ‘(she) works as’, izbrana za ‘(she) was chosen as’, naznačena za ‘(she) was appointed as’, v kačestvoto si na ‘in her capacity of’ and stava ‘(she) began’ seem to favour the use of a masculine form. However, notwithstanding all the cons, results show that for a certain number of informants feminine forms exist and are used.

4. Profeso___(a)__ Ivanova e učastvuvala na srešta-ta. Docen__(b)_ professor Ivanova AUX taken.part.F at meeting-the professor e predstavila novi-te planove na fakultet-a. AUX presented.F new-the plans of faculty-the “Professor Ivanova has taken part at the meeting. The professor has presented

the new plans of the Faculty”. 4. r 97.4 % 4. b tǎt 33.7 % rkata 1.3 % tkata 27.3% rǎt 1.3 % t 26 % ta 6.5 % tka 5.2 % NA 1.3 %



In the first clause we have a hybrid in appositive position which seems to allow in the majority of cases the use of a masculine form. In Bulgarian nouns used as appositions are not articulated, a factor which, in my opinion, contributes to the use of the masculine form. In the second clause 32.5% of informants use docentka (in the majority of cases in the articulated form docentkata). Here the professional noun is the subject of the clause and the controller of a VP formed by a perfect form of the verb marked for gender (feminine) and number (singular) and an auxiliary marked for tense (present) and number (singular). From the point of view of the informative structure the subject of the second clause is given and morphologically marked as definite by the definite article. The syntactic position and the pragmatic function of the hybrid are factors motivating the use of the feminine form.

The analysis of the sentences no. 4 and 5, which were compared with sentences no. 6, 7 and 8, where the noun in appositive position is not accompanied by the definite article, shows that wherever the noun is morphologically marked as definite, percentages of use of the feminine form rise significantly. Even if the Bulgarian article is morphophonologically conditioned by the word it is bound to, it remains nevertheless a bimorphemic element in which the second morpheme, marking the gender, reinforces the gender mark of the “host” word, stimulating agreement among the different phrase constituents.


5. Člen na organizacija-ta stanala deputa_____ Vanina Veleva. member of organization-the began.F member.of.parliament Vanina Veleva “The MP Vanina Veleva began a member of the organization”. t 39 % ta 6.5 % tkata 32.5 % NA 2.6 % tǎt 19.5 % 6. Dete-to živee s baba-ta si, sled razvod-a na roditeli-te child-the lives with grandmother-the POSS after divorce-the of parents-the si i depresija-ta na majka si sčetovodite____ POSS and depression-the of mother POSS accountant po profesija. by profession “The child lives with his/her granny after the divorce of his/her parents and the depression

of his/her mother, an accountant by profession”. l 63.6 % lja 5.2 % lka 16.9 % ljat 1.3 % li 11.7 % la 1.3 %


7. Zavežda____-otdelenie-to M. Jordanova spodelja svo-ja opit director- department-the M. Jordanova shared POSS-the experience pri dvustepenno-to medicinsko obslužvane on two.level-the medical service “The Director of the Department M. Jordanova shared her opinion about the two-level

medical service”. št 66.2 % štata 5.2 % šta 19.5 % štija 1.3 % štija 7.8 % 8. Kato prokuro______, tja e neopitna. as attorney she is inexperienced.F “She is inexperienced as an attorney”. r 88.3 % NA 2.6 % rka 9.1 %


Another structural factor which seems to play a role in the derivation of a feminine form is the order target-controller, a hypothesis suggested by Corbett [2006: 180]. The comparison of the sentences no. 9 and no. 7 shows that the same target, the participial noun zaveždašt ‘manager’ (chosen because it is considered a typical example of maskulinizacija) in a sentence where precedes the controller selects 17% of feminine forms (the sentence no. 9), whereas if it follows it (no. 7) the feminine form is used by 47.2 % of speakers.


9. Tova delo stana pričina da se sreštna s Liljana that affair began reason to REFL meet with Liljana zavežda______ otdel “Mladežki”. manager department youth “That affair was the reason to meet with Liljana, the manager of the youth department”. šta 51.9 % štata 1.3 % št 45.5 % štija 1.3 % 7. Zavežda____-otdelenie-to M. Jordanova spodelja svo-ja opit director -department-the M. Jordanova shared POSS-the experience pri dvustepenno-to medicinsko obslužvane on two.level-the medical service “The Director of the Department M. Jordanova shared her opinion about the two-level medical service”. št 66.2 % štata 5.2 % šta 19.5 % štija 1.3 % štijat 7.8 %


In order to verify if the semantic value [+ socially prestigious] of the professional noun could play a role in the use of the masculine or feminine form the sentences no. 4 and 10 were included in the questionnaire. In both sentences the same nouns were placed in the same syntactic environments. The only semantic feature distinguishing them is [+ socially prestigious]: in one case the nouns profesor ‘professor’ and docent ‘lecturer, professor’ (in the sentence no. 4) were used, in the other the noun policaj ‘policeman’ (in the sentence no. 10). Results show that in appositive position the masculine noun continues to be used in both sentences by the majority of informants, independently of its semantic value, while if it has a syntactically autonomous position the percentages of use of a feminine noun denoting a more common job make up almost half (45,3%) of the total. On the basis of these results it would seem, therefore, that the semantic value of the hybrid noun plays a role in the derivation of a feminine form.

Results: semantic factors

4. Profeso___(a)__ Ivanova e učastvuvala na srešta-ta. Docen__(b)___ professor Ivanova AUX taken.part.F at meeting-the professor e predstavila novi-te planove na fakultet-a. AUX presented.F new-the plans of faculty-the “Professor Ivanova has taken part at the meeting. The professor has presented the new plans of the

Faculty”. 4.а r 97.4 % 4. b tǎt 33.7 % rkata 1.3 % tkata 27.3 % rǎt 1.3 % t 26 % ta 6.5 % tka 5.2 % NA 1.3 % 10. Polica____ Slavova stava za prǎv pǎt majka. Polica______ police.officer Slavova becomes for first time mother police.officer e zajavila, če sega tja iska nova-ta rabota. AUX declared.F that now she looks.for new-the job “The police officer Slavova has become a mother for the first time. The police officer has declared that

now she is looking for a new job”. 10.а j 75.3 % 10. b jkata 50.7 % jat 16.9 % jat 39 % jkata 6.5 % jat 3.9 % NA 1.3 % ja 2.6 % NA 1.3 %

Results: semantic factors

From the point of view of pragmatics, the informative function seems to play a role in selecting the feminine form. The comparison between the sentences no. 11 and no. 12 shows that masculine generic nouns (pisatel ‘writer’) and similar set phrases, denoting titles (kandidat na naukite ‘Candidate in Sciences (Ph.D.)’) and naučen sǎtrudnik ‘researcher’) activate higher percentages of use of a feminine form if they are placed in the rhematic, pragmatically marked, part of the sentence.

Results: pragmatic factors

11. S goljam interes beše izslušana lekcija-ta na А. Pavlicka, with great interest was heard.F lesson-the of A. Pavlicka kandida_______ na nauki-te. candidate of sciences-the “The lesson by A. Pavlicka, a Doctor in Sciences, was attended with great interest”. t 92.2 % tka 6.5 % tkata 1.3 % 12. Profesor-ǎt imal ed__(a)__ nauč_(b)_ sǎtrudni__(c)___ professor-the had.M one scientific collaborator - pisate___(d)___ Milena Sumrova. writer Milena Sumrova “The professor had one research associate, the writer Milena Sumrova”. 12.а in 66.2 % 12.с k 72.7 % na 31.2 % čka 23.4 % NA 2.6 % ca 1.3 % NA 2.6 % 12. b en 66.2 % 12.d lkata 39 % na 31.2 % l 33.8 % NA 2.6 % ljat 11.7 % lka 11.7 % lja 1.3 %

NA 2.6 %


13. Osven spǎtni___(a)__ v tvorčeska-ta rabota na pisatel-ja besides companion in artistic-the work of writer-the Katja bila i pomoštni___(b)_ na sǎprug-a si i Katja was.F and assistant of spouse-the POSS and bezprekosloven izpǎlnit__(c)___ na kaprizi-te mu. unquestioning performer of whims-the POSS “Besides being a companion in the writer’s artistic work, Katja was an assistant to her

spouse and an unquestioning performer of his whims”. 13.а k 72.7 % 13.c el 93.5 % čka 13 % elka 3.9 % ca 11.7 % NA 2.6 % ka 2.6 % 13.b k 76.6 % čka 15.6 % ca 7.8 %


The main conclusions that emerged from the analysis of the questionnaires are the following:

a major role if the derivation of a feminine form is played by structural factors such as syntactic function, morphological definiteness, precedence

the semantic value of the noun may play a role in the use of a feminine form

the informative structure of the sentence may trigger the use of a term reflecting referential gender

Conclusions

L. Andrejčin. 1956. “Dali drugarkata X. e „člen” ili „členka” na dadena organizacija”, Bălgarski ezik, 1/1956, p. 70.

L. Andrejčin. 1969. “Obrăšenija kăm služitelki ženi”, Bălgarski ezik, 1/1969, pp. 59-60.

L. Andrejčin. 1974. “Zašto prodălžavame da nazovavame i tituluvame ženite s forma za măžki rod?”, Bălgarski ezik, XXIV (1974), 5, pp. 440-441.

K. Babov. 1964. “Dumite v ruski ezik “kosmonavt - ženščina kosmonavt” i technite bălgarski săotvetstvija”, Bălgarski ezik XIV (1964), 2.

G.C. Corbett. 2006. Agreement, Cambridge: CUP.

Ž. Molxova. 1970. “Rodǎt na sǎštestvitelnoto ime - presečna točka na različni strukturni niva”, NIBE (Izvestija na instituta na bǎlgarski ezik), 19/1970.

V. Murdarov. 1983. “Osoben slučaj na sǎglasuvane po rod”, Bălgarski ezik, XXXI (1983), 2.

V. Sumrova. 2001/2002. “Problemăt za maskulinizacijata na săštestvitelnite imena”, Bălgarski ezik,

1/2001-2002, pp. 120-125.

References

Broker or Brokerka? Factors Governing Bulgarian Derivation of Feminine Personal Nouns (2008)

Documents

Transcript of Broker or Brokerka? Factors Governing Bulgarian Derivation of Feminine Personal Nouns (2008)