| dc.description.abstract | SLOVENE: Poglavitni cilj pričujoče raziskave je ugotavljanje možnosti za merjenje produktivnosti besedotvornih vzorcev oz. besedotvornih postopkov, kar očitno še ni bilo izvedeno za noben jezik. Gradivo za študijo predstavljata dva nasprotujoča si izpridevniška besedotvorna vzorca: "inhoativno" obrazilo -eti in "faktitivno" obrazilo -iti, kot npr. rjav → rjaveti 'postajati rjav' proti rjaviti 'delati rjavo'. Analiza je bila izpeljana na osnovi psihološkega testiranja, ki je bilo izvedeno v Ljubljani v letih 1993—94. L. 1993 je bilo testirano 186 dijakov in 180 dodiplomskih študentov. V nadaljevanju l. 1994 je bilo testiranje omejeno na tri skupine univerzitetnih študentov, ki jih je sestavljalo skupaj 116 oseb. Zastavljena so bila štiri vprašanja: (1) Ali se po vašem beseda nahaja v knjižni slovenščini? (2) Ali vi to besedo kdaj uporabljate? (3) Ali je ta beseda po vašem možna in razumljiva? in (4) Kako pogosto sami uporabljate to besedo? Testirani so izbirali med petimi možnostmi, ki so bile rangirane po Likertovi lestvici, in podatki so bili nato statistično obdelani. Kar zadeva produktivnost, se je izkazalo — vsaj za ta dva besedotvorna vzorca —, da jo lahko opišemo kot poševni potek, vendar v dveh različnih pomenih tega izraza. Prvi pomen je samoumeven: en postopek je lahko bolj produktiven kot drugi. Drugi pomen je ta, da t.i. "produktivna moč" lahko variira. Če vzamemo dva primera iz srednjih odgovorov na vprašanje (3), je razvidno, da je bila beseda godneti povprečno ocenjena kot skrajno "možna in razumljiva", medtem ko je bila na drugem koncu lestvice beseda plašeti ocenjena kot skorajda nemogoča. Med tema dvema skrajnostma se vrstijo vse druge vprašane besede. Drugič, obstaja velika razlika med vrstno pogostnostjo in produktivnostjo. Na to pogosto kažejo precejšne razlike med odgovori v zvezi z isto vprašano besedo, na vprašanje (4) in druga vprašanja. Tretjič, zdi se, da nam merilo za relativno produktivnost raličnih vzorcev daje posebna formula. Ta formula je (p - u) ÷ u, pri čemer je p srednja vrednost za odgovore na vprašanje (3), u pa sredina odgovorov na vprašanje (2). Formula izraža količino, za katero odgovori na vprašanje (3) (povprečno) presegajo odgovore na vprašanje (2). Ta razlika je drugačna za dejanske besede in za izmišljene besede. Podatki iz raziskave v Ljubljani l. 1993, z uporabo omenjene formule, kažejo, da je — kot je bilo pričakovano — obrazilo -iti bolj produktivno kot -eti. Za preverjenje tega rezultata je bilo izvedeno drugo testiranje l. 1994 in rezultati so bili pritrdilni. Kljub temu so ti rezultati v več pogledih le pripravljalne narave. Priporočamo obnovitev in razširitev testiranja. Poleg tega, je bil kot podpostopek testiranja v zvezi z vprašanjem (2) raziskan pojav "blokiranja". Čeprav rezultati niso dokončni, so zgovorni, in test lahko prilagodimo za raziskavo tega pojava. Prišli smo še do dveh drugih zaključkov, ki pa nista v zvezi z besedotvorno produktivnostjo. Nekateri kvalifikatorji, ki jih navaja SSKJ za glagole v testih, se zdijo na osnovi srednjih odgovorov na vprašanje (4) nepravilni. Ta rezultat morda velja le za subjekte testiranja, ki so večinoma stari 16 do 24 let. Menimo pa, da bi se kvalifikatorje izplačalo ponovno oceniti in, če je mogoče, tudi empirično utemeljiti. Podatki o subjektih, ki so opravili teste, so bili analizirani glede na odgovore na vprašanje (1). Izsledki te analize kažejo, da je zavedanje slovenske knjižne norme večje, če ima subjekt višjo intelektualno in/ali izobrazbeno stopnjo, če je iz osrednjih slovenskih narečnih skupin, če ima starše z višjo izobrazbo in/ali višjim družbeno-gospodarskim položajem in če je bil izšolan za večjo rabo jezika pri delu. Poleg tega se ženske bolj zavedajo norme kot moški. Ti rezultati imajo pomen za šolske učitelje slovenščine. ENGLISH: The major aim of the study reported here was to discover a way of measuring the productivity of derivative patterns or processes, a task which appears never to have been accomplished for any language before. As specific material for the study, two contrasting deadjectival verbal derivative patterns were chosen: the 'inchoative' -eti and the 'factitive' -iti, as occurring in, e.g., rjav 'brown', rjaveti 'to become brown', rjaviti 'to make (someone or something) brown.' The method involved psycholinguistic tests, administered in Ljubljana in 1993—94. The subjects for the tests in 1993 were 186 secondary and 180 post-secondary students. For the 1994 follow-up study the tests were limited to three groups of university respondents, totalling 116 in all. Cues comprised four questions: (1) Ali se po vašem beseda nahaja v knjižni slovenščini? (2) Ali vi to besedo kdaj uporabljate? (3) Ali je ta beseda po vašem možna in razumljiva? and (4) Kako pogosto sami uporabljate to besedo? Subjects selected responses on five-point Likert scales; the data were analyzed statistically. As far as productivity is concerned, there are three conclusions. First, it is clear that, at least for these derivative patterns, productivity is a "cline,'' but in two quite distinct meanings of the term. First and most obviously, one process may be synchronically more productive than another. Second, what may be called the productive strength of any one process also varies. To take just two examples from the mean responses to question (3), we see that the cue godneti was assessed, on average, as extremely "possible and understandable,'' while at the other end of the scale the cue plašeti was assessed, on average, as well nigh impossible and incomprehensible; the remaining cues are strung out along the cline in between the two. Second, there is an enormous difference between type frequency and productivity; this is shown specifically by the often very significant differences between answers, for the same cue, to question (4) and the other questions. Third, one particular formula appears to provide a measure of the relative productivity of different patterns. This formula is expressed as (p - u) ÷ u, where p is the mean for responses to question (3) and u is the mean for responses to question (2). The formula expresses the amount by which (on average) the responses to Question 3 exceed the responses to Question 2; and this disparity, in turn, is significantly different for real words as compared with made-up words. The data from the experiments in Ljubljana in 1993 showed, using this formula in these applications, that — as hypothesized — -iti is more productive than -eti. To test this finding, a second set of tests were administered in 1994, with confirmatory results. There are however several respects in which this finding must be considered preliminary; replication and extension of the tests is urged. In addition, the phenomenon known as 'blocking' was investigated with one sub-routine to tests involving question (2). The results, though inconclusive, are suggestive, and this test may be adapted for further investigation of this phenomenon. Incidentally, two other conclusions, having nothing to do with derivational productivity, were reached. Several of the kvalifikatorji that are provided in the SSKJ for verbs used in the tests appear, on the evidence of mean responses to question (4), to be incorrect; this finding may only apply to the subjects in the tests, who were mostly aged between 16 and 24; but it is suggested that the kvalifikatorji deserve re-examination and, if possible, empirical justification. Finally, information collected about the subjects who did the tests was analyzed with respect to answers to question (1). A higher awareness of the norm of Standard Slovene was reported by those at a more advanced intellectual or educational level; by those who had a personal and family background based in central, rather than peripheral, dialects of Slovene; by those whose parents were better educated and of a higher socio-economic status; and by those who used, or were being trained to use, language more rather than less in their occupations. In addition, females reported a more heightened awareness of the norm than males. This has implications for teachers of the Slovene language in schools. | |
