Pa, a modifier of connectives

8/6/2019 Pa, a modifier of connectives

1/45


2/45

Within this four general uses, 29 distinctions are made.

Ad a)

I for expressing opposing propositions

(1) Obljubil je bil, pa ni drzal besede.

He promised, pa (and, but) did not keep his word.'

II for expressing the unexpected

(2) Nihce ni mislil nanjo, pa je stopila v hiso.

'No one was thinking about her, pa (and, but) she entered the house.'

III for expressing moderate opposition

(3) Po travi so pajcevine, na njih pa se blesci rosa.

'There are cobwebs on the grass, pa (and) dew sparkles on them.'

IV for enlargement (explanation of what has previously been said)

(4) Potrebno nam je znanje, pa resnicno znanje.

'What we need is knowledge, pa (but) real knowledge.'

V for reinforcement (of the adverb which introduces the last lexical unit of a sequence)

(5) Dela v tovarni, hodi na lov, pa se kmetuje pomalem.

'He works in the factory, hunts, pa (and, but) also farms a little.'

VI for gradation

(6) Pozdrav vsem, posebno pa ocetu.

'Greetings to everyone, pa (and, but) particularly to father.'

VII for expressing a causative-consecutive relation

(7) Ni placal davkov, pa so ga rubili.

'He did not pay his taxes, pa (and) they seized his property.'

VIII for expressing a causative-conclusive relation

(8) To je zanimiv primer, pa je prav, da si ga ogledamo.


3/45

'This is an interesting case, pa (and) it is proper that we examine it.'

IX for expressing a conditional-consecutive relation

(9) Njo bi vzel, pa bi bilo drugace.

'He should have taken her, pa (and) it would be different.'

X for expressing a fact despite which the action in the previous clause is performed

(10) Joze je odlicnjak, pa nima instruktorja kakor ti.

'Joze is an A student, pa (and, but) he has no private tutor like you do.'

XI for emphasizing opposition

(11) Moja bo obveljala, pa ce se na glavo postavis.

'I am right, pa (and) if you stand on your head.'

Ad b)

XII for linking two equivalent lexical units

(12) Pospravi kroznike pa kar je se na mizi.

'Put away the plates pa (and) what else is on the table.'

XIII for linking the last two lexical units

(13) Sumenje macesnov, borovcev pa smrek.

'The rustling of larch trees, pine trees pa (and) spruce trees.'

XIV for stepped emphasis of lexical units

(14) Fant je se mlad pa norcav pa zaljubljen.

'The boy is still young pa (and) clownish pa (and) in love.'

XV for combining two similar notions into a single semantic unit

(15) Ves vik pa krik je zaman.

'All this howling pa (and) yowling is of no use.'

XVI for expressing large quantity or high degree

(16) Tam je sam pesek, pa spet pesek.


4/45

'There is nothing but sand, pa (and) more sand.'

XVII for adding, counting

(17) Star je pet let pa tri mesece.

'He is five pa (and) three months.'

XVIII for addition

(18) Povedala je samo materi, pa (se) teti.

'She told it only to mother, pa (and) (also) to the aunt.'

XIX - in set expressions such as ta pa ta (that and that) and tak pa tak (such and such) to

refer to a known person or thing which can not be revealed

(19) To pa to bi bilo treba urediti.

'This pa (and) this would still have to be arranged.'

Ad c)

XX - for linking two clauses, expressing simultaneity or sequentiality

(20) Pili so, peli pa sale zbijali.

'They drank, sang pa (and) told jokes.'

XXI - for stepped emphasis of sentences

(21) Fant hodi samo v kino pa gleda televizijo pa bere stripe.

'All the boy does is go to the cinema pa (and) watch TV pa (and) read comic books.'

XXII - for combining two similar verbs into a meaningful unit

(22) Ves dan vpije pa razgraja.

'He screams pa (and) roisters all day.'

XXIII - for expressing intensity of action

(23) Ne dam pa ne dam.

'I will not pa (and) will not give it to you.'

XXIV - for expressing intention


5/45

(24) Pojdi pa zapri vrata.

'Go pa (and) close the door.'

Ad d)

XXV - for expressing the same meanings as in a) and c)

XXVI - expressively

(25) Bodite mirni. Pa nobenega sepetanja.

'Be quiet. Pa (and) no whispering.'

XXVII - for referring to what has previously been said

(26) Jaz sem koncal. Pa ti?

'I'm finished. Pa (and) you?'

XXVIII - for calling attention to a transition to another thought

(27) Pa se to. Vceraj mi je pisal Janez.

'Pa (and) one more thing. Yesterday I got a letter from Janez.'

XXIX - for expressing wonder, astonishment, reluctance

(28) Pa da mi nikdar vec ne gres tja.

'Pa (and) don't you ever go there again.'

Almost all of these uses could in fact be translated by and (and sometimes but) or, more

exactly, be replaced by in, which is the Slovenian (unmarked) counterpart of the English and.

If we check this classification against the corpus of Slovenian (spoken and written)

languageNova beseda (New word)2, we realize pretty quickly that there is yet another use of

pa. Compare examples (29)-(31) with examples (32)-(36):

(29) JANKO: Drugace te ne bi ovadil. Sicer pa, kaj naj drugega pocnem. Naj jarke kopljem?

'JANKO: Otherwise I wouldn't turn you in. Sicer pa (Anyway), what else am I supposed

to do? Dig trenches?' 3

(30) Postala je ujetnica v zlati kletki in ugrabitelj je uporabil vsa sredstva, ki jih ponuja


6/45

bogastvo, da bi jo omrezil in zapeljal. Ker pa je premogla veliko dusevno moc, v kateri

jo je podpirala vera, ni popustila prilizovanjem tega cloveka, ki je bil za

kraljem najmogocnejsi veljak Anglije.

'She became a prisoner in a golden cage, and her kidnapper used all the means the

wealth can offer to draw her into his net and seduce her. But since (Ker pa) she

possessed great spiritual power, supported by her faith, she didn't give in to the flattery

of this man of note, the most potent one after the King of England.' 4

(31) Ni mi prevec pri srcu, nikakor pa ga nisem umoril.

'I don't like him too much, nikakor pa (but on no account) have I murdered him.' 5

(32) Tam raziskujem ze eno leto, dve leti dela pa sta se pred mano. Pravkar pa sem napisal

se en predlog, in ce bo sprejet, to pomeni se dodatna tri leta dela na Antarktiki, je

povedal dr. Hansen.

'I am researching over there for one year now, and I still have two years of work coming.

Pravkar pa (But just now) I have written another proposal, and if it is accepted that

means another three years of work in the Antarctic.' 6

(33) Ze na prejsnjih tekmovanjih se je susljalo, da se zadnje leto prakticno nepremagljivi par

razhaja. Govorice so se izkazale za resnicne, bojda pa trenutno oba isceta nova

partnerja.

'Already at previous competitions there was a rumour that the practically unbeatable

couple in the last year is breaking up. Rumours proved to be true, bojda pa (but

allegedly) they are both seeking new partners.' 7

(34) Nisem videl samo belih obrazov, temvec tudi rumene, bronastorjave in cisto crne. Kakor

pa so si bili obrazi razlicni po rodu in plemenu, po letih in oblikah, nekaj jih je druzilo,

kar sem obcutil v srcu, ko sem jih gledal, ali kar se nikakor ne d razloziti z besedo.

'I haven't seen only white faces, but also yellow, bronze-brown, and completely black


7/45

ones. Kakor pa (But as) the faces were different by birth and tribe, by years and shapes,

there was something that united them, something I felt in my heart when I was looking

at them, and can not be explained in words.' 8

(35) Nekateri ne pozabijo. Vendar pa to nic ne spremeni, ker se te potem na cesti vseeno

izognejo.

'Some people don't forget. Vendar pa (But, But then) it doesn't change anything,

because in the street they still evade you.' 9

(36) Prav vesela sem, da za rojstni dan ne dobivam taksnih daril! Seveda pa tega ni rekla

na glas.

'I am really glad that I don't get presents like these for birthday! Seveda pa (But of

course) I haven't said that aloud.' 10

If pa is omitted from the compound connective in examples (29)-(31), its meaning and

function (as well as the meaning of the examples) will change. On the other hand, pa can be

ommited from examples (32)-(36) as far as meaning and function is concerned. What changes

is the force of the remaining connective: without pa it becomes weaker and less definite. Why

is that?

My (hypo)thesis is that in certain compound connectives pa can act either as a

modifier reverser - of argumentative expectation and orientation (as in (29)-(31)), or as a

modifier reinforcer - of the meaning and force of the preceding connective (as in (32)-(36)),

and not only as a propositional (or grammatical) operator (as in (1)-(28)). In this paper, I will

try to shed some light on this specific use of pa, especially when pa acts as a modifier of

argumentative expectation and orientation. I will argue that in this latter case pa is acting as a

kind ofdiscourse anaphora, reaching out of the discourse in progress in order to back it up

and give it (at least relative11) interpretive autonomy and independence (Zagar 1991, 1992,

1995).


8/45

2. Logic vs. argumentation in the language-system

Some argumentative connectives not only have an exceptional directional force, but the

accumulation or buffering of several argumentative connectives helps us see more clearly

what this directional force (orientation) is. However, an argumentative relation (between

arguments and conclusion) is different from a logical relation (between premises and

conclusion). Some conclusions, otherwise argumentatively (and discursively) completely

acceptable, logically make no sense at all. Let us consider the following conversational

fragment (borrowed from Moeschler (1985)):

(37) A: Is dinner ready by now?

B: Yes, almost.

In terms of logic, this dialogue makes no sense at all. Dinner can either be ready by now, or

not ready yet. It can also be almost ready, but this, logically taken, means that it is not ready

yet. Therefore, Yes, almost, is in no way a possible answer to the question,Is dinner ready by

now? because this would make the utterance12 contradictory, namely: Yes, dinner is not yet

ready.

By contrast, this dialogue is pragmatically acceptable, and it owes this acceptability -

paradoxically as it may seem - exactly to the (problematical) connective almost. The

(utterance) Dinner is almost ready thus presents an argument in favor of some implicit

conclusion such as, I must hurry up. The same conclusion is also supported by the (logically

purer) argument Dinner is ready by now, the argument that is stronger (for drawing the

implicit conclusion I must hurry up) than Dinner is almost ready, but still within the same

argumentative orientation. In other words, this means that if we construct an argumentative

scale of dinner's readiness as in (38):

(38) /dinner's readiness/


9/45

/ | \

-- ready

|

-- almost ready

|

-- ready soon

even though the argumentDinner is almost ready is weaker, it nevertheless supports the same

conclusion as does the stronger (or the strongest) argument on the scale. An argumentative

orientation is thus, regardless of the context, inherent to the very connective almost, which

means that every argument containing this connective imposes a restriction on the

continuation of the discourse: a conclusion following it must (argumentatively) pursue the

course mapped out or delimited by the use of the connective almost. In other words, from

Dinner is almost ready it is impossible to conclude (in the direction of) There is still time, you

don't have to hurry (unless we introduce additional connectives in order to buffer the initial

one).

In Ducrot's theory of argumentation in the language-system (Ducrot 1986, 1987, 1990,

1996) the theory I will be (partially) applying in this article - the transition from A(rgument)

to C(onclusion) is made possible by (usually implicit) reference to certain structures of

background knowledge called topoi. The (basic) structure of the topoi could be represented

by the following two forms:

(39) The more (something is) P, the more (something is) Q

(The warmer, the more pleasant it is to go for a walk)

or

(40) The less (something is) P, the less (something is) Q13

(The less warm, the less pleasant it is to go for a walk).


10/45

Topoi are general, common, and scalar. They are general (and, at the same time, very

abstract) schemes or matrices allowing a multitude of particular conclusions which are not

obligatory or binding in a way that a syllogism or logical deduction is. The topos

(i.e.referring to a topos, applying or evoking it) can allow some conclusion, but it does not

bind the speaker to that conclusion. Therefore, the addressee can recognize the validity

(appropriateness) of the topos employed in a conclusion without actually agreeing with it.

He/she may find some other topos more appropriate to the situation, and may use it to support

a different conclusion instead.

Topoi are common (for a given community) in that the community recognizes their

validity, and appropriateness of the conclusions based on them. This, however, does not imply

that every member of the community would necessarily use the same topoi in identical

situations. The application of some topos, and a conclusion it allows, can always be refuted

(the nature of argumentation is essentially polemical!) by applying some other topos that

suports a different conclusion. Ducrot (1986, 1987) heuristically defined this application of

topoi as strong and weak:

- to apply a topos strongly means that there are only a few arguments that could be stronger

than the one used;

- to apply a topos weakly means that there are only a few arguments that could be weaker

than the one used.

But what about the strength of the arguments? Let us assume that we operate with a

two-part argument, and let us call the first part A and the second B. We shall say that in this

case the following two (heuristic) definitions apply:

1. Argument A is stronger than B, if: B, evenA holds true.

2. Argument A is weaker than B, if: B, at best/at worst A holds true.

Let us now check these definitions against examples (41) and (42):


11/45

A B

(41) It is a cold, or at worst a flu. > Don't worry!14

A B

(42) It is pneumonia, or at best bad flu. > Take care!

Argumentative string (41) may be relying on some topos such as The less we are ill, the less

reason toworry, and argumentative string (42) on some topos such as The more we are ill,

the more reason to worry. The arguments A are, in the light of our definition, stronger than

the arguments B, which means that, if the given conclusion proceeds from B, it must also

proceed from A. In other words, both (possible) utterances apply their topoi strongly. With

regard to the argumentative scales that could be constructed in accordance with our

knowledge of the force of arguments in both cases:

(43) worry (+) worry (-)

/ | \ / | \

- pneumonia - a cold

| |

- flu - flu

| |

we can say that both utterances apply their topoi in the direction of argumentative scales,

therefore, they tend towards the stronger application of topoi. If we now change the

argumentative connectives as in (41') and (42'):

A B

(41' ) It is a cold, even a flu. > Take care!

A B

(42' ) It is pneumonia, even a (bad) flu. > Take care!


12/45

the replacement of the argumentative connectives reverses the force of the arguments (B is

now stronger than A), and thus the argumentative orientation of the utterances itself. From the

argument It is a cold, even a flu, we can no longer concludeDon't worry, but only Take care,

which is in perfect accordance with the argumentative scale of worry (-), where 'flu' occupies

a lower position than 'cold', thus being closer to the cause of worry since the scale is negative.

In order to show how decisive the choice of the argumentative connective(s) is, let us

replace the connective in (42). To the '(bad) flu', which occupies a lower position than

'pneumonia' on the argumentative scale of worry (+), the mere presence of even assigns the

value of the stronger argument, thus leading to the conclusion Take care. The argumentative

orientation inherent to even does not allow the following argument to be weaker than the

preceding one. On the contrary, the argument introduced by even is supposed to escalate the

force of a preceding argument. Therefore, if we want to avoid reference to some topos such as

The less we are ill, the more reason to worry (which could be general, but hardly common)

in order to restore the argumentative balance, we must introduce an additional argumentative

connective as in (42''):

(42'' ) This is pneumonia, even only a (bad) flu. > Don't worry!

or even (!)

(42''' ) This is pneumonia, maybe even only a (bad) flu. > Don't worry!

If only attenuates, even alters the (potential) argumentative orientation of even, then maybe

attenuates a (potential) logical disparity between coordinately related propositional elements:

if the illness is pneumonia, then it is not a (bad) flu, and vice versa. If we temper both

propositional elements with maybe, we place them outside the logical necessity where they

can (only) be either true or false.

Ducrot (1986, 1987) also admits of moderately strong or moderately weak

applications of a topos. Consider the following examples:


13/45

(44) The bottle is already half empty. > Another one needs to be opened.

((44) applies a topos such as The more we drink, the more liquor we need)

(45) The bottle is still half full. > There is no need yet to open another one.

((45) applies a topos such as The less we drink, the less liquor we need).

An utterance, acccording to Ducrot, applies some topos Tx moderately strongly if, at the same

time, it allows a moderately strong application of some topos Ty. This is the case with

utterances (44) and (45). The beauty of moderately strong (or moderately weak)

applications is in their explicit exposure of what is informative and what is argumentative in

language: 'already half empty' and 'still half full' describe one and the same state of affairs as

far as informativeness is concerned (the level of liquid in the bottle is the same, regardless of

the fact how we describe it: half empty or half full), but their argumentative orientations are

opposite, and so are the conclusions to which they lead. 'Already half empty' and 'still half

full' allude to the act of emptying, not filling the bottle. If we exchange the places of the two

argumentative connectives so that we now get 'still half empty' and 'already half full', the new

expressions will not only be differently oriented argumentatively, but this exchange will also

immediately create a new potential context since we are no longer dealing with an act of

emptying but with an act of filling.

3. Ker pa and sicer pa an analysis

In the light of what has just been said, let us consider the role of connective pa in compound

connectives ker pa (but since) and sicer pa (anyway)15. We can start by comparing utterances

with and without pa as in the following examples:

(46) Ker si razbil sipo, ne bos sel v kino.

'Because (ker) you broke the window, you cannot go to the cinema.'

(47) Pridi sem, sicer pridem pote.


14/45


15/45

'You were really a good boy: you washed the dishes and wiped the dust. > But since

(ker pa) you broke the window, you cannot go to the cinema.'

Let us now turn to example (47). Sicer can be (quite easily) paraphrased as the

exclusive either - or: Ali prides sem, ali pridem pote (Either you come here, or I'll come for

you). The introduction of pa in such a paraphrase does not cause interpretative problems; in

fact, it does not cause any change in meaning: Ali prides sem ali pa pridem pote (Either you

come here, or I'll come for you). However, the situation is different if pa is introduced to form

a compound connective with sicer, as in (47'):

(47') ?Pridi sem, sicer pa pridem pote.

?'Come here, anyway (sicer pa ) I'll come for you.'

Intuitively, (47') makes no sense: in the main clause the speaker issues an order (to a second

person) for the realization of a given propositional content while in the subordinate clause

he/she says that he/she will grant it its true value with his/her own action. Here are some

further examples that corroborate this:

(48) Ugasni luc, sicer (?pa) jo bom sam.

'Turn off the light, otherwise (sicer) I will do it myself.'

(?anyway (sicer pa))

(49) Povrni mi povzroceno skodo, sicer (?pa) te bom prisilil, da mi jo povrnes.

'Pay for the damage you caused, otherwise (sicer) I will force you to pay back.'


(50) Zapri vrata, sicer (?pa) jih bom sam.

'Close the door, otherwise (sicer) I will do it myself.'


(48)-(50) can be interpreted as the exclusive either or; however, if pa is inserted, the

subordinate clause, introduced by sicer pa, somehow cancels the illocutionary force of the


16/45


17/45


18/45


19/45

Republican Minister of Internal Affairs, an official explanation of Jansa's arrest, about which, so he said, he

learned from the newspapers. This request could be in fact interpreted as an undemocratic act. Why should the

Secretariat of Internal affairs, proceeding in compliance with its lawful competencies, inform the youth

organization differently than the rest of the public? Does this mean that Jansa should receive preferential

treatment? Ker pa2 the pre-electoral procedure for the youthorganization elections is drawing to a close - and

due to this, it is becoming a prime political event - Anderlic's demand is, despite everything, justified. This could

certainly not be said of the joint statement of youthperiodicals which in a biased way disqualified the legal

authorities, and that even before their task was completed.

After that, the mass media have conveyed, according to a well established Slovenian ritual, a series of

statements and bulletins for the public. Eighty-eight eminent Slovenian personalities from cultural and artistic

circles signed a statement which called for an explanation as to who initiated the investigation against Jansa.

The same is demanded by the Slovenian Writers Association, also calling for an immediate release of Jansa,

Borstner and Tasic. In this context, the writers emphasize that they are indignant with these investigations,

which are creating an atmosphere of a state of emergency in Slovenia. They are also concerned for

constitutional order and freedom of the press.

The administrative board of the Jounalist Association of Slovenia pointed out in its declaration that the

majority of journalists of the Journalist Association of Slovenia have expressed their concern regarding respect

of the constitution, lawfulness, human rights and democratization of the society.

Why such a great mistrust of lawful authorities? Why all those questions addressed to the Republican

Secretariat of Internal Affairs, social and political organizations and authorities of Slovenia protesting against

the restriction of information? Tomaz Ertl said, in a long interview published in the June 1st issue of Delo

(editor's comment: the interview publiseh in Delo on June 8 is probably meant here), that the public is being

informed on a regular basis about the proceedings. The public was informed on how the procedure is

progressing, what has been discovered, and why the Secretariat of Internal Affairs opted for detention.

But one thing is clear: Until it has been proven that the suspicions are well founded - competent legal

authorities will have something to say about that as well - no one should be declared a criminal. The competent

authorities must be allowed to establish the facts.

Regarding the comment that information is incomplete, one can say only that it simply cannot be more detailed

and precise until the investigation is completed.


20/45

The most outspoken defenders of democracy, however, fell into the trap against which they were

fighting on the public stage: they force their opinion on others as the supreme yardstick of right and wrong. Just

as we are not ready to accept a dogmatist who has no ear for diversity and richness of opinions, so a democrat,

who is prepared to do away with all those who do not share his views about methods which are not defined by

the constitution and law, cannot broaden the horizons of democracy. A democratic society indeed does not

suggest that it has no dogmatists, just as no social or political system is black an white.

The Presidency of the Central Committee of the Communist League of Slovenia declared in a press

release that it does not wish to influence the course of investigation. According to the statement, competent

authorities, which have initiated and are leading the investigation, are responsible for everything. The lawful

authorities should therefore independently - and of course ethically - perform their task and bring it to its

completion. In any event, the outpouring of liberal demands with which individuals in fact attempt to exert a kind

of pressure on the judiciary, can not be characterized merely as pressure on the law courts and investigating

authorities. Many among them demand the observance of constitutional and legal principles as well as accurate

and detailed information.

The fact remains that in the future the judiciary will have to take into consideration public opinion and

public itself, which increasingly hungers for complete, accurate information. Sicer pa this is the usual price to pay

when the doors of democracy are opened. We have achieved, despite everything, a higher level of democracy and

this is borne out by the fact that this case is debated every day in public. If times were different, the entire incident

would warrant no more than a brief report, or perhaps not even that much says Vijesnik's Dragan Duric.

If we take a closer look at the compound connectives ker pa1 and ker pa2, we can

see that they do not refer to any actual and explicit part of the text. Instead, they reach outside the

text, and introduce some new arguments: the fact that at the given time Janez Jansa ran for the

post of the president of RK ZSMS, and the fact that the election procedure was drawing to an

end (at best, both these facts were the matter of some previous common knowledge). Ker pa1

and ker pa2 therefore (implicitly) introduce new utterers17 into the text, new uttering positions

and new voices, or to put it in a more abstract yet more precise way, they introduce new

viewpoints and pieces of information which were not explicitly and transparently incorporated in

the text. In order to give the text the necessary coherence (interpretive autonomy and


21/45


22/45

(whether it is red, yellow or brown). Therefore, if somebody is affirming that X is not , it is

very likely that he/she is objecting to somebody who is affirming the contrary, namely that X

is 19

Let us now turn back to ker pa1. In order to analyze it polyphonically, we will have to

split the speaker (the author of the article) into two utterers (uttering positions):

- U1 presents some fact F1 (arrest of a citizen), which has an unusual characteristic C1 (heavy

political implications);

- U2 opposes C1 (introduced by U1) by presenting some new fact F2 (it is a citizen who is

involved in politics) whereby he/she obviously refers to some topos such as The more one is

involved in politics, the more politically his/her actions are interpreted. The speaker S, the

author of the article, joins U2 in his/her opposition.

Even more interesting is the interpretation (or the possibility of interpretation) of ker pa2.

It could be based not solely on the confrontation of the two utterers, but also on the confrontation

of two topoi (taken as generalized (and simplified) forms of implicit background knowledge),

namely:

- U3 presents some fact F3 (democratic methods should be observed), with the characteristic C3

(equal treatment for all), thus referring to some topos such as The more democratic the laws,

the more strictly we must observe them;

- U4 agrees with U3, and furthermore refers to an even stronger version of the previous topos,

The more tense the situation, the more democratic methods we must use. And the speaker

(the author of the article) joins this (latter) argumentation.

Especially interesting (particularly for shedding more light on the nature of topoi in

Ducrots theory of argumentation in the language-system, and the arguments based on them) is a

possible interpretation of sicer pa (anyway). It shows that the same topos can be the basis for


23/45


24/45


25/45


26/45


27/45

preizkusenih metodah.

'Their conduct was not met with approval. Anyway (sicer pa), they were using already

known metods.'

(68) Od vseh zahteva natancnost. Sicer pa je strog tudi do samega sebe.

'He demands accuracy from everybody. Anyway (sicer pa), he is also

strict with himself.'

VIII - to stress a denial:

(69) Ne bomo te vec silili. Sicer pa ne misli, da je tako hudo.

'We are not going to force you any more. Anyway (sicer pa), do not

think that it is so bad.'

(70) Kdo tako krici? Sicer pa mi to nic mar.

'Who is shouting so loud? Anyway (sicer pa), I do not care.'

(71) Tega niste nikoli omenili. Sicer pa pustimo to zdaj.

'You have never mentioned this. Anyway (sicer pa), let's drop this

now (as an indication of a shift to another way of thinking).'

For the purpose of this paper, the uses of ker in (55)-(56), and the uses of sicer in (64)-

(71) seem to be especially interesting. Examples (55) and (56) show that the SSKJ definitions

give misleading explanations. Even though 'the subject matter of the subordinate clause' in

these examples might be interpreted as 'the reason of the action related in the main clause',

this could not and should not be understood in a chronologically causative way. One could not

say that the agent of (55) went silent because he could not tell the truth, or more precisely,

that his sudden realization that he may not tell the truth was the cause of his going silent.

Rather, the 'subject matter of the subordinate clause' is the interpretation of the eventsrelated

in the main clause; for instance, the agent could have gone silent before 'the subject matter of


28/45


29/45

the speaker of (56) is explaining the criteria for choosing the addressee of his act, and by no

means causing it.

If we take another look at the table representing the functioning of ker pa (and sicer

pa), we can conclude that it is X that may be the cause (and, consequentially, the argument)

for the event related in the main clause. On the other hand, we saw that 'the subject matter of

the subordinate clause', introduced by ker, is only the interpretation of the main clause, or one

of its (possible) interpretations. And it is quite probable that X should be of an entirely mental

nature (in (55), say, my knowledge/conviction/fear is why he could not tell the truth; in

(56) it could be my knowledge/conviction/hope that he is honest). What is important for

the present analysis is the possibility that there was some knowledge/conviction/fear, etc.

which existed before the discourse segment in question was uttered, and that this

knowledge/conviction/fear was used as an indirect reason (argument) for the occurence of the

event related in the main clause.

In the case of the connective sicer (otherwise), which is used in conjunction with pa

much more frequently than ker, some of the SSKJ definitions explicitly show that the

discourse segment introduced by sicer pa is supported by some previous fact which is related

in the given discourse segment. Consider (64) for instance :

(64) Vsi mu morajo streci. < Sicer pa si samo domislja, da je bolan.

'Everyone must serve him. < Anyway (sicer pa) he is only imagining that he is ill.'

If pa is ommitted, the utterance yields unusual, even senseless implicatures and possible

conclusions (in square brackets):

(64') Vsi mu morajo streci. < Sicer si samo domislja, da je bolan.

'Everyone must serve him. < Otherwise (sicer) he is only imagining that he is ill.' >

[If he is not served by everybody, he only imagines that he is ill (even though in fact he

is not)] >


30/45


31/45


32/45


33/45


34/45

- U1 discloses the violation of human rights in Slovenia (empirically, at the level of

persons appearing in this text this could be Dragisa Marojevic);

- U2 (maybe by giving proofs of actual respect of human rights in Slovenia, or by comparing

the state of human rights in Slovenia with those in other ex-Yugoslav republics, or in some

other way) opposes U1 (at the level of persons appearing in the text, U2 has no empirical

representative; its opposition to U1 (i.e. the fact that the uttering position of U2 is inherent to

the text), becomes clear only with (and because of) the appearance of U3);

- U3 sums up the dispute by referrring to some previous, general or implicit, common

knowledge (in our example the knowledge about the 'disclosure' or the manner of

argumentation of U1), which saps the strength off the argument put forward by U1 (it is

interesting to note that U3 could be the author herself, only that this time she does not assume

the role of the reporter, but rather that of the commentator; therefore, in empirical terms, it is

one and the same person who in the given discourse has two separate uttering roles).

Of course, the structure of the connective sicer pa is not necessarily this complex.

Sometimes, it even seems that it is not possible to ascribe it a polyphonic structure at all. The

following article serves as an illustration.

Text II (September 21, 1990)

Title:A Ray of Hope for Health Service

Subtitle: The Slovenian government looks for ways out of the health service quandary

- Tito's pictures to be removed from public places

Author: anonymous

What to do with Tito's pictures and busts in public places? Since they are not state symbols and accordingly

there is no law which would prescribe that they must be there, the Slovenian government at today's session

expressed their opinion that these pictures could be removed. This is not an order but simply a recommendation


35/45


36/45


37/45


38/45


39/45


40/45


41/45


42/45

- U2 replies to U1 (opposing U1, calming U1 down, etc.) by making explicit some common,

general or implicit, background knowledge, some preceding discourse segment or extra-

discursive fact (in the case of the damaged signs in Tivoli: every damage is reported to the

police).

5. Concluding remarks

Dictionary of the Slovene Literary Language lists 29 different uses of the connective pa,

probably one of the (contextually) most diversified and most widely used lexemes of the

Slovenian language. Almost all of these uses could in fact be translated into English by and

(and sometimes but) or, more exactly, be replaced by in, which is the Slovenian (unmarked)

counterpart of the English and.

But, if we check this classification against the corpus of Slovenian (spoken and written)

languageNova beseda (New word), we realize pretty quickly that there is yet another use of

pa, where pa assumes the role of modifier of (other) connectives.

My (hypo)thesis was that in certain compound connectives (I mostly concentrated on ker pa

and sicer pa) pa can act either as a modifier reverser - of argumentative expectation and

orientation (as in (29)-(31)), or as a modifier reinforcer - of the meaning and force of the

preceding connective (as in (32)-(36)), and not only as a propositional (or grammatical)

operator (as in (1)-(28)).

By means of substitutive analysis, and analysing several examples from the press, I came to

the conclusion that in compound connectives ker pa and sicer pa, pa acts as a kind of

anaphoric element that, by enabling (or making possible) reference to some kind of common,

general or implicit background knowledge, some preceding discourse segment, or extra-

discursive situation, exposes the polyphonic structure of a given discourse segment, and thus


43/45


44/45


45/45

Documents

Pa, a modifier of connectives