ࡱ> Zbjbj.rrxg%   8C\ USS"uuuPPPSSSSSSS$?WYBS $PP$$BSuuOU((($uuS($S((lLOu4%M"SeU0UMuZr&uZDOuZOhPV(R PPPBSBSh(|PPPU$$$$uZPPPPPPPPP% :Lovorka Zergollern-Mileti, B.A., M.A. Senior Lector (Language Instructor) Department of English Faculty of Philosophy University of Zagreb e-mail: lzergoll@ffzg.hr THE CATEGORIES OF DEFINITENESS AND INDEFINITENESS AS A PROBLEM IN TRANSLATING FROM CROATIAN INTO ENGLISH AND VICE VERSA 1. INTRODUCTION It is has been widely accepted by scholars that the categories of definiteness and indefiniteness are conceptual, as well as linguistic universals. In other words, it is supposed that all nations possess these logical categories in their conceptual systems, but they express them in different ways. In language, they are recognized as grammatical, semantic and pragmatic categories. The prototypical markers of definiteness and indefiniteness are articles. These categories have been researched since ancient times, and most studies have been dedicated to articles. In his book Definiteness (1999), Christopher Lyons reviews different approaches to definiteness and indefinitess, from Dyscolus (2nd c. AD), through Bertrand Russell and his logical or formal semantic analysis, to a number of contemporary linguists and philosophers who write about different languages and different aspects of the problem. In the end, Lyons comes to the conclusion that most theories revolve around the concepts of identifiability/familiarity, uniqueness and inclusiveness (i.e. whether the referent includes all the members of a set). Literature on definiteness/indefiniteness is rather rich. Most studies have focused on languages that have articles (primarily English and French). Still, there is a number of studies on article-less languages, among which are Slavic languages, by authors such as Violetta Koseska-Toszewa (1984, 1987 ), Irena Sawicka (1984), Bozenna Bojar (1987), Kazimierz Feleszko (1987), to name only a few. 2. CROATIAN When Croatian is concerned, we can find studies from the 1960s and 1970s that were dealing with Serbian and Croatian, which were at the time treated as one language (Fekete 1969 & 1973, Mieska Tomi 1974, Spalatin 1976). Over the past few years, definiteness/indefiniteness in Croatian have been discussed mostly by Marija Znika, Josip Sili, Ivo Pranjkovi and Ivan Markovi. As for Serbian, there has been interesting work done by Zlati and Trenki. In Croatian, definiteness/indefiniteness are connected primarily with the two forms of adjectives  the so called definite (long) adjectives, and the so called indefinite (short) adjectives. The demonstratives ovaj, onaj, taj are also closely linked to definiteness, whereas indefiniteness can be expressed in Croatian by the so called indefinite pronouns such as neki (some). There have been attempts, for instance by the Serbian linguist Miaeska-Tomi, at proving that the demonstratives in  Serbo-Croatian are potential translation equivalents of the English definite article. Our position is that the Croatian demonstratives can be seen as translation equivalents of the English definite article only in those contexts where the English definite article has deictic function, i.e. where it can be replaced by an English demonstrative. In recent works by Croatian linguists indefinite pronouns are referred to as quantifiers (e.g. `ari 2002). We do not object to that, but we do object to the author's claim that the quantifiers neki and jedan (also called a number by most grammarians) function as indefinite articles, and are mutually interchangeable. We do not find them to be mutually interchangeable in all contexts. Also, they cannot be considered articles, for the fact that they haven't lost their primary meanings, and are not imposed by grammar in any context. Some studies written by authors other than Croatian or Serbian mention Croatian, but mostly as Serbo-Croatian. For instance, Jiry Kramsky, in his book The Article and the Concept of Definiteness in Language (1972), mentions Serbo-Croatian as a language which expresses definiteness with special forms of adjectives, as well as with the declension of nouns (the latter is not very well explained). Christopher Lyons, in the already mentioned book, talks about the Serbo-Croat definite and indefinite adjectives, as well as the three demonstrative pronouns (taj, ovaj, onaj). Discussing grammaticalization, the author speaks about Serbo-Croat again, and he says that in Serbo-Croat, the definite adjective may not be expressing definiteness anymore, but it is necessary in some grammatical contexts (1999: 339). This statement is compatible with the views of Croatian linguists, such as Ivo Pranjkovi, who, in his article  Izra~avanje neodreenosti/odreenosti imenica u hrvatskom jeziku ( Expressing the indefiniteness/definiteness of nouns in Croatian , 2000), says: ''I think that a discussion about the categories of indefiniteness and definiteness is even more important now that the formal differences between the grammaticalized forms of expressing these two categories are getting blurred, or, rather, they are preserved in the nominative of nouns having masculine gender. The indefinite adjectives are almost non-existent in oral communication, and are present in a limited number of written texts'' In Croatian, apart from definite and indefinite adjectives, there are some other means of expessing definiteness/indefiniteness. Some of them are brought to our attention by Pranjkovi in the above mentioned article, and are as follows: choosing between the accusative case and the so called partitive genitive  example: uzeti kruh (to take the bread) DEF, as opposed to uzeti kruha (to take some bread) INDEF; the so called Slavic genitive example: Ne vidi stol. (He cannot see the table.) DEF, as opposed to Ne vidi stola. (He cannot see a table.) INDEF; Indefiniteness can be suggested by the plural of those nouns that normally don't have plural example: razni Bushovi i Clintoni (various Bushes and Clintons); Sometimes speakers of Croatian make use of the difference between the so called distributive singular and plural, where singular suggests some kind of definiteness, and plural some kind of indefiniteness  example: ljudi u odijelu (*men in a suit) - DEF, as opposed to ljudi u odijelima (men in suits)  INDEF. 5. In her article ''Izra~avanje neodreenosti pomou rije i ovjek'', Snje~ana Kordi points out that indefiniteness can also be expressed by the use of the word ovjek (man). Example: ovjek ovdje ne mo~e disati (One cannot breathe here). We must point out here that the mentioned means of expressing definiteness/indefiniteness are even more marginal than the definite and indefinite adjectives. 2. 1. Research concerning the perception of definite (long) adjectives and indefinite (short) adjectives. To investigate the perception of definite (long) adjectives and indefinite (short) adjectives, we conducted research which included two groups of respondents a group of twenty fourth- year students of English (Faculty of Philosophy, University of Zagreb) attending the course ''Translation from English into Croatian'', and a a group of twenty native speakers of Croatian, all having a university degree. The questions we asked them to answer were as follows: Which of the two sentences is grammatically correct: On je visoki*; On je visok? 2) What is the difference in meaning between these two sentences: Doao je visok ovjek; Doaao je visoki ovjek? 3) Are both of these sentences grammatically correct? If they are, what is the difference in meaning: }elim nov rje nik. }elim novi rje nik. Is the following form of the adjective grammatical: Danas se na Markovu trgu govorilo o braniteljima? If it is, is the form Markovom still more acceptable? ( Note: Markovom still considered ungrammatical, although the grammatically correct form is encountered only in the media) Is the form of the possessive in the following example correct: Naao sam to u njegovu kaputu. If it is, is the form njegovom still more acceptable? (Note: njegovom still considered ungrammatical, although njegovu is used solely by the media) 2.1.1. Students' answers We must point out here that the students come from various parts of Croatia, and none of them studies Croatian. All the students answered that the sentence On je visok is grammatically correct. Only one student didn't know how to explain the difference. All the students answered that both sentences are correct. Two of them did not know how to explain the difference, and another two wrote down that they would express indefiniteness using the following sentence: }elim jedan novi rje nik. 4) Thirteen students think that this is the correct form of the adjective, two were not sure, two of them think it must be correct, as it is repeatedly heard on TV, and three of them wrote down that they didn t understand why the media insisted upon that form. 17 think that the form Markovom is more natural, while three students state that if this form is cited in grammars, then this is the form to use. 5) Sixteen students wrote down that it was a grammatically correct form, three students wrote down that it was not, and one person was not sure. Fifteen students find the form njegovom more acceptable.. 2.1.2. Answers by Croatian native speakers holding university degrees Out of our twenty participants, four people studied languages. All of them live in the capital (Zagreb), but not all of them have spent their entire lives there. No one studied Croatian. As expected, this group proved to have less theoretical knowledge concerning the definite and indefinite adjectives than the students. They also showed worse comprehension of their respective meanings. In this group of educated Croatians, only two knew of the existence of definite and indefinite adjectives. Even those two respondents were not sure about their usage, and could not always tell the semantic difference within a text. To educated Croatians, indefinite adjectives seem in most cases to be barely acceptable, even ungrammatical, or stylistically marked. We can conclude that the semantic difference between the definite and indefinite adjectives has almost ceased to exist, therefore the difference between them has almost no communicative value. 3. TRANSLATION 3.1. Translation from Croatian into English In the following part of our paper we shall attempt to point out which are the most important problems concerning definiteness/indefiniteness for Croatians translating into English. We are going to analyse a Croatian text that has been translated into English. The Croatian text was chosen out of thirty texts used as exam material for fourth-year students of English at the University of Zagreb. While choosing the text, we couldn't but notice again that very few markers of definiteness/indefiniteness are used in Croatian texts. Over the years, in our work with students, we have noticed that Croatian demonstratives and quantifiers posed no problem in translation. In our opinion, most problems are connected to various set phrases, abstract nouns and situations where translators have to depend upon the immediate context, or a broader context (i.e. the knowledge of the world). We must point out that the translators of the following text, i.e. fourth-year students of English, have acquired rather high proficiency in English. On the other hand, all of them are native speakers of Croatian who are expected to have good theoretical, as well as practical knowledge of Croatian grammar. We must also mention that the English translation was marked by two non-native English language instructors, as well as by two Americans linguists/language teachers. Francuska i Amerika ne svade se zato to su razli ite, ve zato ato su tako sli ne Plan da Campagne, koji se smjestio u dolini nedaleko Aix-en-Provencea, predstavlja poznat (indef.) francuski krajolik. Onkraj romani kih crkava i polja lavande uz turisti ku stazu, Francuska se mijenja. Njezin na in ~ivota po inje nalikovati onome u zemlji koju voli mrziti. Viae od etiri petine Francuza danas ~ivi u gradovima ili predgraima, ato je viae nego u Americi. Manje od etiri posto zaposlenih Francuza bavi se poljodjelstvom. Francuski intelektualci mo~da joa uvijek filozofiraju u zadimljenim kafiima, no njihovi su zemljaci navalili na holivudske filmove i pro~diru ameri ke brendove. Ameri ki kulinarski grijesi  brza hrana i gotovi smrznuti obroci  sve su prisutniji u zemlji kulinarstva, a s njima i pretilost djece. Ipak, ato viae prosje ni Francuzi prihvaaju takve ameri ke obi aje, to je elita, ini se, sve viae opsjednuta proutuameri kim osjeajima iji korijeni se~u mnogo dublje od nesuglasica oko Iraka. We underlined all the cases where the translators encountered problems. There is only one marker of indefiniteness in the Croatian text (poznat indefinite adjective), which wasn't recognized as such by all translators. In all the other cases where singular nouns are involved, the translators had to decide whether the referent is unique or taken out of a set of things. In all the cases where plural nouns are involved, the translators had to decide whether the referents represent the whole sets of things, or only some members of those sets. In the English translation we can see what choices they had to make. France quarrels with America not because they are so different but because they are so alike Nestled in a/the valley near Aix-en-Provence, Plan de Campagne is a/the familiar French landscape. Beyond the/0 Romanesque churches and lavender fields of the/0 tourist trail, France is changing. Slowly, its way of life is beginning to resemble that of the/a country it loves to hate. Over four-fifths of the French now live in the/0 towns or suburbs more than in America. Less than 4% of the/0 employed Frenchmen is in farming. The/0 French intellectuals may still philosophise in smoke-filled cafes, but their countrymen run to Hollywood films and devour the/0 American brands. The/0 American culinary sins fast food, TV-dinners are on the rise in the land of gastronomy, and with them child obesity. Yet the more that ordinary French accept such American ways, the more the elite seems fixated with an/the anti-Americanism that is far deeper than the/0 differences over Iraq.. 3.2. Translation from English into Croatian: This text was also chosen out of thirty texts representing exam material. The Croatian translation was marked by two teachers who teach translation at the Department of English in Zagreb, as well as by two Croatists. The Civil War Few events in American history have been studied more that the Civil War. Scarcely a year passes that does not see the publication of a wave of books and articles dealing with the war as well as the events leading up to it. So widespread has been interest in the origins and consequences of the conflict that many organizations as well as journals have been founded expressly for the purpose of furthering additional research and stimulating popular and professional interest in this subject. Indeed, to refer to the cult of the Civil War enthusiasts is not to exaggerate the intense interest that this topic has generated. One of the reasons for the enduring interest in the Civil War era undoubtedly lies in the fact that this conflict pitted Americans against Americans. Under such circumstances responsibility for the coming of the war could not easily be placed on an external foe or upon factors beyond the control of Americans. The symbolic influence of the conflict as a major dividing line in American history also helps to explain the continued fascination with this problem. To American historians the Civil War bears the same relationship to the American people as the French Revolution to Frenchmen, the English civil war to Englishmen, and the Russian Revolution to Russians. Questions involving vital national issues seemed to be at stake: the problem of nationalism versus states' rights and sectionalism; the role the war played in promoting industrialization and urbanization; and the status blacks were to have in American society. Graanski rat Malo je dogaaja u ameri koj povijesti koje se prou avalo viae od Graanskog rata. Jedva proe godina, a da se ne objavi mnoatvo knjiga i lanaka koji se bave tim ratom kao i dogaajima koji su mu prethodili. Zanimanje za uzroke i posljedice tog sukoba u tolikoj je mjeri raaireno da su osnovane mnoge organizacije i pokrenuti mnogi asopisi sa svrhom unapreivanja daljnjeg istra~ivanja i poticanja opeg i stru nog zanimanja za tu temu. Doista, kada govorimo o kultu zanesenjaka Graanskim ratom ne preuveli avamo golemo zanimanje koje je ta tema pobudila. Jedan od razloga ato za to trajno zanimanje za Graanski rat nedvojbeno je injenica da su se u tom ratu Amerikanci meusobno sukobili. U takvim se okolnostima odgovornost za po etak rata ne mo~e jednostavno pripisati vanjskom neprijatelju niti imbenicima izvan kontrole Amerikanaca. Simboli ki utjecaj tog sukoba kao va~ne prekretnice u ameri koj povijesti takoer poma~e objasniti trajnu fascinaciju tim problemom. Ameri ki povjesni ari smatraju da Graanski rat za ameri ki narod ima istu va~nost kakvu Francuska revolucija ima za Francuze, Engleski graanski rat za Engleze te Oktobarska revolucija za Ruse. ini se da se radilo o temeljnim pitanjima od nacionalne va~nosti: o problemu nacionalizma u odnosu na prava dr~ava i regionalne interese, o ulozi koju je ovaj rat imao u promicanju industrijalizacije i urbanizacije te o statusu crnaca u ameri kom druatvu. Translating this text from English into Croatian, a number of students did not translate the demonstrative this (6th line), which is a mistake. They were also wrong in not translating the underlined definite articles that have deictic function, and had to be translated by a Croatian demonstrative (apart from the case in line 10, where it was not necessary). By not translating the definite articles, the translators rendered the text incoherent. CONCLUSION We have seen that in Croatian definiteness and indefiniteness are expressed in a very limited number of cases. Even when they are overtly expressed, native speakers tend not to perceive it. In everyday communication it poses no problem, since speakers can resort to various linguistic and non-linguistic means to clarify their intentions, and hearers can require clarification. On the other hand, translating written texts, both from Croatian into a language possessing articles such as English, and from such a language, Croatians have to be very cautious and read very carefully into the context. We suggest that it is necessary for translators to be trained in such a way that they acquire good theoretical knowledge concerning (in)definiteness, not only as a grammatical category, but primarily as a semantic and pragmatic category. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bari Eugenija, Mijo Lon ari et al., 1997: Hrvatska gramatika. Zagreb Bojar Bozenna ,1987: Jezykowa opozycja okreslonosci/nieokreslonosci jako kategoria metainformacyjna. In: Studia gramatyczne bulgarsko-polskie, t. II: Okreslonosc/nieokrslonosc. Wroclaw Chesterman Andrew, 1991: On definiteness (A study with special reference to English and Finnish). Cambridge Christophersen Paul, 1939: The articles: A study of their theory and use in English. Copenhagen Fekete Egon, 1969: Oblik, zna enje i upotreba neodreenog i odreenog pridevskog vida u srpskohrvatskom jeziku. In:  Ju~noslovenski filolog , knj. 28, sv. 1-2: 5-66 Fekete Egon, 1973: Oblik, zna enje i upotreba neodreenog i odreenog pridevskog vida u srpskohrvatskom jezi4LNJ N  " 2 3 R T t  > K L O p x    F t y   ºDZDZ˱˭˱˱˱ǭӭ˭˥ϩϕϜ hv6]hG hK5hKhgAh1kh* h n05hKhZN5 hv5hZNh n0hvh2hNhN5 hN5 ht5 h5h hh hh:N L N P ! " 2 3 t =>?@L#dhgd]dgdDdgdvgddhgdZNgd  ,GSUYf %';<=>?@KLY|Xb &0:PtŽh n0hmuhQgh 3hE}hhNhN5 hN5hh)W,h`{h;hk h1h 0h2hDhgAh5\.hv6B* phPhg h:6] hv6]hvhD5 Hbhp|W8Y\ s2\nvhM)h`{ hD6]hh2XhbhD hL\6hL\h#x hK6hKhQgh>Yh@\h$ahmuh)W, h)W,6 hB>6hB>h n0h3 >FfN !X!!!!3#####%&&&/&:&<&N&&&&&&&&&Z's't''((()B)f)h)))))*******+@+B+p+v+,.,0,W,X,Y,Z,],,輷 h T5 hM)5hD3 hl*h[h[h S h<6h< h<6]h<hE8 hhhM)h`{hDF#J%Y&&')v+Y,Z,,,c.d....H/I/J//0B0D0h^hgdM) & F gdQgdhgdQggdM)dgdb & F d^gd<dgd<,,,,,2-U-V-d------ ..$.b.c.d.........4/;/A/F/H/I/J/L///0$000B0D0F0H0L01(1.1X1b1t1v1111ʿʺʺʧʺʺʟʟʺʺݟʒh/hM)mHnHsH hBhqh% hQg6 h'J6 h)W,6 hM)6hhM)B*phhM) h.:h.:h.(h,ghP3h 3h[hQgh.:h(N h T5 h n057D0F01B1t1v111#2$2Z2222233@3w3x33333<^<gdP3 & FgdM)gdM)gd ^gdM) & F gdBh^hgdM)12#2$292:2B2C2X2Y2Z2b2j222222333-343@3H3J3V3W3_3`3u3v3w3x333333333333:4]4g4h4i4j4ÿϯϧϫϫϫϿ hvfh%Ph%PhWh'J h%P5 h'J5 hNA5 hM)5hP3hzhB^T hqh h 6h hhM) hM)6hM)hBh/hP3mHnHsH h/hM)mHnHsH h/hM)6mHnHsH 23333i4j44444554666&88Q9999<<= hdh^hgdg] hdh^hgd%Pdhgd%Ph^hgd%P & Fgd%Pgd%PgdM)j444444444456 6 666D6J67N7\7r77788$8)8=8>8F8G88888889F9P9Q9p9q9y9z999999999.:5:u::::::::::;;h6"hhh,ghht/hNA hNA5 h%P5hih/ h356h'h35h%hW h%P56 h%P6h%Ph'JB;!;';(;.;X;[;b;;;;;<<<<<<<m={=}============2>;>b>j>o>p>>>>>>C?D?X?a??@@Q@d@Žh3'h|)hkhdhIdhtNhIhQrh6sh DhP3 h5hQrhk5hQrhQr5 hd5 hP35hP;hh%P5B*phhXhwhqh@Wh%Phhg]hh4========KA)C+C,C-CNDPDKKMMMANBNgdP;h dh^gdP;hdhgdQr & F dhgdQrdhgdDIdhgdP;hgd%P hdh^hgd%Pd@o@@@@@LArAAAAAAAB8B*mHnHsH h/hDI>*mHnHsH h/hP;h>*mHnHsH h/hP;hmHnHsH  hP;h5h'kEhP;h5 hd5 hP3hQrhP3h-h/hDIhcthIdhq<hIhj,jhdh3h6shQrhf$hyh )EEJFxFFGpGGGGHHHI IBIIIJJzKKKL&L^LdLLLLLMMbMMMMMMM@NANENFNqNsNNNNNNNϼϵȵϵ h*hP;h h`hP;h hP;h5h`hP;h5 hs5 hct5hP;hhDIh hcthhcthcthQr6 hcthR hcthQrh/hP;h>*mHnHsH h/hP;hmHnHsH h/hP;h5mHnHsH 3BNCNDNENNNN!R"R#RPRQR*S+S9SqSrSsSUYYYZZ Z"ZgdGX!dhgdosgdosdhgdP;hgdP;hNNNNNNOOO=OAODOGOUOOOOOOOOOOO/P0P5P6P@PGPJPZP`PPPPPPPPPyQQQQQQQQQQQQQRR!R"R#Rû螲Úhe%hthW>* h*hP;h hP;h>*hW hW>*h:hP;h>*hP;h h>hP;h h*hE}hP;h>* hR>*hRhP;h>* h`hP;hhP;hB*phh*hP;h>*:#RPRQRRR*S+S8S9ScSqSrSsSxSS(T/TTTWUcUUU.V/VVVBWNWY!YYYYYZZ"Z`[r[º{tmehzhGX!>* hzhGX! hGX!5>*h] ohGX!5>*h] ohGX!5 hzh0h3hzhos5hzhos>* hE}hos hzhoshoshlM9hos5hlM9hos5>*h^Yhos5CJaJhos5CJaJ hE}5 h_+h_+h]h_+ h]5 h35'r[\\~]]`^n^H_X__```aaddZe^effngpgqg{g|g}ggg h(h)h-h=hhiiihjrjjjkkkkkkkǾNJh! h h h 5 h_+h_+hcthct5h0he%h&X5h&Xh0_hhCh{hcth_+ hGX!5 h5 hGX!5>* hcthGX!hcthjT6 hcthjThzhGX!5hzhGX!>* hzhGX!0"Z^aVcZe\e^eogpgqg|g}gkkkkllEmm(ov & Fgd gd^I & Fgd dhgd_+gdGX! & F dhgd0dhgdGX!kkkkkklll1lnlolllllllllllllllllll:mEmZm^m_mmmmmmmmmnnnnnnnnnnnnn"o&o׬ӝӬh hF h hF h 6hF hjh 6 hj6 h 6]hHh! h<h hihg^h^Ih<h^I6h,Wh 6hj h 6h<h 9&o(oNooop <>@bdfhtv $&(prĝ̝6<=TUVYZ[q½鶱ΛΑ΂ hdh hdh 6 h!6 h ] h 6]h7h 6 h h h 6 hM@h hM@6hM@h^I6hM@h h!hh 6h~8 h h h]hg^Uh h h 63k. In:  Ju~noslovenski filolog , knj. 29, sv. 3-4 : 67-247 Feleszko Kazimierz, 1987: O rozlacznosci i synkretyzmie kategorii morfologicznych. In:  Studia gramatyczne bulgarsko-polskie , t. II: Okreslonosc/nieokreslonosc Greenbaum Sidney and Randolph Quirk, 1990: A Student's Grammar of The English Language. London Greenberg Joseph, ed., 1966: Universals of Language. Cambridge, Massasschusetts Guillaume Gustave, 1919: Le probleme de l'article at sa solution dans la langue francaise. Paris Hawkins John, 1978: Definiteness and indefiniteness. Atlantic Highlands, NJ Hopper Paul J. and Elizabeth Closs Traugot, 1993: Grammaticalization. Cambridge Hude ek Lana, Milica Mihaljevi & Luka Vukojevi (ed.), 1999: Hrvatski jezi ni savjetnik. Zagreb Katuai Maslina, 1982: L'articolo italiano: un problema di traduzione (I). In:  Studia Romanica et Anglica Zagrabiensia , vol. XXVII, num. 1-2: 145-196 Katuai Maslina, 1983: L'articolo italiano: un problema di traduzione (II). In:  SRAZ vol. XXVIII, num 1-2: 111-166 Kordi Snje~ana, 2001: Izra~avanje neodreenosti pomou rije i ovjek . In:  Zbornik Drugog hrvatskog slavisti kog kongresa , Zagreb: 467-477 Koseska-Toszewa V., 1987: O p. In: Studia gramatyczne bulgarsko-polskie, t. II: Okreslonosc/nieokreslonosc. Wroclaw. Kramsky Jiri, 1972: The Article and the Concept of Definiteness in Language. The Hague Lyons Christopher, 1999: Definiteness. Cambridge Ljubi i Maslina, 2000: Studije o prevoenju. Zagreb Markovi Ivan, 2002: Neato o neodreenosti/odreenosti u hrvatskome. In  Rasprave Instituta za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje , 28: 103-150. Miaeska Tomi Olga, 1973: Definiteness types and their behaviour in relativization in English, Macedonian and Serbo-Croatian. In:  Filoloaki pregled , I-IV, Beograd: 75-86 Miaeska-Tomi O., 1974: The definite determiner in English and Serbo-Croatian. In: Reports 9, Ed. R. Filipovi, Zagreb Pranjkovi Ivo, 2000: Izra~avanje neodreenosti/odreenosti imenica u hrvatskom jeziku In:  Rije ki filoloaki dan - proceedings: 343- 349. Sili Josip, 1992-1993: Aktualizator jedan u hrvatskom jeziku (uvodna razmialjanja). In:  Filologija , vol. 20-21, Zagreb: 403-411 Sili Josip, 2000: Kategorija neodreenosti/odreenosti i na ini njezina izra~avanja. In:  Rije ki filoloaki dani - proceedings: 401-405 Sili Josip and Ivo Pranjkovi, 2005: Gramatika hrvatskoga jezika za gimnazije i visoka u iliata. Zagreb Spalatin Leonardo., 1976: The English Demonstratives this, these, that, those and their Serbo-Croat Equivalents. In:  The Yugosalv Serbo-Croatian- English Contrastive project. Reports 2 Ed. R. Filipovi: 103-119. Spalatin L., 1976: An Approach to the Definite Article. In:  Reports of the Institute of Linguistics, Faculty of Philosophy , Zagreb: 121-136 `ari Ljiljana, 2002: Kvantifikacija u hrvatskome jeziku. Zagreb Trenki D., 2000 a: Establishing the definiteness status of referents in dialogue (in languages with and without articles. In:  Working Papers in English and Applied Linguistics 7, Cambridge: 142-182. Trenki D., 2000. b: The acquisition of English articles by Serbian speakers  doctoral thesis, University of Cambridge Trenki D., 2004: Definiteness in Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian and some implications for the general structure of the nominal phrase. In:  Lingua 114: 1401-1427 Zergollern-Mileti Lovorka, 2002-2003:. Some Aspects of the Categories of Definiteness and Indefiniteness in Croatian and English. =; vͤfҩ ܭ. & Fgdc $ & F^`gd gd & Fgd qrs$;Begklm.nxz| RTXb ܣܖܣܖh~8h 6h/h 6mHnHsH h/hg^mHnHsH hg^ h 6hkh!h/h 6mHnHsH h/h!mHnHsH h/h mHnHsH  h!6hdh 6h hd68ޢ^jz֣أ #GHJPQkvä̤ͤ(*,Tdf`bd~ h9'&h h9'&h 6h9'&h9'&6 h 6]h9'& h 6hpVh 6 h~8h h~86 h;36h;3h~8hg^h 6]hg^h 6hg^h 6h :~,.zҨԨިzЩҩrtت8B ﷯ﯷ㧢﯒㧢h;h 6>*] h;] h 6]h;h ]h;h 6h;h}$h 6h}$ hph h3# h}$6 h 6 h9'&h h 6h9'&h 6h h9'&hh 69`جڬ TVέڭܭƮȮʮPR\^v$&>@𞖎xx h?h?h? hPh hK^XhPhP6hPh 6hP hK^X6 h;h hP6hB(h 6 h;6h,Wh 6 h 6 h ] h;] h 6]h;h ]h 6h;h;6h;h 6h;h /Ȱְ,<BDTXZܱޱ$&(4XIJȲز޲bh̳ҳԳ޳´ڴ.0DFJȬUhgehgeh 6 hK^X6 hgeh h1Yh 6 hge6 h'eh hJ8h 6hK^X hc 6hc h 6 hJ8h hc h?h A.ȲlFVFHJLNP !gdLOgdSl & Fgd gd & Fgdc In: Studia Romanica et Anglica Zagrabiensia, vol. XLVII- XLVIII: 575-585 Znika Marija, 1986: O upotrebi odreenih i neodreenih pridjevnih oblika. In:  Jezik , 1, Zagreb: 1-32 Znika Marija, 1992: Odreenost i brojivost. In:  Rasprave Zavoda za hrvatski jezik , Zagreb: 267-297.Zagreb Znika M., 2002a: Odreenosti komparativa i superlativa. In:  Rasprave Instituta za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje 28, Zagreb: 281-289 Znika M., 2005: Nekoliko pitanja o kategoriji odreenosti. In:  Od fonetike do etike  zbornik o sedamdesetogodianjici prof. d. Josipa Silia , Zagreb: 125-132 Znika M., 2006: Kategorija odreenosti i predikatno ime. In:  Jezik , 1, Zagreb: 16-25 THE CATEGORIES OF DEFINITENESS AND INDEFINITENESS AS A PROBLEM IN TRANSLATING FROM CROATIAN INTO ENGLISH AND VICE VERSA In the introduction, the categories of definiteness and indefiniteness are discussed as grammatical, semantic, and pragmatic categories. The second part focuses on the presence of this category in Croatian, a language that does not possess articles, those prototypical markers of (in)definiteness. Here are also presented the results of a poll investigating the perception of the definite and indefinite adjectives by native speakers of Croatian. The third part consists of the analysis of two translations - one from Croatian into English, and the other from English into Croatian. The focus was put on the means of expressing (in)definiteness. The conclusion is that Croatian translators should be trained in such a way that they acquire good theoretical knowledge about (in)definiteness, not only as a grammatical, but primarily as a semantic and pragmatic category. " /  !" /  !" (    &!!   ! % "! /+  !  ! !  % "!)  =0G0;5 AB0BL8 405BAO :@0B:0O 8AB>@8O 8AA;54>20=89 :0B53>@88 >?@545;5==>AB8/ =5>?@545;5==>AB8 :0: 3@0<<0B8G5A:>9, A5<0=B8G5A:>9 8 ?@03<0B8G5A:>9 :0B53>@88. > 2B>@>9 G0AB8 AB0BL8 3>2>@8BAO >1 8AA;54>20=88 >?@545;5==>AB8/=5>?@545;5==>AB8 2 E>@20BA:>< O7K:5, 2 :>B>@>< >BACBAB2C5B 0@B8:;L, A0<K9 E0@0:B5@=K9 X&4@lnxz$8DFTVXdj*,2TV`fhjtv2rtƿƬƻ hFh hFh 6hF hgehgehK^Xhgeh 6 hK^X6] hK^X6 hyNhSlhSlhSlhSl6 hgeh h hgeC &,8DFHP!Z\  "&(468<>JLNPRVXZɼɲ~x~ hl*0Jh1 h10Jjh10JUh7Gjh7GU hjT5hch mHnHsHUhcmHnHsHhX#hc5 hc5hc5mHnHsHhch{ hLO5hLOhSlh hIhFhK^X hyNhF-Z Z\RT  $&dhgd_+gdc$a$gdc$a$gdcgdLO ?>:070B5;L :0B53>@88 >?@545;5==>AB8/=5>?@545;5==>AB8. ?@545;5==>ABL/=5>?@545;5==>ABL 2 E>@20BA:>< O7K:5 2 >A=>2=>< A2O7K205BAO A ?@8;030B5;L=K<8 (>?@545;5==0O 8 =5>?@545;5==0O D>@<K).  40;L=59H5< ?@82>4OBAO 8 0=0;878@CNBAO @57C;LB0BK 0=:5BK, >A=>2=0O F5;L :>B>@>9 1K;0 @0AA;54>20BL 2>A?@8OB85 >?@545;5==>9 8 =5>?@545;5==>9 D>@<K ?@8;030B5;L=KE C =>A8B5;59 E>@20BA:>3> O7K:0. 57C;LB0BK 0=:5BK ?>:07K20NB, GB> A5<0=B8G5A:0O @07=8F0 <564C MB8<8 42C<O D>@<0<8 ?>GB8 CB@0G5=0.  B@5BL59 G0AB8 0=0;878@C5BAO ?5@52>4 >4=>3> E>@20BA:>3> B5:AB0 =0 0=3;89A:89 O7K: 8 >4=>3> 0=3;89A:>3> =0 E>@20BA:89, ?@8G5< >A>1>5 2=8<0=85 C45;O5BAO :0: @07 :0B53>@88 >?@545;5==>AB8/=5>?@545;5==>AB8. >6=> A45;0BL 2K2>4, GB> 2A5 ?5@52>4G8:8 4>;6=K >2;045BL B5>@5B8G5A:8<8 7=0=8O<8 > :0B53>@88 >?@545;5==>AB8/=5>?@545;5==>AB8 =5 B>;L:> A 3@0<<0B8G5A:>9, => 8, ?@5645 2A53>, A A5<0=B8G5A:>9 8 ?@03<0B8G5A:>9 B>G:8 7@5=8O.     PAGE  PAGE 1 &8:<RTVXZdhgd_+h]hgdes &`#$gdes,1h. A!"#$% ^ 2 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~_HmHnHsHtHH`HNormalCJ_HaJmHnHsH tHu>A`> Zadani font odlomkaViV Obi na tablica4 l4a .k . Bez popisa N@N 3Tekst balon iaCJOJQJ^JaJP0@P Grafi ke oznake & F6u8 @8esPodno~je  p#2)@!2 es Broj stranicePK![Content_Types].xmlN0EH-J@%ǎǢ|ș$زULTB l,3;rØJB+$G]7O٭V,cy$wc.bQKG7fK˵Riv4HN@!Fco#c (QR/L A]#Tv@=!<İT̟qu gDL--_FFGzѺU7q^۫ >Xju)lꝜg d֚/_ӹtLԀ~\vd9|:x9|Jk (b49C2lZ "/_䗟?Byߞ=yէ) ҘHt}a+d$G10-Sl& R*ToN1ˢ!hU{ƒHLps ;ZVIV 2n*]8MRyZ:w#⨹ppH~._w/cR%C:riFMc˴f;Y[EBU`V0ǍDḊǬXEUJ/zRAC8D*[-}CǪ ..R(zP漌iv@@@bU|!8Y;8>ܦ,AuLj;:5nFs[ ׸UqokބݫfO4EE@'ߢ5w7E|-yօAYfNc@M!-a 4A 64HpU ) uO3 e:(fQ!sHvy`Wr~(Bshgr%c VF5iP./L›0 ˫pעᰃ m(\ddH= R+sh;l2)^+Ikio ,A*k,GMg,Jd9\,AGm\nzi9~)D]9|%lڟZ̦gl冹EP9> ljWY DK/7e@E7:+k G7d<&*}gV'A} ש Tu洷+9gEW38Y+MC*t0O%Jݍq7ŔRN)z?ۇ@GbDž8t4~_`zd kH*6 r5gyCڧ!# B-;Y=ۻ,K12URWV9$l{=An;sVAP9zs:Y'[`ۇ@Pf7[6DY*@Xi+hee*skfDqbX,?*|fv u"xA@V_ .`p64+lt^7 t '5;Kb8s9x<ڮ-t5Dd8?Șe/Y|t &LILJ`DCPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 0_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] g $$$' ,1j4;d@EN#Rr[k&oq~Z8:;<>@BCEFHIJLM\]^_`ij#D03=BN"Z.&Z9=?ADGK[akp  '!!8@0(  B S  ?Ud>*e>*f>*g>*h>*i>*j>*k>*l>*m>*n>*o>*p>*q>*r>*s>*t>*u>*v>*w>*x>*y>*z>*{>*|>*}>*~>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*>*xx `%`%x*x**444I5I55566F78899DDZKZKLLLLLLNN4O4OqOqOOO"P"P6PPPPPwRwRRRLSLSVSVS}S}SSSTkUkUsVsVpWpWXXYYYYOZOZ]Z/\/\\\$]$]]]g      !"#$%&'()+*,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIKJLMNOPQRST f%f%***444X5X55566O78899DD`K`KLLLLLLNN:O:OzOzOOO4P8P8PPPPP}R}RRRUSUS[S[SSSSSTqUqUyVyVvWvWXXYYYYYZfZfZ5\5\\\*]*]]]g  !"#$%&'()+*,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIKJLMNOPQRSTBQ*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region8O*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity9U*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace=T*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType=S*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName9)*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState AUTSUQUOUTSQQUUOUQUQUUQUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUO)UOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUUOOUUOUOUOUOUTSUOUOUOUOLL|OOwWWWWWWYYhZoZ[[[[[[[[[ \ \\\\#\(\xgzg{g}g~gggggggN.Z2;OLOOOP5QQQYY.bZbzbbbbbZc\ceeffvgxgzg{g}g~ggggggg33; U KKZKaKKLLLLL[MMN9NNN4O;OqOOOO"P9PPPPP5QQQQARRRRLSSSSTITTTHUrUUVVVWpWwW8XOXY YYYZ[[[\?\\4] ^1^xgzg{g}g~gggggggGSN.\2OOP5QQQxggggggu<Y`.XO/ZP{;/6<_G$VxvKf_?P`z.Rތx82T`z5Ge頩M$i&F u r(uT^y;Wz&4hhh^h`OJQJo(hHh88^8`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh  ^ `OJQJo(hHh  ^ `OJQJ^Jo(hHohxx^x`OJQJo(hHhHH^H`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hH^`o() tt^t`hH. DLD^D`LhH.   ^ `hH.   ^ `hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. TT^T`hH. $L$^$`LhH.^`6o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`6o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`6o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`6o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`o() tt^t`hH. DLD^D`LhH.   ^ `hH.   ^ `hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. TT^T`hH. $L$^$`LhH.^`o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`o() dd^d`hH. 4L4^4`LhH.   ^ `hH.   ^ `hH. L^`LhH. tt^t`hH. DD^D`hH. L^`LhH.hhh^h`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`o(.^`.L^`L.  ^ `.\ \ ^\ `.,L,^,`L.^`.^`.L^`L.;WzY`..RXO/<_GM$i{;/5Ge_?P uxvKu82TuT^y s 0ڪft         :cQrKI1ktE8 c NF;=s;[/1] 3F N3u GX!6"3#f$}$e%9'&'3'.(|)_+)W,5\. 0 n0D3P3Xl4 6XB6~8.:<q<B>q>M@NAgA7GHDI^I'JiKJV N(NtNyNLO%P!+R TB^TjTm>VWZW&X2XK^X|8YMYT.FNik lgEM)@W!-yTZN P4t/dGw>Y;{~bI35?W SkK6gq/:hC]X 6(]N*j- <sv%<2D7;SlwId] E}3 L\0 D0_+/B<zDDdxgzg@"  ^^-"-#.2E@EAEFEJEKLMNPQRSTVWXYZ[\]^.bcg@0@8@ D@$L@(X@0d@6p@D@Z\@j@n<@H@@UnknownG*Ax Times New Roman5Symbol3. *Cx Arial5. .[`)Tahoma;Wingdings?= *Cx Courier NewA$BCambria Math"q['g['gqqX 4qX 424DgDg 3qHP ?c2!xx Lovorka Zergollern-Mileti Miletici Inc.User 1D         Oh+'0`    ( 4@HPXLovorka Zergollern-MiletiMiletici Inc.NormalUser 12Microsoft Office Word@F#@>@-@- qX՜.+,08 hp|  4Dg Lovorka Zergollern-MiletiLovorka Zergollern-Mileti NaslovTitle  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry Fp41TablerZWordDocument.SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObj}  F+Dokument programa Microsoft Word 97 2003 MSWordDocWord.Document.89q