To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Croatian and Romance.
Journal articles on the topic 'Croatian and Romance'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 22 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Croatian and Romance.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Vrsaljko, Slavica. "Some examples of Croatian dialects’ influence on the lexical diversity of the contemporary linguistic idiom of Zadar among non-native elderly speakers." Review of Croatian history 15, no. 1 (December 20, 2019): 131–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.22586/review.v15i1.9744.
Full textAbstract:
The synchronic linguistic situation of the urban idiom in the city of Zadar is a result of several strands of dialectal influence: Neo-Shtokavian dialect spoken in the hinterland, Chakavian ikavian (“ikavski”) idiom spoken in the coastal region of Croatia, Central Chakavian ikavian-ekavian (“ikavski-ekavski”) dialect and standard Croatian. Lisac established that the contemporary Zadar idiom consists of a mixture of two Croatian dialects, Chakavian and Shtokavian, each in turn further subdivided into Central Chakavian and South Chakavian, Bosnian-Herzegovinian and East Herzegovinian, respectively. Due to varied historical circumstances, within these dialects we find a number of loanwords, mostly Turkish in Shtokavian and Romance borrowings in the Chakavian dialect. To this end the paper uses linguistic contact theory, applied in research on dialects, and explores influence in one direction only: it explores the presence of Turkish loanwords in Croatian idiom of Zadar (in its Shtokavian dialectal component) and Romance loanwords in the Zadar idiom (in its Chakavian component) but not the influence of Croatian on either Turkish or Romance languages. Hence the recipient language is Croatian (here specifically its Zadar idiom) while the donor languages are Turkish and Romance languages, mainly Venetian Italian but also standard Italian, and in some cases we are dealing with linguistic relics of Romance Dalmatian language in Croatian. We have selected to analyse Turkish loanwords in the Shtokavian dialect and Romance loanwords in the Chakavian dialect (within the Zadar idiom) because they are the most frequent foreign borrowings in the Zadar idiom, especially Romance elements that pervade the varieties of Croatian spoken in the coastal region (they often remain on a regional level only but some have passed from Chakavian into Croatian standard).
2
Vuletić, Nikola. "Croatian in the Mediterranean context: language contacts in the Early Modern Croatian lexicography." Lexicographica 33, no. 2017 (August 28, 2018): 69–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/lex-2017-0007.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis paper offers an insight into the way language contacts in the Mediterranean context were dealt with in the Croatian lexicography of the 16th and 17th centuries. The first part provides the historical background of the contact situations from the 7th century up to the end of the 17th century, focusing on Dalmatia. The second part represents an analysis of Dalmatian-Romance, Italo-Romance and Turkish loanwords in five dictionaries (Vrančić, Kašić, Mikalja, Tanzlingher-Zanotti, and Ritter Vitezović), reflecting the results of the language contacts on the eastern shores of the Adriatic Sea and in its immediate hinterland. Positive and negative attitudes of the five authors towards language-borrowing are discussed, as some important differences can be observed, particularly with regard to Italo-Romance loanwords.
3
Vuletić, Nikola. "Croatian in the Mediterranean context: language contacts in the Early Modern Croatian lexicography." Lexicographica 33, no. 1 (September 1, 2018): 69–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/lexi-2017-0007.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis paper offers an insight into the way language contacts in the Mediterranean context were dealt with in the Croatian lexicography of the 16th and 17th centuries. The first part provides the historical background of the contact situations from the 7th century up to the end of the 17th century, focusing on Dalmatia. The second part represents an analysis of Dalmatian-Romance, Italo-Romance and Turkish loanwords in five dictionaries (Vrančić, Kašić, Mikalja, Tanzlingher-Zanotti, and Ritter Vitezović), reflecting the results of the language contacts on the eastern shores of the Adriatic Sea and in its immediate hinterland. Positive and negative attitudes of the five authors towards language-borrowing are discussed, as some important differences can be observed, particularly with regard to Italo-Romance loanwords.
4
Giudici, Alberto, and Chiara Zanini. "A plural indefinite quantifier on the Romance-Slavic border." Word Structure 14, no. 2 (July 2021): 195–225. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/word.2021.0187.
Full textAbstract:
This study investigates the plural form uni/une deriving from the numeral ‘one’ in the Istriot dialect of Sissano. Sissano is located in the Istrian peninsula, an area characterized by high intensity of linguistic contact. We argue that the rise of such a peculiar form is indeed induced by contact with Croatian and that uni/une is unique in the Italo-Romance domain since, generally, the plural indefinite forms derived from the Latin numeral ‘one’ are pronouns and never occur in attributive position. The use of uni/ une is not attested in the few grammars of Istriot varieties because it is recent and still undergoing a process of grammaticalization. Therefore, we conducted interviews to verify how and to what extent contact with Croatian affects the meaning and the use of uni/une in Sissano. We found that this form is mostly used as a quantifier, bearing mainly the meaning ‘a pair of’, ‘one group of’, in the context of pluralia tantum and plural dominant nouns. We further observe that this quantifier has achieved a more advanced stage of grammaticalization in the younger generation of speakers than in the older ones. We discuss the role played by pluralia tantum as well as by the growing prestige of Croatian in triggering this borrowing and in fostering the grammaticalization process of uni/une on its way to become a marker of indefiniteness.
5
Ligorio, Orsat. "Vowel breaking in Dalmatian Romance derivatives in Ĕ́LLU,-A (on Balkan Latin XII)." Juznoslovenski filolog 74, no. 1 (2018): 31–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/jfi1801031l.
Full textAbstract:
Vowel breaking in Dalmatian Romance appears to have evolved in two phases and, in Montenegro, Serbo-Croatian ?relics? of Dalmatian Romance derivatives in -??LLU, -A appear to show two distinct outcomes of the ??, namely Serbo-Croatian *?? > je? and (i)ja?. The paper purports that je?-relics continue phase I of the vowel breaking, i.e. ??> *i??, and that (i)ja?-relics continue phase II of the process, i.e. *i? >*i?. From the data, it would appear that phase I was all-Dalmatian, being well documented throughout Dalmatia, and that phase II was specifically Montenegrin, being by and large attested in Montenegro (and Veglia, in Vegliot, where it has long since been documented and recognised as such).
6
Dragomirescu, Adina, and Alexandru Nicolae. "Particular Features of Istro-Romanian Pronominal Clitics." Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Philologia 65, no. 4 (October 30, 2020): 147–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.24193/subbphilo.2020.4.09.
Full textAbstract:
"Particular Features of Istro-Romanian Pronominal Clitics. Istro-Romanian is a ‘historical dialect’ of Romanian, a severely endangered linguistic variety, spoken in the Istrian peninsula (Croatia) as an endogenous language, and in USA and Canada as an exogenous language. Using the data extracted from the available corpora, the paper offers a descriptive account of the main features of pronominal clitics in Istro-Romanian, focusing on empirical phenomena such as interpolation, verb(-auxiliary)-clitic inversion, (absence of) clitic climbing, and the position of clitics with respect to other elements of the verbal cluster. Some parallels with Croatian are also drawn, and the importance of old Romanian/old Romance inheritance is also briefly assessed. Future research will concentrate on more closely determining what plays a more important role in the syntax of Istro-Romanian: preservation of archaic Romanian/ Romance features or language contact?
7
Ligorio, Orsat. "„Pseudo-yat“ in Dalmato-Romance and Balkan Latin (On Balkan Latin VIII)." Juznoslovenski filolog 71, no. 3-4 (2015): 43–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/jfi1504043l.
Full textAbstract:
Article discusses the origins and the development of the so-called pseudo-yat in Dalmatian Romance and Balkan Latin. (E.g. SCr. mrcela-murtila-murtela from Lat. *MYRTICELLA or tovijerna-tovirna-toverna from TABERNA.) Pseudo-yat is derived from -ECC-, in short syllables, and in long syllables from -ERR-, -ERC-. This suggestion is tried on 58 Dalmatian loans in Serbo-Croatian. The fact that pseudo-yat is found only in a part of these is of particular significance for the stratification of Dalmatian loans in Serbo-Croatian since loans with pseudo-yat are ostensibly older than the ones without it.
8
Božinović, Nikolina, and Barbara Perić. "The role of typology and formal similarity in third language acquisition (German and Spanish)." Strani jezici 50, no. 1 (2021): 9–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.22210/strjez/50-1/1.
Full textAbstract:
The focus of this study is the role of previously acquired languages in the acquisition of a third language (L3). It is focused on cross-linguistic influences (CLI) in German/Spanish third lan- guage acquisition (TLA) by learners with Croatian first language (L1) and English second language (L2). Participants in this study were third-year undergraduate students at Roch- ester Institute of Technology’s subsidiary in Croatia (RIT Croatia). All the participants had exclusively Croatian as L1, English as L2, and were learning German and Spanish as L3 at the time of the study. The present study investigates the relationship between language typology and formal similarity and transfer/error production, since many studies have demonstrated that typology plays a determining role in cross-linguistic transfer (Cenoz, Hufeisen & Jess- ner 2001; Hammarberg 2001; Rothman 2010). There are various areas of similarity and dis- similarity between Croatian, English, German, and Spanish. A significant portion of English vocabulary comes from Romance and Latinate sources. Due to these facts, we argue that the strongest L2 (English) influence will be found in the area of lexicon. On the other hand, Cro- atian, German, and Spanish are more similar in the area of morphology, due to the fact that these languages have a higher degree of inflection than English. Accordingly, we argue that the strongest L1 (Croatian) influence will be found in the area of morphology. The results of this research confirmed our initial hypothesis that the type of transfer episodes observed may be related to language typology and formal similarity between specific features of languages. Similarities at the level of lexis and grammar between L2 English and L3 German and Spanish can influence the acquisition process of German and Spanish.
9
Rocchi, Luciano. "Turkish as a Mediterranean language." Lexicographica 33, no. 2017 (August 28, 2018): 7–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/lex-2017-0005.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis paper focuses on linguistic contacts between Turkish as the receiving language and other languages of the Mediterranean area (Albanian, Arabic, Armenian, French, Greek, Ibero-Romance varieties, Italian, Serbo-Croatian). In the first part, a general overview is given of the contact situation and historical background; in the second, the treatment of loanwords from the above-mentioned languages in Turkish lexicography is sketched and briefly discussed.
10
Rocchi, Luciano. "Turkish as a Mediterranean language." Lexicographica 33, no. 1 (September 1, 2018): 7–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/lexi-2017-0005.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis paper focuses on linguistic contacts between Turkish as the receiving language and other languages of the Mediterranean area (Albanian, Arabic, Armenian, French, Greek, Ibero-Romance varieties, Italian, Serbo-Croatian). In the first part, a general overview is given of the contact situation and historical background; in the second, the treatment of loanwords from the above-mentioned languages in Turkish lexicography is sketched and briefly discussed.
11
Skračić, Vlado. "Nesonim Dugi otok." Miscellanea Hadriatica et Mediterranea 4, no. 1 (December 20, 2017): 137. http://dx.doi.org/10.15291/misc.1369.
Full textAbstract:
Dugi otok is the only large inhabited Adriatic island both with a name composed of two words, with a Croatian name and with a noun island (Croat. otok) in it. Almost all of the linguists and historians agree that the island was first mentioned by Constantine the Porphyrogenitus (10th cent.) as Pizych, which can nowadays be recognised in place names Čuh and Čuh Polje on Dugi otok near Proversa. By the disappearance of that settlement the name was forgotten, but none of the names of newly founded settlements did not became the nesonym, as frequently occurred elsewhere in Croatian nesonymy. In the archival documents and historical maps the island is usually identified by the Romance compound word: geographical term insula/isola + determinant Magna, Maiori, Grossa, Grande, Longa. The island was named Dugi only in the latter half of the 19th century. Neither the nesonym Dugi otok, the ethnic Dugootočanin nor the ktetic dugootočki are used outside the official usage.
12
Sârbu, Richard. "Present-day tendencies in the morpho-syntax of Istró-Romanian dialect." Linguistica 31, no. 1 (December 1, 1991): 141–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.4312/linguistica.31.1.141-154.
Full textAbstract:
As compared to the idiom spoken by the southern Istro-Romanians who people several small villages and hamlets in the south of mount Učka, and speak a language subject to constant changes the idiom spoken by the inhabitants of Žejane (Yugos lavia) has preserved to a higher degree the archaic structures and elements inherited from proto-Romanian. The Istro-Romanians of Žejane have lived compactly to our days (102 house numbers, about 400 speakers),being more isolated from the massi ve influence, of Croatian (i.e., the literary variant of the Ceacavian dialect), and of fering us, through their language, a pattern of Romance idiom (of the Romanian ty pe) that has long opposed, especially phonologically and morpho-syntactically a po werful alloglotic influence (Croatian, Slovenian, Italian). The restrictive use of Istro-Romanian, especially in the last five decades (since it is hardly an instrument of communication, especially for the young commuters employed in the factories of Rieka, Opatia and the neighbourhood, or for those who, through mixed marriages, moved to other Yugoslavian towns of villages) is a process in full development even nowadays.
13
Breu, Walter. "Partitivity in Slavic-Romance language contact: The case of Molise Slavic in Italy." Linguistics 58, no. 3 (May 26, 2020): 837–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ling-2020-0092.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractMolise Slavic is a south Slavic micro-language, spoken in three municipalities in the Italian region of Molise. It has been in a situation of total language contact with Romance varieties for about 500 years, with strong foreign influence on all linguistic levels. This paper is intended as a contribution to two combined fields of linguistics: contact linguistics and the expression of partitivity in Slavic in different settings. The paper opens with a short description of the position of the (morphological) partitive case in Russian, followed by a comparison of the role of case in expressing partitive objects in Russian, Croatian and Molise Slavic. The subsequent section will deal with other means of rendering pure and ablativic partitivity in Italian as the dominant model language and in the Molise Slavic replica, in particular with respect to the similarities and differences in existential constructions. Special attention will be paid to the Italian partitive particle ne and its formal and functional equivalents in Molise Slavic, including the particle na/ne, partitive personal pronouns, quantifiers, the genitive and the role of intonation and word order. Finally we will test various hypotheses about the origin of the particle na/ne, whose formal variation in one of the Molise Slavic dialects causes serious problems for both loanword integration and semantic calquing.
14
Velnic, Marta. "Of good thieves and old friends: An analysis of Croatian adjectival forms." Poljarnyj vestnik 18 (October 13, 2015): 18. http://dx.doi.org/10.7557/6.3455.
Full textAbstract:
Croatian adjectives have two forms in the masculine gender: the Long (L) form and the Short (S) form. The main distributional difference is that the Short adjective can be in predicative position and the Long one cannot, while both can be in attributive position. This difference between attributive and predicative can be related to a variety of other cross-linguistic distributions concerning adjectives (Alexiadou 2001). It has been stated (Aljović 2002, Trenkić 2004) for (Serbo-)Croatian that the two forms mark a distinction in definiteness or specificity with the long one being [+DEF/+SPEC] and the Short one [-DEF/-SPEC]. A survey on 32 adults was conducted in order to obtain more information about the distribution of the two forms in general; to find out whether it is definiteness or specificity that is being marked by the Long form; and to check whether one of the forms (the Long one) can function as a subject of a sentence in the absence of a noun. The results of the statistical analysis show that the predicative/attributive distinction is not as strict as described in the previous literature (Silić and Pranjković 2007); and that the Long form is related to specificity but does not express it. I propose an analysis that builds on cross-linguistic parallelisms described in Alexiadou 2001 and I propose that Croatian Long and Short distributional patterns are caused by the same factors as Noun Raising in Romance and Determiner Spreading in Greek, even though we find that this is not as strict as in those languages. However, it is only with expanding our cross-linguistic analysis to more languages that we can fully understand the nature of what these subtle differences of adjectives mark.
15
Majhut, Berislav. "The First Croatian Young Adult Novels." Libri et Liberi 7, no. 1 (September 11, 2018): 111–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.21066/carcl.libri.2018-07(01).0006.
Full text
16
Nevaci, Manuela. "Concordances romanes et convergences balcano-romanes dans les dialects roumains sud-danubiens. Aspects phonétiques, morphologiques et syntaxiques." Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Philologia 65, no. 4 (October 30, 2020): 317–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.24193/subbphilo.2020.4.19.
Full textAbstract:
"Romance Concordances and Balcano-Romance Convergences in the South-Danubian Romanian Dialects. Phonetic, Morphological, and Syntactic Aspects. This paper proposes to emphasise the linguistic similarities of South-Danubian Romanian dialects (Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian, Istro-Romanian) spoken in Albania, Croatia, R. of North Macedonia, Greece and Romania from the perspective of Romance and Balkan elements. We will take into consideration lexical aspects, from the point of view of linguistic contact with Balkan languages, as well as Romance elements that define these historical dialects of common Romanian. Our exposition is based on the broader theme of the relationship between genealogic (Romance features inherited from Latin, speaking of concordances in the Romance languages) and areal (convergences between the Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian dialects of the Romanian language and the languages spoken in the Balkan area). Through the presence of the Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian dialects of Romanian in the Balkans, creating a bridge between Romània and Balkan, a convergence was attained on the one hand with the Romance languages, and, on the other, with Greek, Albanian North Macedonian as Balkan languages. Keywords: South Danubian Romanian dialects, Aromanian dialect, Megleno-Romanian dialect, Istro-Romanian dialect, morphological and syntax dialectal system."
17
Božović, Ivana. "Croatian history roman in the art of Russian comic artist Jurij Pavlovič Lobačev and other Croatian artists." Naucne publikacije Drzavnog univerziteta u Novom Pazaru. Serija B, Drustvene & humanisticke nauke 2, no. 1 (2019): 21–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.5937/npdunp1901021b.
Full text
18
Oklopčić, Biljana. "Medieval heresy in Croatian historical romances: a case study of Marija Jurić Zagorka’s Plameni inkvizitori." Neohelicon 43, no. 2 (August 10, 2016): 559–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11059-016-0346-9.
Full text
19
Bikić-Carić, Gorana. "Quelques particularités dans l’expression de la détermination du nom. Comparaison entre cinq langues romanes." Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Philologia 65, no. 4 (October 30, 2020): 39–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.24193/subbphilo.2020.4.02.
Full textAbstract:
"Some Features in the Expression of the Noun Determination. Comparison Between Five Romance Languages. In this article we would like to compare the noun determination in five Romance languages (French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Romanian). All the languages examined here share the main uses of articles: known referent, generic use, unique entities, abstract names, inalienable possession for the definite article, or introduction of a new element into the discourse and description for the indefinite article. However, we wanted to show some peculiarities. We used the same text in five languages, (La sombra del viento, Carlos Ruiz Zafón) which is part of the RomCro corpus, composed in the Chair of Romance Linguistics of the Department of Romance Studies, Faculty of Humanities, University of Zagreb, Croatia. The results of the analysis showed a clear difference between French and the other languages. As expected, French uses the indefinite article in plural much more often, as well as the partitive article, which does not exist in Spanish, Portuguese and Romanian. Likewise, the possessive adjective is more common in French than in other languages which use the definite article instead. But what is particularly interesting are the differences which indicate a ""change of perspective"", namely a different kind of article than in the original text. Our conclusion is that the noun can have several characteristics at the same time (description or determination by complement, generic use or absence of specific referent etc.) of which the author (or the translator) chooses the one to highlight. Likewise, we have underlined the role of article zero, which can carry different values (unspecified referent, but also unspecified quantity or even definite article value if the noun is introduced by a preposition), depending on its relationship to other articles in the language.
20
Jolijn Hendriks, A. A., Marco Perugini, Alois Angleitner, Fritz Ostendorf, John A. Johnson, Filip De Fruyt, Martina Hřebíčková, et al. "The five‐factor personality inventory: cross‐cultural generalizability across 13 countries." European Journal of Personality 17, no. 5 (September 2003): 347–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.491.
Full textAbstract:
In the present study, we investigated the structural invariance of the Five‐Factor Personality Inventory (FFPI) across a variety of cultures. Self‐report data sets from ten European and three non‐European countries were available, representing the Germanic (Belgium, England, Germany, the Netherlands, USA), Romance (Italy, Spain), and Slavic branches (Croatia, Czech Republic, Slovakia) of the Indo‐European languages, as well as the Semito‐Hamitic (Israel) and Altaic (Hungary, Japan) language families. Each data set was subjected to principal component analysis, followed by varimax rotation and orthogonal Procrustes rotation to optimal agreement with (i) the Dutch normative structure and (ii) an American large‐sample structure. Three criteria (scree test, internal consistency reliabilities of the varimax‐rotated components, and parallel analysis) were used to establish the number of factors to be retained for rotation. Clear five‐factor structures were found in all samples except in the smallest one (USA, N = 97). Internal consistency reliabilities of the five components were generally good and high congruence was found between each sample structure and both reference structures. More than 80% of the items were equally stable within each country. Based on the results, an international FFPI reference structure is proposed. This reference structure can facilitate standardized communications about Big Five scores across research programmes. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
21
Šega, Agata. "Thoughts on Older Romance Elements in Slovenian and Other South Slavic Languages (Part 1)." Jezikoslovni zapiski 18, no. 1 (July 24, 2015). http://dx.doi.org/10.3986/jz.v18i1.2343.
Full textAbstract:
This article compares the features of older Romance elements in Slovenian with the features of loans of the same kind in other South Slavic languages. In the first part the author examines vocabulary borrowed into Slovenian and Croatian before the twelfth century, paying special attention to the criteria for differentiating between true and apparent older Romance elements.
22
Matracki, Ivica Peša, and Vinko Kovačić. "Some characteristics of deverbal nominals in Slavic and Romance languages." Linguistik Online 77, no. 3 (August 4, 2016). http://dx.doi.org/10.13092/lo.77.2906.
Full textAbstract:
In this paper we will investigate the nature of deverbal nominals across languages. Deverbal nouns are typically classified according to their word-formation model: affixation and conver-sion. Our study will compare the word formation of deverbal nominals in Slavic (Croatian, Slovenian and Polish) and Romance languages (Italian, French and Spanish) in order to show (i) that affixation corresponds to a specific mode of morphological operations and (ii) that the differences and similarities between deverbal nominals of these two language families follow from the properties of the base verbs. Furthermore, our analysis will try to shed some light on the distinction between nouns and verbs. The paper comprises three major thematic parts. The first part briefly reviews the basic notions and theoretical assumptions of Generative Grammar regarding word formation. We have especially tried to explain those notions that we draw from Distributed Morphology. This part further exposes the theoretical framework that is used in this paper. In the second part, deverbal nominals in Slavic languages are analysed and de-scribed. We primarily investigate the Slavic languages, since in these languages morphology plays a larger role in the construction of deverbal nouns. The third part contains an investiga-tion of the phrasal structure of nominalizations across the Romance languages. We close the work with a general conclusion about the behaviour of deverbal nouns in these two groups of languages. We concentrate mainly on the differences between the phrasal architecture of nom-inalizations and correspondent verbal constructions.