436 KB0 KB195520252023Logar, Natašaštevilka:4letnik:68str. 139-156ISSN:0021-6933DOI:10.4312/jis.68.4.139-156COBISSID_HOST:189500163URN:URN:NBN:SI:doc-WNNEQX4EslSlavistično društvo SlovenijeJezik in slovstvoautomationsavtomatizmicollocationsjournalismkolokacijeKorošec, Tomonews reportingnovinarstvoporočevalstvoreferencingsklicevanjeSloveneslovenščinastilistikastylisticsAvtomatizmi - kolokacije|In our paper, we first conducted a detailed examination of Korošec‘s interpretation of automations. We then compared his definition of this linguistic phenomenon with collocations, which, like automations, involve predictable combinations of words. According to Korošec‘s theory, expressions such as “According to informed sources”, “This is John Smith, reporting from London”, and “Turn to page X” are clearly classified as automations. However, we were intrigued by whether examples like “pay attention” and “bottleneck” (referring to a narrow section of road or a situation causing delay) also fit the category of automations, despite not fulfilling the criteria of: (1) referencing the source of in-formation, (2) referring to one‘s own reporting, and (3) guiding readers through newspaper pages. After all, expressions like “pay attention” and “bottleneck” are commonly used in news reporting. Subsequently, we closely examined 18 examples of automations and potential automations, which we initially presented in the first part of our discussion. We assessed whether they were documented in two collocation dictionaries and identified additional similar instances. Our analysis revealed that both automations and potential automations can be categorized as collocations. Consequently, our critical assessment of the theory and examples of automations, the comparison between the characteristics of automations and collocations, as well as insights from dictionaries, led us to conclude that we should abandon the concept of automations altogether and instead classify predictable word combinations in journalism as collocationsV prispevku smo najprej podrobno proučili Koroščevo razumevanje avtomatizmov, nato pa smo njegovo opredelitev tega jezikovnega pojava soočili še s kolokacijami – tako avtomatizmi kot kolokacije so namreč predvidljiva zveza vsaj dveh besed. Ob tem smo se kritično vprašali, ali sodijo med avtomatizme poleg tipov kot poročajo tuji viri, kot smo že poročali in Več o tem na str. X tudi zveze, ki nimajo pomena (1.) sklicevanja na vir novinarjevih informacij, (2.) navezovanja na lastno poročanje in (3.) usmerjanja bralcev po straneh časopisa. Gre za zveze, kot sta npr. posvečati pozornost in ozko grlo v pomenu ?odsek ceste ali situacija, ki povzroča zamude‘, ki so v poročevalstvu prav tako pogoste. V nadaljevanju smo v kratki analizi preverili, ali je 18 primerov avtomatizmov in možnih avtomatizmov, ki smo jih vključili v prvi del razprave, zapisanih tudi v dveh kolokacijskih slovarjih, ter po pregledu še dodatnih za poročevalstvo značilnih zvez z istim jedrom ugotovili, da lahko avtomatizme in možne avtomatizme štejemo tudi med kolokacije. Na koncu so nas kritičen pretres teorije in zgledov; primerjava z značilnostmi kolokacij ter vpogled v slovarja pripeljali do zaključka, da je avtomatizme pojmovno in poimenovalno najbolje v celoti opustiti ter predvidljive zveze besed tudi v poročevalstvu obravnavati kot kolokacijeTEXTznanstveno časopisjejournalsSlovenian National E-content AggregatorNational and University Library of SloveniaSlavistično društvo Slovenije