Janez Orešnik 
Filozofska fakulteta, Ljubljana 
Naturalness: Some Slovenian (Morpho )syntactic Examples 
V Sloveniji smo naravno skladnjo celovške šole razširili v »slovensko teorijo«, ki preučuje vedenje 
(bolj ali manj) sopomenskih skladenjskih izrazov, tu imenovanih skladenjske dvojnice. Temeljne 
predpostavke: 
V paru dvojnic nastopa (v vsaki dvojnici) ena izmed naslednjih izbirnih možnosti: 
1. najmanj ena >sym-vrednost teži po povezavi z najmanj še eno >sym-vrednostjo in/ali z naj-
manj eno <sem-vrednostjo; 
2. najmanj ena <sym-vrednost teži po povezavi z najmanj še eno <sym-vrednostjo in/ali z naj-
manj eno >sem-vrednostjo; 
3. najmanj ena >sem-vrednost teži po povezavi z najmanj še eno >sem-vrednostjo in/ali z naj-
manj eno <sym-vrednostjo; 
4. najmanj ena <sem-vrednost teži po povezavi z najmanj še eno <sem-vrednostjo in/ali z naj-
manj eno >sym-vrednostjo. 
Te predpostavke so ponazorjene s slovenskim jezikovnim gradivom, razdeljenim na 27 »iz-
peljav« (katerih vsebina je navedena v povzetku sestavka). 
In Slovenia, the natural syntax of the Klagenfurt School has been extended to "the Slovenian 
Theory," which studies the behaviour of (near-)synonymous syntactic expressions, here called 
syntactic variants. The basic assumptions: 
In a pair of syntactic variants, within each variant, one of the following alternatives obtains: 
(1) at least one >sym-value tends to associate with at least one additional >sym-value and/or with 
at least one <sem-value; 
(2) at least one <sym-value tends to associate with at least one additional <sym-value and/or with 
at least one >sem-value; 
(3) at least one >sem-value tends to associate with at least one additional >sem-value and/or with 
at least one <sym-value; 
(4) at least one <sem-value tends to associate with at least one additional <sem-value and/or with 
at least one >sym-value. 
The paper illustrates the above assumptions with Slovenian language material divided into 
27 "deductions" (whose subject-matter is listed in the summary of the paper). 
The subject-matter of my paper is a (language-universal) theory developed in 
Slovenia by a small group of linguists (under my guidance), who mainly use Eng-
lish, German, and Slovenian language material as the base of verification. Our work 
owes much to, and exploits, the (linguistic) Naturalness Theory as elaborated espe-
cially at some Austrian and German universities; ef. Mayerthaler (1981), Wurzel 
(1984), Dressler et al. (1987), Stolz (1992), Dressler (2000). Naturalness Theory has 
also been applied to syntax, notably at the University of Klagenfurt; the basic refer-
ences are Dotter (1990), Mayerthaler & Fliedl (1993), Mayerthaler et al. (1993, 1995, 
1998). Within the natural syntax of the Klagenfurt School, the Slovenian work 
group has built an extension, which will henceforth be referred to as "the Slovenian 
Theory." 
The Slovenian Theory studies the behaviour of (near -)synonymous syntactic ex-
pressions, here called syntactic variants. Whenever two syntactic variants are in-
4 Slovenski jezik - Slovene Linguistic Studies 3 (2001) 
cluded in the same naturalness scale, and consequently one variant can be asserted 
to be more natural than the other, the Slovenian Theory has something to say about 
some grammatical properties of the two variants. 
Naturalness Theory operates with two basic predicates, "marked" and "natural." 
I cannot see any reason to distinguish the two predicates within the Slovenian 
Theory, therefore I use throughout one predicate only, namely "natural." (This 
standpoint was implied as early as Mayerthaler 1987: 50.) 
Beside the technical terms "natural(ness)" and "naturalness scale," which have 
already been alluded to, the terms "sym-value" and "sem-value" (adopted from 
Mayerthaler 1981: 10 et passim) must be mentioned. The sym-value refers to the 
naturalness of an expression in terms of its encoding properties. The sem-value re-
fers to the naturalness of an expression in terms of its semantic complexity. 
The following auxiliary symbols will be employed: ">sym" (= more natural 
with respect to encoding), "<sym" (= less natural with respect to encoding), ">sem" 
(= more natural with respect to semantic complexity), and "<sem" (= less natural 
with respect to semantic complexity). 
The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory (in my recently revised version) can 
be briefly stated as follows. 
ln a pair of syntactic variants, within each variant, one of the following a1ter-
natives obtains: 
(1) at least one >sym-value tends to associate with at least one additional >sym-
-value and/or with at least one <sem-value; 
(2) at least one <sym-value tends to associate with at least one additional <sym-
-value and/or with at least one >sem-value; 
(3) at least one >sem-value tends to associate with at least one additional >sem-val-
ue and/or with at least one <sym-value; 
(4) at least one <sem-value tends to associate with at least one additional <sem-val-
ue and/or with at least one >sym-value. 
ln the above items (1-4) the object of the meta-verb "associate" refers to the 
interior of the unit under observation, OR to a part of the immediate environment 
of the unit under observation. The Slovenian Theory covers both cases. 
Forschungsgeschichtlich, the predecessor of the above assumptions (1-4) is the 
familiar principle of constructional iconicity as formulated in Natural Morphology. 
The principle runs as follows. !ff a semantically more marked category Cj is en-
coded as 'more' featured than a less marked category C, the encoding of Cj is said 
to be iconic (Mayerthaler 1987: 48-9). Using the predicate "natural," the principle 
can be briefly stated as follows: <sem in combination with >sym is iconic. In the 
Slovenian Theory, the principle has been extended to syntax and expanded. Two 
published paper s utilizing this framework: Orešnik (1999, 2000). 
Each case considered is presented in the format of a deduction. A straightfor-
ward example: 
1. English. The referent of the subject of the clause is usually given, the referent of 
the direct object of the clause is usually new (Biber et al. 1999: 123, 127). 
The two syntactic variants: the subject of the clause and the object of the 
clause. 
J. Orešnik, Naturalness: Some Slovenian (Morpho)syntactic Examples 5 
1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory: 
1.1. >sem (subject, object) / dause element in nom,-acc. languages 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, the subject is more natural than the 
object, in nominative-accusative languages (Mayerthaler 1981: 14). 
1.2. >sem (given, new) / referent 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, agiven referent is more natural than 
a new referent (Mayerthaler 1981: 14 on the property presupposed). 
2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants: 
2.1. >sem tends to associate with another >sem 
2.2. <sem tends to associate with another <sem 
3. The consequences: 
From 1.1, 1.2 and 2.1 it can be deduced: 
3.1. If there is any difference between the subject and the object of the dause, such 
that the referent of one element is given, and the referent of the other element is 
new, it is the subject that tends to have agiven referent. Q .E.D. 
From 1.1, 1.2 and 2.2 it can be deduced: 
3.2. If there is any difference between the subject and the object of the dause, such 
that the referent of one element is given, and the referent of the other element is 
new, it is the object that tends to have a new referent. Q.E.D. 
The Slovenian Theory operates ex post facto. However, in some cases, the 
theory can be interpreted as applying ante factum. Assume that agenerative 
grammar of English posits subjects and objects in finite dauses, and stipulates 
that one kind of dause element s has agiven referent, and the other kind of 
dause elements has a new referent. In that situation the Slovenian Theory can in-
tervene by predicting that given referents tend to be associated with subjects, and 
new referents tend to be associated with objects. In other words, the Slovenian 
Theory is able to help complete the generation of the language phenomenon under 
discussion. 
In deduction 1 above, and in many additional deductions, naturalness scales are 
utilized which have already been discussed in the technical literature. However, 
some other cases require new scales, to be justified as we go along. In addition, a 
new scale format will be introduced. 
The remainder of the paper contains illustrative material taken from Slovenian. 
2. Slovenian. If the dause contains the characterizing copular 'be' and a subject 
complement, the controller of person, number and gender agreement is the subject, 
e.g., Brežice so bile mesto 'Brežice was a town', where the subject Brežice is in the 
third person plural feminine, therefore the target of agreement, namely the complex 
form of the copular verb so bile, is in the third person plural feminine as well. 
However, if the copular 'be' is identifying, the controller of person, number and 
gender agreement is the subject complement (the so-called back agreement, Corbett 
1999: 14), e.g., to mesto so bile Brežice 'this town was Brežice', where the subject 
complement Brežice is in the third person plural feminine, therefore the target of 
agreement, namely the complex form of the copular verb so bile, is in the third 
person plural feminine as well (some of this data from Toporišič 1976: 478; 2000: 
609; the rest my observations). 
6 Slovenski jezik - Slovene Linguistic Studies 3 (2001) 
The two syntactic variants: subject and subject complement as controllers of 
person, number and gender agreement in clauses containing the copular 'be'. 
1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory: 
1.1. >sem (subject, subject complement) / controller of agreement 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, the subject as controller of agreement 
is more natural than the subject complement as controller of agreement.-The subject 
is the normal controller of agreement. 
1. 2. >sem (characterizing, identifying) / copula 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, a characterizing copula is more 
natural than an identifying copula (Mayerthaler et al. 1998: 197). 
2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants: 
2.1. >sem tends to associate with another >sem 
2.2. <sem tends to associate with another <sem 
3. The consequences: 
From 1.1-2 and 2.1 it can be deduced: 
3.1. If there is any difference between subject and subject complement as controllers 
of person, number and gender agreement in clauses containing the copular 'be', 
such that one controller is used when the copula is characterizing, and the other 
controller is used when the copula is identifying, it is the subject that tends to be 
used as controller when the copula is characterizing. Q.E.D. 
From 1.1-2 and 2.2 it can be deduced: 
3.2. If there is any difference between subject and subject complement as controllers 
of person, number and gender agreement in clauses containing the copular 'be', 
such that one controller is used when the copula is characterizing, and the other 
controller is used when the copula is identifying, it is the subject complement that 
tends to be used as controller when the copula is identifying. Q.E.D. 
4. Note. A possibly related matter is the back agreement between the subject com-
plement and the pronominal subject in Latin (regularly, sed haec mea culpa est 'but 
this is my fau1t'), in Ancient Greek (less regularly), in !talian (questa e la mia casa 
'this is my house'), in English (these are vain wishes) (Brandenstein 1966: 141). 
3. Slovenian. The affirmative imperative can be formed from verbal lexemes of per-
fective and imperfective aspects, e.g., ustreli (pf.), streljaj (ipf.) both in different 
readings of 'shoot (imperative)'. In the negative imperative, it is mostly the imper-
fective aspect that is used, e.g., ne streljaj 'do not shoot' (Toporišič 1976: 433; 2000: 
350-1, 397; Herrity 2000: 188). 
The two syntactic variants: the affirmative imperative, and the negative imperative. 
1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory: 
1.1. >sem (affirmation, negation) 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, affirmation is more natural than ne-
gation (Mayerthaler 1981: 15). 
1.2. >sem (perfective & imperfective, imperfective) / aspect of verbal forms in Slovenian 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, a verbal form admitting both perfec-
tive and imperfective aspect is more natural than a verbal form admitting only the 
imperfective aspect.-The scale has the format >sem (A + B, A). See item 4. 
J. Orešnik. Naturalness: Some Slovenian (Morpho)syntactic Examples 
2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants: 
2.1. >sem tends to associate with another >sem 
2.2. <sem tends to associate with another <sem 
3. The consequences: 
From lJ, 1.2 and 2.1 it can be deduced: 
7 
3.1. If there is any difference between the affirmative and the negative imperative, 
such that one kind of imperative admits perfective and imperfective aspect, and the 
other kind of imperative prefers the imperfective aspect, it is the affirmative impera-
tive that tends to be used in both the perfective and the imperfective aspects. Q,E,D. 
From lJ, 1.2 and 2.2 it can be deduced: 
3.2. If there is any difference between the affirmative and the negative imperative, 
such that one kind of imperative admits perfective and imperfective aspect, and the 
other kind of imperative prefers the imperfective aspect, it is the negative imperative 
that tends to be used in the imperfective aspect. Q.E.D. 
4. Note. The scale format >sem (A + B, A) is new. Any scale of the format in 
combination with another scale reflects the well-known observation that what is 
more natural (less marked) is more varied. Turning to the subject-matter of the 
present deduction, the positive imperative is more natural than the negative impera-
tive; the positive imperative accomodates both the perfective and the imperfective 
aspects, whereas the negative imperative is mostly limited to the imperfective aspect. 
4. Slovenian. Informally, a man is addressed by the second person singular pronoun 
ti 'thou', and any subject complements are in the masculine singular, e.g., ti si do-
ber 'thou art good'. Less informally, a man is addressed by the second person plural 
pronoun Vi 'you', and any subject complements are in the masculine singular, e.g., 
Vi ste dober 'you are good'. 
Informally, a woman is addressed by the second person singular pronoun ti 
'thou', and any subject complements are in the feminine singular, e.g., ti si dobra 
'thou art good'. Less informally, a woman is addressed by the second person plural 
pronoun Vi 'you', and any subject complements are in the feminine singular, e.g., Vi 
ste dobra 'you are good' (Toporišič 2000: 390). 
For the purposes of this deduction, the subject complement includes l-partici-
ples of complex verbal forms, e.g., ti si prišel 'thou (masc.) art come', Vi ste prišel 
'you (masc.) have come', ti si prišla 'thou (fem.) art come', Vi ste prišla 'you (fem.) 
have come'. 
The two syntactic variants: the type ti si dober, and the type Vi ste dober. 
Two more syntactic variants: the type ti si dobra, and the type Vi ste dobra. 
1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory: 
1.1. >sem (informal, less informal) ! address 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, informal address is more natural than 
less informal address.-In primitive and early societies, informal relations prevail(ed). 
1.2. >sem (expected number, plural) ! of the subject pronoun 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, the expected number of the subject 
pronoun is more natural than the plural.-The expected number is determined by 
the notional number of the subject. Since the expected number includes the plural, 
the scale has the format >sem (A + B, A). 
8 Slovenski jezik - Slovene Linguistic Studies 3 (2001) 
2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants: 
2.1. >sem tends to associate with another >sem 
2.2. <sem tends to associate with another <sem 
3. The consequences: 
From 1.1, 1.2 and 2.1 it can be deduced: 
3.1. If there is any difference between the informal type ti si dober and the less in-
formal type Vi ste dober (between the informal type ti si dobra and the less in-
formal type Vi ste dobra), such that one type contains the subject in the expected 
grammatical number, and the other type contains the subject in the plural, it is the 
informal type ti si dober (the informal type ti si dobra) that tends to contain the 
subject in the expected grammatical number. Q.E.D. 
From 1.1, 1.2 and 2.2 it can be deduced: 
3.2. If there is any difference between the informal type ti si dober and the less 
informal type Vi ste dober (between the informal type ti si dobra and the less in-
formal type Vi ste dobra), such that one type contains the subject in the expected 
grammatical number, and the other type contains the subject in the plural, it is the 
less informal type Vi ste dober (the less informal type Vi ste dobra) that tends to 
contain the subject in the plural. Q.E.D. 
4. Note. Cf. deduction 5. 
5. Slovenian. Less formally, a man is addressed by the second person plural pro-
noun Vi 'you', and any subject complements are in the masculine singular, e.g., Vi 
ste dober 'you are good'. Less formally, a woman is addressed by the second person 
plural pronoun Vi 'you', and any subject complements are in the feminine singular, 
e.g., Vi ste dobra 'you are good'. More formally , a man or a woman is addressed by 
the second person plural pronoun Vi 'you', and any subject complements are in the 
masculine plural, e.g., Vi ste dobri 'you are good'. For the purposes of this de-
duction, the subject complement inc1udes l-participles of complex verbal forms, e.g., 
Vi ste prišel/prišla 'you have come', Vi ste prišli 'you have come' (Toporišič 2000: 
390). 
The two syntactic variants: the type Vi ste dober/dobra, and the type Vi ste 
dobri. 
1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory: 
1.1. >sem (less formal, more formal) / address 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, less formal address is more natural 
than more formal address.-Less formal address is nearer to informal relations that 
prevail( ed) in early and primitive societies. 
1.2. >sem (expected gender agreement, defau1t gender agreement) / of subject com-
plement 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, expected gender agreement is more 
natural than default gender agreement.-The expected gender agreement is deter-
mined by the gender of the subject. The default gender is masculine in Slovenian. 
The scale has the format (A + B, A), see item 4 of deduction 3. 
2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants: 
2.1. >sem tends to associate with another >sem 
J. Orešnik, Naturalness: Some Slovenian (Morpho)syntactic Examples 9 
2,2, <sem tends to associate with another <sem 
3, The consequences: 
From 1.1, 1.2 and 2.1 it can be deduced: 
3,1. If there is any difference between the less formal type Vi ste dober and the 
more formal type Vi ste dobri (between the less formal type Vi ste dobra and the 
more formal type Vi ste dobrI), such that one type shows expected gender agree-
ment, and the other type shows defau1t gender agreement, it is the less formal type 
Vi ste dober (the less formal type Vi ste dobra) that tends to show expected gender 
agreement. Q ,E.D, 
From 1.1, 1.2 and 2.2 it can be deduced: 
3,2, If there is any difference between the less formal type Vi ste dober and the 
more formal type Vi ste dobri (between the less formal type Vi ste dobra and the 
more formal type Vi ste dobrI), such that one type shows expected gender agree-
ment, and the other type shows defau1t gender agreement, it is the more formal type 
Vi ste dobri that tends to show expected gender agreement. Q.E.D. 
4. Note. Cf. deduction 4. 
6. Slovenian. If the adjective modifier which normally stands to the left of its head 
is displaced to the right of the head, the adjective modifier expresses emphasis (a 
derogatory or praising meaning), e.g., (derogatory) krava stara zoprna, hudič Jrda-
mani, ženska pritegnjena, avša avšasta, trola zmedena, (praising) srček moj dragi, 
ljubček moj dragi, ljubica ljubljena, Špela špelasta. (The examples supplied by Varja 
Cvetko Orešnik viva voce, 1996; they are too idiomatic to be translatable.) Cf. Topo-
rišič 2000: 562. 
The two syntactic variants: adjective + head, and head + adjective. 
1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory: 
1.1. >sym (more transparent, less transparent) I syntactic unit 
Le., with respect to encoding, a syntactic unit of greater syntactic transparency 
is more natural than a corresponding syntactic unit of lesser syntactic transparency 
(Mayerthaler 1981: 35; Mayerthaler et al. 1998: 186; on the notion of transparency see 
Mayerthaler 1987: 49). 
A special case of 1.1: 
1.1.1 >sym (postmodification, premodification) I of noun-phrase head, in Slovenian 
Le., with respect to encoding, the postmodification of the noun-phrase head is more 
natural than the premodification of the noun-phrase head, in Slovenian.-Postmodification 
is structurally richer than premodification in Slovenian, speaking of averages. 
1.2. >sem (-derogatory/praising, +derogatory/praising) 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, non-derogatory/non-praising is more 
natural than derogatory/praising (in the spirit of Mayerthaler 1981: 15). 
2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants: 
2.1. >sym tends to associate with <sem 
2.2. <sym tends to associate with >sem 
3. The consequences: 
From UJ, 1.2 and 2.1 it can be deduced: 
10 Slovenski jezik - Slovene Linguistic Studies 3 (2001) 
3.1. If there is any difference between the premodification and the postmodification 
of the noun-phrase head, such that one construction has derogatory or praising 
meaning, and the other construction not, it is the postmodification that tends to 
have derogatory or praising meaning. Q.E.D. 
From 1.1.1, 1.2 and 2.2 it can be deduced: 
3.2. If there is any difference between the premodification and the postmodification 
of the noun-phrase head, such that one construction has derogatory or praising 
meaning, and the other construction not, it is the premodification that tends not to 
have derogatory or praising meaning. Q.E.D. 
7. Slovenian. An expressive variant of the imperative is various kinds of non -imper-
ative sentences, for instance da prideš točno that you-come accurately 'come in 
time', or a ne boš miren not will-you-be quiet 'be quiet' (my observations). 
The two syntactic variants: the imperative, and the sentences expressing com-
mand (not containing the imperative). 
1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory: 
1.1. >sym (more transparent, less transparent) I syntactic unit 
Le., with respect to encoding, a syntactic unit of greater syntactic transparency 
is more natural than a corresponding syntactic unit of lesser syntactic transparency 
(Mayerthaler 1981: 35; Mayerthaler et al. 1998: 186; on the notion of transparency see 
Mayerthaler 1987: 49). 
A special case of 1.1: 
1.1.1. >sym (-imperative sentence, +imperative sentence) I expressing command in 
Slovenian 
Le., with respect to encoding, a non-imperative sentence expressing command 
is more natural than an imperative sentence expressing command.-The non-impera-
tive sentence has more structure than the imperative sentence. 
1.2. >sem (+I-emphasis, +emphasis) 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, admitting both emphasis and 
non-emphasis is more natural than admitting only emphasis.-The scale has the for-
mat >sem (A + B, A), see item 4 of deduction 3. 
2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants: 
2.1. >sym tends to associate with <sem 
2.2. <sym tends to associate with >sem 
3. The consequences: 
From 1.1.1, 1.2 and 2.1 it can be deduced: 
3.1. If there is any difference between the imperative sentence and the non-impera-
tive sentence (both expressing command), such that one is always extra insistent, and 
the other only ocassionally, it is the non-imperative sentence that tends to express 
extra insistence. Q.E.D. 
From 1.1.1, 1.2 and 2.2 it can be deduced: 
3.2. If there is any difference between the imperative sentence and the non-impera-
tive sentence (both expressing command), such that one is extra insistent, and the 
other only occasionally, it is the imperative sentence that tends to express extra in-
sistence only occasionally. Q.E.D. 
J. Orešnik, Naturalness: Some Slovenian (Morpho)syntactic Examples 11 
4, Note. Similarly in German: wirst du nicht ruhig sein 'be quiet' , daj3 du mir 
punktlich kommst 'come on time'. AIso in Ancient Greek and in Latin (Branden-
stein 1966: 134-5). 
8. Slovenian. An imperative c1ause can express the conditional, e.g., reci bedaku, da 
je pameten, pa ti bo verjel 'tell an idiot that he is intelligent, and he will believe 
you' (Toporišič 1976: 433; 2000: 444). 
The two syntactic variants: conditional c1ause introduced by a conditional sub-
ordinator, conditional c1ause expressed with an imperative. 
1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory: 
1.1. >sym (more transparent, less transparent) / syntactic unit 
Le., with respect to encoding, a syntactic unit of greater syntactic transparency 
is more natural than a corresponding syntactic unit of lesser syntactic transparency 
(see Mayerthaler 1981: 35; Mayerthaler et al. 1998: 186; on the notion of transparency 
see Mayerthaler 1987: 49). 
Two special cases of 1.1: 
1.1.1. >sym (introduced by a conditional subordinator, expressed with an imperative) 
/ conditional c1ause 
Le., with respect to encoding, a conditional c1ause introduced by a conditional 
subordinator is more natural than a conditional c1ause expressed with an impera-
tive.-The conditional c1ause introduced by a conditional subordinator has more 
structure than a conditional c1ause expressed with an imperative. 
1.1.2. >sym (-formula, +formula) 
Le., with respect to encoding, a non-formula is more natural than a formula. 
2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants: 
2.1. >sym tends to associate with another >sym 
2.2. <sym tends to associate with another <sym 
3. The consequences: 
From 1.1.1-2 and 2.1 it can be deduced: 
3.1. If there is any difference between a conditional c1ause introduced by a condi-
tional subordinator and a conditional c1ause expressed with an imperative, such that 
one tends to be used in formulaic expressions, and the other not, it is the conditional 
c1ause introduced by a conditional subordinator that tends not to be used in formul-
aic expressions. Q.E.D. 
From 1.1.1-2 and 2.2 it can be deduced: 
3.2. If there is any difference between a conditional c1ause introduced by a conditional 
subordinator and a conditional c1ause expressed with an imperative, such that one 
tends to be used in formulaic expressions, and the other not, it is the conditional c1ause 
expressed with an imperative that tends to be used in formulaic expressions. Q.E.D. 
4. Note. Similarly in German: sage mir, mit wem du umgehst, und ich will dir sa-
gen, wer du bist 'tell me with whom you associate, and 1 will tell you who you are'. 
AIso in Ancient Greek and Latin (Brandenstein 1966: 134). 
9. Slovenian. The affirmative imperative supported with suitable partic1es can be 
used ironically instead of the negated imperative, e.g., potem pa še komu zaupaj 
then but still anybody trust 'trust no-one' (Toporišič 1976: 433). 
12 Slovenski jezik - Slovene Linguistic Studies 3 (2001) 
The two syntactic variants: the negated imperative, and the ironical affirmative 
imperative, both expressing negative command. 
1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory: 
1.1. >sym (more transparent, less transparent) / syntactic unit 
Le., with respect to encoding, a syntactic unit of greater syntactic transparency 
is more natural than a corresponding syntactic unit of lesser syntactic transparency 
(Mayerthaler 1981: 35; Mayerthaler et al. 1998: 186; on the notion of transparency see 
Mayerthaler 1987: 49). 
A special case of 1.1: 
1.1.1. >sym (affirmative imperative supported with partic1es, negated imperative) / 
expressing negative command, in Slovenian 
Le., with respect to encoding, an affirmative imperative supported with suitable 
partic1es is more natural than anegated imperative, as expression of anegative 
command, in Slovenian. 
1.2. >sem (stylistically unmarked, stylistically marked) 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, stylistically unmarked is more natural 
than stylistically marked.-The stylistically marked opposite number may be lacking. 
A special case of 1.2: 
1.2.1. >sem (-ironical, +ironical) 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, lack of irony is more natural than 
presence of irony. 
2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants: 
2.1. >sym tends to associate with <sem 
2.2. <sym tends to associate with >sem 
3. The consequences: 
From 1.1.1, 1.2.1 and 2.1 it can be deduced: 
3.1. If there is any difference between the affirmative imperative and the negated 
imperative, such that both express anegative command, and such that one is used 
ironically, and the other not, it is the affirmative imperative that tends to be used 
ironically. Q.E.D. 
From 1.1.1, 1.2.1 and 2.2 it can be deduced: 
3.2. If there is any difference between the affirmative imperative and the negated 
imperative, such that both express anegative command, and such that one is used 
ironically, and the other not, it is the negated imperative that tends not to be used 
ironically. Q.E.D. 
10. Slovenian. With singular masculine adjectivals, the accusative takes the form of 
the corresponding nominative if the adjectival is accompanied by an inanimate 
noun head, e.g., bel avto 'white car (acc. sg. masc.)'. The accusative takes the form 
of the corresponding genitive, if the inanimate noun head of the adjectival is ellip-
ted, e.g., hočem belega '1 want the white one (scil. the white car)' (Perlmutter and 
Orešnik 1973). 
The two syntactic variants: accusative singular masculine adjectival accompan-
ied by an inanimate head noun, and accusative singular masculine adjectival whose 
inanimate head noun has been ellipted. 
J. Orešnik, Naturalness: Some Slovenian (Morpho)syntactic Examples 13 
1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory: 
1.1. >sem (accusative = nominative, accusative = genitive) / in nom.-acc. languages 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, the option accusative = nominative is 
more natural than the option accusative = genitive, in nominative-accusative lan-
guages.-The affinity of the accusative with the nominative is greater than the af-
finity of the accusative with the genitive, in nominative-accusative languages (May-
erthaler et al. 1998: 167). 
1.2. >sym (more transparent, less transparent) / syntactic unit 
Le., with respect to encoding, a syntactic unit of greater syntactic transparency 
is more natural than a corresponding syntactic unit of lesser syntactic transparency 
(Mayerthaler 1981: 35; Mayerthaler et al. 1998: 186; on the notion of transparency see 
Mayerthaler 1987: 49). 
A special case of 1.2: 
1.2.1. >sym (-ellipted, +ellipted) / head noun accompanying attributive adjectival, 
in Slovenian. 
Le., with respect to encoding, a non-ellipted head accompanying an attributive 
adjectival is more natural than an ellipted head of an attributive adjectival. 
2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants: 
2.1. >sym tends to associate with <sem 
2.2. <sym tends to associate with >sem 
3. The consequences: 
From 1.1, 1.2.1 and 2.1 it can be deduced: 
3.1. If there is any difference between the singular masculine adjectival accompa-
nied by a non-ellipted inanimate head and the singular masculine adjectival whose 
inanimate head has be en ellipted, such that one adjectival's accusative case equals 
the corresponding nominative, and the other adjectival's accusative case equals the 
corresponding genitive, it is the ad jectival accompanied by a non -ellipted inanimate 
head that tends to have the accusative equal to the corresponding nominative. 
Q.E.D. 
From 1.1, 1.2.1 and 2.2 it can be deduced: 
3.2. If there is any difference between the singular masculine adjectival accom-
panied by a non-ellipted inanimate head and the singular masculine adjectival 
whose inanimate head has been ellipted, such that one adjectival's accusative case 
equals the corresponding nominative, and the other adjectival's accusative case 
equals the corresponding genitive, it is the adjectival whose inanimate head has 
been ellipted that tends to have the accusative equal to the corresponding genitive. 
Q.E.D. 
4. Notes. 
4.1. The same phenomenon obtains in the singular neuter , optionally. e.g., belo vino 
'white wine (acc. sg. neuter)' , as against hočem belo/belega '1 want the white one 
(scil. the white wine)'. 1 cannot account for the circumstance that the tendency of 
singular inanimate nouns for accusative = genitive is considerably stronger in the 
masculine than in the neuter . 
4.2. Cf. deduction 11. 
14 Slovenski jezik - Slovene Linguistic Studies 3 (2001) 
11. Slovenian. With singular masculine adjectivals, the accusative takes the form of 
the corresponding nominative if the adjectival is accompanied by an inanimate 
noun head, e.g., bel avto 'white car (acc. sg. masc.)'. The accusative takes the form 
of the corresponding genitive, if the inanimate noun head of the adjectival is ellip-
ted, e.g., hočem belega '1 want the white one (scil. the white car)' (Perlmutter and 
Orešnik 1973). 
The two syntactic variants: accusative singular masculine adjectival accompa-
nied by an inanimate noun, and accusative singular masculine adjectival whose in-
animate noun has be en ellipted. 
1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory: 
1.1. >sym (more transparent, less transparent) I syntactic unit 
Le., with respect to encoding, a syntactic unit of greater syntactic transparency 
is more natural than a corresponding syntactic unit of lesser syntactic transparency 
(Mayerthaler 1981: 35; Mayerthaler et al. 1998: 186; on the notion of transparency see 
Mayerthaler 1987: 49). 
A special case of 1.1: 
1.1.1. >sym (the type bel avto, the type belega) I accusative singular masculine in 
Slovenian 
1.2. >sem (repetition, its original) 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, repetltlOn is more natural than its 
original. - This is based on the fact that arepetition is easily retrievable from memo-
ry, and on the circumstance that repetition is imitation, which is speakers' innate 
ability (Li 1986: 40-1). 
2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants: 
2.1. >sym tends to associate with <sem 
2.2. <sym tends to associate with >sem 
3. The consequences: 
From 1.1.1, 1.2 and 2.1 it can be deduced: 
3.1. If there is any difference between the type bel avto and the type belega, such 
that one type is used as first mention, and the other as subsequent mention, it is the 
type bel avto that tends to be used as first mention. Q.E.D. 
From 1.1.1, 1.2 and 2.2 it can be deduced: 
3.2. If there is any difference between the type bel avto and the type belega, such 
that one type is used as first mention, and the other as subsequent mention, it is the 
type belega that tends to be used as subsequent mention. Q.E.D. 
4. Notes. 
4.1. The same phenomenon obtains in the singular neuter , optionally. e.g., belo vino 
'white wine (acc. sg. neuter), , as against hočem belo/belega '1 want the white one 
(scil. the white wine)'. 1 cannot account for the circumstance that the tendency of 
singular inanimate nouns for accusative = genitive is considerably stronger in the 
masculine than in the neuter. 
4.2. Cf. deduction 10. 
12. Slovenian. Sentence negation is expressed with ne, e.g., danes ne dežuje 'it is not 
raining today'. The answer to a yes/no question can be ne as well, e.g., ne, danes ne 
J. Orešnik, Naturalness: Some Slovenian (Morpho)syntactic Examples 15 
dežuje 'no, it is not raining today'; in that case ne is an extra-clausal adverb. Both 
negations can be emphatic or not. However, the probability that extra-clausal nega-
tion will be emphatic is significantly greater than the probability that sentence nega-
tion will be emphatic (my observation). 
The two syntactic variants: the sentence negation ne, and the extra -clausal ne. 
1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory: 
1.1. >sym (more transparent, less transparent) / syntactic unit 
Le., with respect to encoding, a syntactic unit of greater syntactic transparency 
is more natural than a corresponding syntactic unit of lesser syntactic transparency 
(Mayerthaler 1981: 35; Mayerthaler et al. 1998: 186; on the notion of transparency see 
Mayerthaler 1987: 49). 
A special case of 1.1: 
1.1.1. >sym (extra-clausal negation, sentence negation) / in Slovenian 
Le., with respect to encoding, extra-clausal negation is more natural than sen-
tence negation, in Slovenian.-Extra-clausal negation is more conspicuous than in-
tra-clausal negation. 
1.2. >sem (-emphasis, +emphasis) 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, non-emphasis is more natural than 
emphasis (Mayerthaler 1981: 15). 
A special case of 1.2: 
1.2.1. >sem (less of ten emphatic, more of ten emphatic) 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, less of ten emphatic is more natural 
than more of ten emphatic. 
2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants: 
2.1. >sym tends to associate with <sem 
2.2. <sym tends to associate with >sem 
3. The consequences: 
From 1.1.1, 1.2.1 and 2.1 it can be deduced: 
3.1. If there is any difference between extra-clausal negation and sentence negation, 
such that one is more of ten emphatic than the other, it is extra -clausal negation that 
tends to be more of ten emphatic than sentence negation. Q.E.D. 
From 1.1.1, 1.2.1 and 2.2 it can be deduced: 
3.2. If there is any difference between extra-clausal negation and sentence negation, 
such that one is more of ten emphatic than the other, it is sentence negation that 
tends to be less of ten emphatic than extra-clausal negation. Q.E.D. 
13. Slovenian. In normal, non-emphatic speech, the sentence negator ne 'not' is pro-
clitic on the finite verb, e.g., danes ne dežuje 'it is not raining today' Nothing can 
intervene between the sentence negator and the finite verb. If the negated verb is 
infinite, the negator precedes it, is accented, and can be separated from the verb, 
e.g., ne ga še obiskati not him yet to-visit 'don't visit him yet' (M. Milojevic-Shep-
pard and M. Golden 2000). Also, ne prav posebno pogosto bivajoč v Ljubljani 'not 
exactly especially of ten residing in Ljubljana'. 
The two syntactic variants: the sentence negator before the finite verb, and be-
fore the infinite verb. 
16 Slovenski jezik - Slovene Linguistic Studies 3 (2001) 
1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory: 
1.1. >sym (more transparent, less transparent) I syntactic unit 
Le., with respect to encoding, a syntactic unit of greater syntactic transparency 
is more natural than a corresponding syntactic unit of lesser syntactic transparency 
(Mayerthaler 1981: 35; Mayerthaler et al. 1998: 186; on the notion of transparency see 
Mayerthaler 1987: 49). 
A special case of 1.1: 
1.1.1. >sym (accented, c1itic) I sentence negator in Slovenian 
Le., with respect to encoding, an accented sentence negator is more natural 
than a c1itic sentence negator , in Slovenian. 
1.2. >sem (finite, infinite) I verb 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, afinite verb is more natural than an 
infinite verb (Mayerthaler et al. 1993: 144). 
2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants: 
2.1. >sem tends to associate with <sym 
2.2. <sem tends to associate with >sym 
3. The consequences: 
From 1.1.1, 1.2 and 2.1 it can be deduced: 
3.1. If there is any difference between the sentence negator before the finite verb 
and the sentence negator before the infinite verb, such that one kind of sentence 
negator is accented, and the other c1itic, it is the sentence negator before the finite 
verb that tends to be c1itic. Q.E.D. 
From 1.1.1, 1.2 and 2.2 it can be deduced: 
3.2. If there is any difference between the sentence negator before the finite verb 
and the sentence negator before the infinite verb, such that one kind of sentence 
negator is accented, and the other c1itic, it is the sentence negator before the infinite 
verb that tends to be accented. Q.E.D. 
14. Slovenian. The subject complement of middle-voice reflexive verbs can assume 
the accusative case if the subject is animate, e.g., Mickalmedvedka se čuti prema-
gano 'Mickalthe she-bear feels defeated'. The nominative case is also possible, e.g., 
Mickalmedvedka se čuti premagana same meaning. If the subject is not animate, 
the subject complement must be in the nominative, e.g., blazina se čuti mehka 'the 
pillow feels soft' (my observation). 
The two syntactic variants: the type Mickalmedvedka se čuti premagana -o, 
and the type blazina se čuti mehka. 
1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory: 
1.1. >sem (the nominative and the accusative, the nominative only) I the case of the 
subject complement with reflexive verbs in Slovenian 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, the nominative or the accusative is 
more natural than just the nominative, as the case of the subject complement with 
reflexive verbs in Slovenian.-The scale has the format >sem (A + B, A), see item 4 
of deduction 3. 
1.2. >sem (+animate, -animate) I the subject 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, an animate subject is more natural 
than an inanimate subject (Mayerthaler 1981: 14). 
J. Orešnik, Naturalness: Some Slovenian (Morpho)syntactic Examples 17 
2, The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants: 
2,1. >sem tends to associate with another >sem 
2,2, <sem tends to associate with another <sem 
3, The consequences: 
From 1.1-2 and 2.1 it can be deduced: 
3,1. If there is any difference between the subject complement to animate subjects 
and the subject complement to inanimate subjects, such that one kind of comple-
ment can assume the nominative case only, and the other type of complement can 
assume the nominative or the accusative case, it is the complement of the animate 
subject that tends to assume the nominative or the accusative case. Q.E.D. 
From 1.1-2 and 2.2 it can be deduced: 
3.2. If there is any difference between the subject complement to animate subjects 
and the subject complement to inanimate subjects, such that one kind of comple-
ment can assume the nominative case only, and the other type of complement can 
assume the nominative or the accusative case, it is the complement of the inanimate 
subject that tends to assume the nominative only. Q.E.D. 
15. Slovenian. When an adjective is used as part of avocative, it takes the definite 
form, e.g., Dragi Janez! 'dear Janez' (my observation). 
The two syntactic variants: the nominative singular masculine used as vocative, 
and used as non-vocative, in both cases containing an adjective. 
1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory: 
1.1. >sem (the definite and the indefinite form, the definite form) I of the adjective 
in Slovenian 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, having the definite and the indefinite 
form is more natural than having just the definite form, in the adjective in Sloven-
ian.-The scale has the format >sem (A + B, A), see item 4 of deduction 3. 
1.2. >sem (-vocative, +vocative) I nominative case in Slovenian 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, the non-vocative use of the nomina-
tive is more natural than the vocative use of the nominative, in Slovenian.-The 
non-vocative use of the nominative is more common than the vocative use. 
2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants: 
2.1. >sem tends to associate with another >sem 
2.2. <sem tends to associate with another <sem 
3. The consequences: 
From 1.1-2 and 2.1 it can be deduced: 
3.1. If there is any difference between the nominative singular masculine (contain-
ing an adjective) used as vocative and used as non-vocative, such that one use takes 
the definite and the indefinite forms of the adjective, and the other use takes the 
definite form only, it is the non -vocative use that tends to take the definite and the 
indefinite forms of the adjective. Q.E.D. 
From 1.1-2 and 2.2 it can be deduced: 
3.2. If there is any difference between the nominative singular masculine (contain-
ing an adjective) used as vocative and used as non-vocative, such that one use takes 
18 Slovenski jezik - Slovene Linguistic Studies 3 (2001) 
the definite and the indefinite forms of the adjective, and the other use takes the 
definite form only, it is the vocative use that tends to take the definite form of the 
adjective only. Q.E.D. 
16. Slovenian. (a) In the plural and dual, full noun phrase subjects can be used even 
with verbs in the non-third verbal person, e.g., študentje garate 'you students work 
hard', oba študenta garava 'both of us students work hard'. The verbal person is 
marked only in the desinence of the verb. (b) If the subject contains a cardinal 
numeral higher than '4' (see note 4), it must be followed by the head noun in the 
genitive, and agreement with the verb becomes impossible; the verb assumes the de-
fau1t value of the third person singular. The grammatical person of the subject must 
be expressed with a pronoun c1itic copy of the subject's head noun (indicating the 
case and number of the head noun, as well as the grammatical person of the whole 
subject): pet študentov nas/vas gara 'we/you five students work hard'. (All the 
English glosses are misleading in the crucial syntactic respect.)-The present deduc-
tion deals with case (a). Case (b) is treated in deduction 17. My interest in case (a) 
has been instigated by Lyons 1999: 310 ff. 
The two syntactic variants: the type študentje garajo 'the students work hard' 
(occurring in the third person of the non-singular; transparent agreement of the 
verb with the subject), and the type študentje garamo 'we students work hard' (oc-
curring in the non-third person of the non-singular; opaque agreement of the verb 
with the subject). 
1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory: 
1.1. >sem (transparent, opaque) / agreement with full-NP subject 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, transparent agreement with a full-NP 
subject is more natural than opaque agreement with such a subject (in the spirit of 
Mayerthaler et al. 1998: 127). 
1.2. >sem (+third, -third) / grammatical person 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, the third person is more natural than 
the non-third person (according to the linguistic tradition beginning with lakobson 
1932). 
2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants: 
2.1. >sem tends to associate with another >sem 
2.2. <sem tends to associate with another <sem 
3. The consequences: 
From 1.1, 1.2 and 2.1 it can be deduced: 
3.1. If there is any difference between the type študentje garajo and the type štu-
dentje garamo, such that one type is used in the third person, and the other in the 
non-third person, it is the transparent type študentje garajo that tends to be used 
in the third person. Q.E.D. 
From 1.1, 1.2 and 2.2 it can be deduced: 
3.2. If there is any difference between the type študentje garajo and the type štu-
dentje garamo, such that one type is used in the third person, and the other in the 
non-third person, it is the opaque type študentje garamo that tends to be used in 
the non-third person. Q.E.D. 
J. Orešnik, Naturalness: Some Slovenian (Morpho)syntactic Examples 19 
4, Note. The above observation about cardinal numerals higher than '4' must be un-
derstood as referring to cardinal numbers which, when pronounced, end in 5-99, or 
are hundred or thousand bases (Toporišič 1976: 268; 2000: 333; Herrity 2000: 132f). 
17. Slovenian. (a) In the plural and dual, full noun phrase subjects can be used even 
with verbs in the non-third verbal person, e.g., študentje garate 'you students work 
hard', oba študenta garava 'both of us students work hard'. The verbal person is 
marked only in the desinence of the verb. (b) If the subject contains a cardinal 
numeral higher than '4' (see note 4.2), it must be followed by the head noun in the 
genitive, and agreement with the verb becomes impossible; the verb assumes the de-
fault value of the third person singular. The grammatical person of the subject must 
be expressed with a pronoun elitic copy of the subject's head noun (indicating the 
case and number of the head noun, as well as the grammatical person of the whole 
subject): pet študentov nas/vas gara 'we/you five students work hard'. (All the 
English glosses are misleading in the crucial syntactic respect.)-The present deduc-
tion deals with case (b). Case (a) is treated in deduction 16. 
The two syntactic variants: the type študentje garamo 'we students work hard' 
(occurring in the non-third person of the non-singular; opaque agreement of the 
verb with the subject), and the type pet študentov nas gara 'we five students work 
hard' (occurring in the non-third person of the plural; no agreement of the verb 
with the subject). 
1. The assumptions of Natura1ness Theory: 
1.1. >sym (more transparent, less transparent) / syntactic unit 
Le., with respect to encoding, a syntactic unit of greater syntactic transparency 
is more natural than a corresponding syntactic unit of lesser syntactic transparency 
(Mayerthaler 1981: 35; Mayerthaler et al. 1998: 186; on the notion of transparency see 
Mayerthaler 1987: 49). 
Two special cases of 1.1: 
1.1.1. >sym (+subject agreement, -subject agreement) / verb 
Le., with respect to encoding, subject agreement with the verb is more natural 
than 1ack of that agreement. 
1.1.2. >sym (elitic pronoun, desinence) / expression of grammatical person 
Le., with respect to encoding, a elitic pronoun is more natural as an expression 
of grammatical person than adesinence. 
2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants: 
2.1. >sym tends to associate with another >sym 
2.2. <sym tends to associate with another <sym 
3. The consequences: 
From 1.1.1-2 and 2.1 it can be deduced: 
3.1. If there is any difference between the type študentje garamo (lacking any car-
dina1 numeral in the subject) and the type pet študentov nas gara (containing a 
cardina1 numeral in the subject), such that in one type there is subject agreement 
(the grammatical person is expressed with adesinence on the verb), and in the other 
type there is no subject agreement (the grammatical person is expressed with a elitic 
pronoun), it is the type pet študentov nas gara (containing a cardina1 number in 
20 Slovenski jezik - Slovene Linguistic Studies 3 (2001) 
the subject) that tends to express the grammatical person with a clitic pronoun. 
Q.E.D. 
From l.1.1-2 and 2.2 it can be deduced: 
3.2. If there is any difference between the type študentje garamo (lacking any car-
dinal numeral in the subject) and the type pet študentov nas gara (containing a 
cardinal numeral in the subject), such that in one type there is subject agreement 
(the grammatical person is expressed with adesinence on the verb), and in the other 
type there is no subject agreement (the grammatical person is expressed with a clitic 
pronoun), it is the type študentje garamo (lacking any cardinal number in the sub-
ject) that tends to express the grammatical person with adesinence on the verb. 
Q.E.D. 
4. Notes. 
4.1. If the verb is transitive in the type pet študentov nas gara, say pet študentov 
vas gleda, the sentence is ambiguous between 'you five students are watching' and 
'five students are watching you' (seeing that vas can be the genitive of the sub-
ject-issued clitic or the accusative of the clitic direct object). Disambiguation is pos-
sible using the alternative type mi študentje vas gledamo (containing the determiner 
mi 'we' in the subject), which becomes nas pet študentov vas gleda 'we five students 
are watching you' when asuitable numeral is present in the subject. Just as mi is at 
least accented (if not emphatic) in mi študentje vas gledamo, the genitive nas (cor-
responding to mi in mi študentje vas gledamo) is at least accented (let alone clitic) 
in nas pet študentov vas gleda, and of course does not belong to the Wackernagel 
position. 
4.2. The above observation about cardinal numerals higher than '4' must be under-
sto od as referring to cardinal numbers which, when pronounced, end in 5-99, or 
are hundred or thousand bases (Toporišič 1976: 268; 2000: 333; Herrity 2000: 132f). 
18. Slovenian. Pronominal possession, alienable and inalienable. (a) Alienable posses-
sion with a pronominal possessor is expressed with the possessive adjective of the 
possessor, e.g., moja hiša 'my house'. Inalienable possession is expressed with the 
ba re possessum optionally preceded by the possessive adjective of the possessor, e.g., 
(moj) brat 'my brother'. (b) In inalienable possession, the possessive adjectives are 
used obligatorily when disambiguation is necessary, and are then emphatic, e.g., 
MOJ brat (my observations). The present deduction deals with case (a). Case (b) is 
considered in deduction 19. 
The two syntactic variants: the type moja hiša, and the type (moj) brat. 
1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory: 
1.1. >sym (more transparent, less transparent) / syntactic unit 
Le., with respect to encoding, a syntactic unit of greater syntactic transparency 
is more natural than a corresponding syntactic unit of lesser syntactic transparency 
(Mayerthaler 1981: 35; Mayerthaler et al. 1998: 186; on the notion of transparency see 
Mayerthaler 1987: 49). 
A special case of 1.1: 
1.1.1. >sym (the type moja hiša, the type (moj) brat) / in Slovenian 
Le., with respect to encoding, the type moja hiša is more natural than the 
type (moj) brat, in Slovenian. 
J. Orešnik, Naturalness: Some Slovenian (Morpho)syntactic Examples 21 
1.2, >sem (-alienable, +alienable) I possession 
Le" with respect to semantic complexity, inalienable possession is more natural 
than alienable possession (Mayerthaler 1981: 152; Mayerthaler et aL 1998: 275), 
2, The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants: 
2,1. >sym tends to associate with <sem 
2,2, <sym tends to associate with >sem 
3, The consequences: 
From LU, L2 and 2.1 it can be deduced: 
3,1. If there is any difference between the type moja hiša and the type (moj) brat, 
such that one expresses alienable possession, and the other expresses inalienable pos-
session, it is the type moja hiša that expresses alienable possession. Q.E.D. 
From UJ, L2 and 2.2 it can be deduced: 
3.2. If there is any difference between the type moja hiša and the type (moj) brat, 
such that one expresses alienable possession, and the other expresses inalienable pos-
session, it is the type (moj) brat that expresses inalienable possession. Q.E.D. 
19. Slovenian. Pronominal possession, alienable and inalienable. (a) Alienable posses-
sion with a pronominal possessor is expressed with the possessive adjective of the 
possessor, e.g., moja hiša 'my house'. Inalienable possession is expressed with the 
ba re possessum optionally preceded by the possessive adjective of the possessor, e.g., 
(moj) brat 'my brother'. (b) In inalienable possession, the possessive adjectives are 
used obligatorily when disambiguation is necessary, and are then emphatic, e.g., 
MOJ brat (my observations). The present deduction deals with case (b). Case (a) is 
considered in deduction 18. 
The two syntactic variants: the type (moj) brat, and the type moj brat. 
1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory: 
1.1. >sym (more transparent, less transparent) I syntactic unit 
Le., with respect to encoding, a syntactic unit of greater syntactic transparency 
is more natural than a corresponding syntactic unit of lesser syntactic transparency 
(Mayerthaler 1981: 35; Mayerthaler et al. 1998: 186; on the notion of transparency see 
Mayerthaler 1987: 49). 
A special case of 1.1: 
1.1.1. >sym (the type moj brat, the type (moj) brat) I in Slovenian 
Le., with respect to encoding, the type moj brat is more natural than the type 
(moj) brat, in Slovenian. 
1.2. >sem (-emphasis, +emphasis) 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, non-emphasis is more natural than 
emphasis (Mayerthaler 1981: 15, 159). 
2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants: 
2.1. >sym tends to associate with <sem 
2.2. <sym tends to associate with >sem 
3. The consequences: 
From LU, L2 and 2.1 it can be deduced: 
3.1. If there is any difference between the type (moj) brat and the type moj brat, 
22 Slovenski jezik - Slovene Linguistic Studies 3 (2001) 
such that one type is emphatic, and the other not, it is the type moj brat that tends 
to be emphatic. Q.E.D. 
From 1.1.1, 1.2 and 2.2 it can be deduced: 
3.2. If there is any difference between the type (moj) brat and the type moj brat, 
such that one type is emphatic, and the other not, it is the type (moj) brat that 
tends to be non-emphatic. Q.E.D. 
20. Slovenian. The main arguments of the verb are the nominative as the case of 
the subject and the accusative as the case of the direct object. The main argument 
of the noun is the genitive. (My attention was drawn to the putative unpredictability 
of the relationship between the main arguments of the verb and of the noun by 
Martina Križaj-Ortar viva voce, in the early 1980s.) 
The two syntactic variants: nominative/accusative of the verb, and genitive of 
the noun. 
1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory: 
1.1. >sem (verb, noun) 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, the verb is more natural than the 
noun.-The morphology of the verb is mostly better developed than the morphology 
of the noun. Such a state of affairs is expected with the less marked (the verb) and 
the corresponding more marked (the noun) parts of speech. 
1.2. >sem (nominative/accusative, genitive) I as argument in nom.-acc. languages 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, the nominative/accusative is more 
natural than the genitive, as argument in nominative-accusative languages (Mayer-
thaler et al. 1998: 167). 
2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants: 
2.1. >sem tends to associate with another >sem 
2.2. <sem tends to associate with another <sem 
3. The consequences: 
From 1.1, 1.2 and 2.1 it can be deduced: 
3.1. If there is any difference between the noun and the verb concerning their main 
arguments, such that one part of speech takes nominatives and accusatives, and the 
other part of speech takes genitives, it is the verb that tends to take the nominative 
and the accusative. Q.E.D. 
From 1.1, 1.2 and 2.2 it can be deduced: 
3.2. If there is any difference between the noun and the verb concerning their 
main arguments, such that one part of speech takes nominatives and accusatives, 
and the other part of speech takes genitives, it is the noun that tends to take the 
genitive. Q.E.D. 
21. Slovenian. (In what follows only the standard usage of those speakers whose 
pronunciation lacks tonemes is discussed.) Slovenian distinguishes +definite and 
-definite adjective forms. (a) The formal difference between +definite and -definite 
adjectives obtains only in the nominative singular masculine where the +definite 
form ends in -i, and the -definite form lacks any ending, e.g., +definite lep-i, 
-definite lep, both meaning 'beautiful'. (In the event that the accusative singular 
masculine equals in form the nominative singular masculine, the formal difference 
between the +definite and the -definite adjective obtains in that case form too.) (b) 
J. Orešnik, Naturalness: Some Slovenian (Morpho)syntactic Examples 23 
With the ad jectives 'little' and 'big', the formal difference between + /-definite ob-
tains throughout the declension: majhen is -definite, mal-i is +definite, both mean-
ing 'littie'; velik is -definite, velik-i is +definite, both meaning 'big' (Toporišič 1976: 
256; 2000: 320; Herrity 2000: 73-4), The present deduction deals with case (a), For 
case (b) see deduction 22. 
The two syntactic variants: the nominative singular masculine, and the remain-
ing case forms of the adjectival declension. 
1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory: 
1.1. >sem (+definite OR -definite form, +definite AND -definite form) / case in 
the adjectival declension of Slovenian 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, a case showing +definite OR -defin-
ite form is more natural than a case not distinguishing between +definite and -de-
finite form.-The scale has the format >sem (A + B, A), see item 4 of deduction 3. 
1.2. >sem (nominative singular masculine, the remaining case forms) / the adjectiv-
al declension of Slovenian 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, the nominative singular masculine is 
more natural than the remaining case forms, in the adjectival declension of Sloven-
ian.-The nominative is more sem-natural than the remaining cases. The singular is 
more sem-natural than the remaining grammatical numbers. The masculine is more 
sem-natural than the remaining genders (Mayerthaler 1981: 14-5). 
2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants: 
2.1. >sem tends to associate with another >sem 
2.2. <sem tends to associate with another <sem 
3. The consequences: 
From 1.1-2 and 2.1 it can be deduced: 
3.1. If there is any difference, within the adjectival declension, between the nomin-
ative singular masculine and the remaining case forms, such that the formal dif-
ference between +/-definite is or is not expressed, it is the nominative singular 
masculine that tends to express the formal distinction between +/-definite. Q.E.D. 
From 1.1-2 and 2.2 it can be deduced: 
3.2. If there is any difference, within the adjectival declension, between the nomin-
ative singular masculine and the remaining case forms, such that the formal dif-
ference between +/-definite is or is not expressed, it is the remaining case forms 
that tend to lack the formal distinction between +/-definite. Q.E.D. 
22. Slovenian. (In what follows only the standard usage of those speakers whose 
pronunciation lacks tonemes is discussed.) Slovenian distinguishes +definite and -de-
finite adjective forms. (a) The formal difference between +definite and -definite ad-
jectives obtains only in the nominative singular masculine where the +definite form 
ends in -i, and the -definite form lacks any ending, e.g., +definite lep-i, -definite 
lep, both meaning 'beautiful'. (In the event that the accusative singular masculine 
equals in form the nominative singular masculine, the formal difference between 
the +definite and the -definite adjective obtains in that case form too.) (b) With the 
adjectives 'littie' and 'big', the formal difference between +/-definite obtains 
throughout the declension: majhen is -definite, mal-i is +definite, both meaning 'lit-
tIe'; velik is -definite, velik-i is +definite, both meaning 'big' (Toporišič 1976: 256; 
24 Slovenski jezik - Slovene Linguistic Studies 3 (2001) 
2000: 320; Herrity 2000: 73-4). The present deduction deals with case (b). For case 
(a) see deduction 21. 
The two syntactic variants: the lexical items 'big' and 'little', and the remaining 
adjectival lexical items. 
1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory: 
1.1. >sem (+definite OR -definite form, +definite AND -definite form) / case in 
the adjectival declension of Slovenian 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, a case showing +definite OR -defin-
ite form is more natural than a case not distinguishing between +definite and -de-
finite forms.-The scale has the format >sem (A + B, A), see item 4 of deduction 3. 
1.2. >sem (more frequent, less frequent) / unit 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, a more frequent unit is more natural 
than a less frequent unit (in the spirit of G. Fenk-Oczlon 1991). 
A special case of 1.2: 
1.2.1. >sem ('big', 'little'; most other adjectival lexical items) / in Slovenian 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, the lexical items 'big' and 'little' are 
more natural than most other adjectival lexical items, in Slovenian. 
2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants: 
2.1. >sem tends to associate with another >sem 
2.2. <sem tends to associate with another <sem 
3. The consequences: 
From 1.1, 1.2.1 and 2.1 it can be deduced: 
3.1. If there is any difference, within the adjectival declension, between the lexical 
items 'big' and 'little' on the one side, and the remaining adjectival lexical items on 
the other, such that the formal difference between +/-definite is or is not expressed, 
it is the lexical items 'big' and 'little' that tend to show the formal distinction be-
tween +/-definite. Q.E.D. 
From 1.1, 1.2.1 and 2.2 it can be deduced: 
3.2. If there is any difference, within the adjectival declension, between the lexical 
items 'big' and 'little' on the one side, and the remaining adjectival lexical items on 
the other, such that the formal difference between +/-definite is or is not expressed, 
it is the remaining adjectival lexical items that tend to lack the formal distinction 
between +/-definnite. Q.E.D. 
4. Note to item 3.2. The "remaining" adjectival lexical items do show the formal di s-
tinction +/-definite in the nominative singular masculine. See deduction 21. 
23. Slovenian, non-standard. The definite article takes the form of the prefix ta- af-
fixed to any adjectival in the noun phrase, e.g., ta-zelena obleka 'the green 
dress/suit'. Bare head nouns cannot take this prefix, and do not express the definite-
ness at all, e.g., obleka 'dress/suit (+/-def.)' (my observations; cf. Herrity 2000: 
76-7). 
The two syntactic variants: the type ta-zelena obleka (article+adjective + head 
noun, +definite) and the type obleka (bare head noun, +definite). 
1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory: 
1.1. >sym (more transparent, less transparent) / syntactic unit 
J. Orešnik. Naturalness: Some Slovenian (Morpho)syntactic Examples 25 
Le .. with respect to encoding. a syntactic unit of greater syntactic transparency 
is more natural than a corresponding syntactic unit of lesser syntactic transparency 
(Mayerthaler 1981: 35; Mayerthaler et aL 1998: 186; on the notion of transparency see 
Mayerthaler 1987: 49). 
Two special cases of 1.1: 
1.1.1. >sym (prefix, O) / the definite article in non-standard Slovenian 
Le., with respect to encoding, a prefix is more natural than O, as the definite 
article of non -standard Slovenian. 
1.1.2. >sym (the type ta-zelena obleka, the type obleka) / in non-standard Slovenian 
Le., with respect to encoding, the type ta-zelena obleka is more natural than 
the type obleka, in non-standard Slovenian. 
2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants: 
2.1. >sym tends to associate with another >sym 
2.2. <sym tends to associate with another <sym 
3. The consequences: 
From 1.1.1-2 and 2.1 it can be deduced: 
3.1. If there is any difference between adjective + noun (def.) and the ba re noun 
(def.) , such that definiteness is expressed with the prefix ta- in one case, and not 
expressed in the other, it is adjective + noun (def.) that tends to take the prefix ta-o 
Q.E.D. 
From 1.1.1-2 and 2.2 it can be deduced: 
3.2. If there is any difference between adjective + noun (def.) and the ba re noun 
(def.) , such that definiteness is expressed with the prefix ta- in one case, and not 
expressed in the other, it is the bare noun (def.) that tends not to express definite-
ness. Q.E.D. 
24. Slovenian. In the construction type Plečnikova hiša mojega očeta '[architect] Pleč­
nik's house of my father's', the possessive adjective Plečnikov 'of [architect] Plečnik' is 
characterizing, whereas the genitive mojega očeta 'of my father' is identifying. 
The two syntactic variants: the possessive adjective and the genitive in the con-
struction type Plečnikova hiša mojega očeta. 
1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory: 
1.1. >sem (characterizing, identifying) / attribution 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, characterizing attribution is more 
natural than identifying attribution (in the spirit of Mayerthaler et aL 1998: 197). 
1.2. >sym (more transparent, less transparent) / syntactic unit 
Le., with respect to encoding, a syntactic unit of greater syntactic transparency 
is more natural than a corresponding syntactic unit of lesser syntactic transparency 
(Mayerthaler 1981: 35; Mayerthaler et aL 1998: 186; on the notion of transparency see 
Mayerthaler 1987: 49). 
A special case of 1.1: 
1.2.1. >sym (the genitive, the possessive adjective) / in Slovenian 
Le., with respect to encoding, the genitive is more natural than the possessive 
adjective, in Slovenian.-The syntactic potential of the genitive is significant1y great-
er than the syntactic potential of the possessive adjective. 
26 Slovenski jezik - Slovene Linguistic Studies 3 (2001) 
2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants: 
2.1. >sym tends to associate with <sem 
2.2. <sym tends to associate with >sem 
3. The consequences: 
From 1.1, 1.2 and 2.1 it can be deduced: 
3.1. If there is any difference between the possessive adjective and the gemt1ve in 
the construction type Plečnikova hiša mojega očeta, such that one of these modi-
fying element s characterizes, and the other identifies, then it is the genitive that 
tends to have the identifying function. Q.E.D. 
From 1.1, 1.2 and 2.2 it can be deduced: 
3.2. If there is any difference between the possessive adjective and the genitive in 
the construction type Plečnikova hiša mojega očeta, such that one of these modi-
fying elements characterizes, and the other identifies, then it is the possessive adjec-
tive that tends to have the characterizing function. Q.E.D. 
25. Slovenian. Genitivus subiectivus tends to be expressed with a possessive adjec-
tive, morphology permitting, e.g., profesorjevo občudovanje 'the professor's admira-
tion' (scil. 'the professor admires'). Genitivus obiectivus tends to be expressed with 
the genitive case, e.g., občudovanje profesorja 'the admiration of the professor' (scil. 
'one admires the professor'). 
The two syntactic variants: genitivus subiectivus, and genitivus obiectivus. 
1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory: 
1.1. >sym (more transparent, less transparent) / syntactic unit 
Le., with respect to encoding, a syntactic unit of greater syntactic transparency 
is more natural than a corresponding syntactic unit of lesser syntactic transparency 
(Mayerthaler 1981: 35; Mayerthaler et al. 1998: 186; on the notion of transparency see 
Mayerthaler 1987: 49). 
A special case of 1.1: 
1.1.1. >sym (genitive, possessive adjective) / in Slovenian 
Le., with respect to encoding, the genitive is more natural than the possessive 
adjective, in Slovenian.-The syntactic potential of the genitive is significantly great-
er than the syntactic potential of the possessive adjective. 
1.2. >sem (subject, object) / in nom.-acc. languages 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, the subject is more natural than the 
object, in nominative-accusative languages.-This follows from the basic properties of 
nominative-accusative languages (Mayerthaler 1981: 14). 
2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants: 
2.1. >sym tends to associate with <sem 
2.2. <sym tends to associate with >sem 
3. The consequences: 
From 1.1.1, 1.2 and 2.1 it can be deduced: 
3.1. If there is any difference between the genitivus subiectivus and the gemt1vus 
obiectivus, such that one of them is expressed with the possessive adjective (morpho-
logy permitting), and the other is expressed with the genitive, it is the genitivus ob-
iectivus that tends to be expressed with the genitive. Q.E.D. 
J. Orešnik, Naturalness: Some Slovenian (Morpho)syntactic Examples 27 
From UJ, 1.2 and 2.2 it can be deduced: 
3,2, If there is any difference between the genitivus subiectivus and the gemtlvus 
obiectivus, such that one of them is expressed with the possessive adjective, and the 
other is expressed with the genitive, it is the genitivus subiectivus that tends to be 
expressed with the possessive adjective, morphology permitting, Q,E,D, 
26, Slovenian, The direct object mostly takes the accusative, e,g" žela je pšenico 
'she was cutting the wheat' , In obsolete use, the direct object takes the genitive in 
infinite c1auses of purpose (containing the so-called supine), e,g" šla je pšenice žet 
'she went to cut the wheat' (Toporišič 1976: 204, 293, 338; 2000: 269, 402), 
The two syntactic variants: the type žela je pšenico, and the obsolete type šla 
je pšenice žet. 
1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory: 
1.1. >sem (+finite, -finite) c1ause 
Le with respect to semantic complexity, the finite c1ause is more natural than 
the infinite c1ause (Mayerthaler et al. 1998: 325). 
1.2. >sem (accusative, genitive) / in Slovenian 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, the accusative is more natural than 
the genitive, in Slovenian (which is a nominative-accusative language) (Mayerthaler 
et al. 1998: 167). 
2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants: 
2.1. >sem tends to associate with another >sem 
2.2. <sem tends to associate with another <sem 
3. The consequences: 
From 1.1, 1.2 and 2.1 it can be deduced: 
3.1. If there is any difference between the direct object in finite c1auses and infinite 
c1auses of purpose, such that the direct object takes the accusative in one c1ause 
type, and the genitive in the other, it is the direct object of the finite c1ause that 
tends to take the accusative. Q.E.D. 
From 1.1, 1.2 and 2.2 it can be deduced: 
3.2. If there is any difference between the direct object in finite c1auses and infin-
ite c1auses of purpose, such that the direct object takes the accusative in one c1ause 
type, and the genitive in the other, it is the direct object of the infinite c1ause of 
purpose that tends to take the genitive. Q.E.D. 
27. Slovenian. Mens surnames are most1y inflected, whereas women's surnames are 
most1y uninflected (Toporišič 1976: 219, 231; 2000: 296, 560; Herrity 2000: 33). E.g., 
Jože Toporišič, genitive Jožeta Toporišiča; Breda Pogorelec, genitive Brede Pogorelec. 
The two syntactic variants: mans surname, and woman's surname. 
1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory: 
1.1. >sym (+[one meaning-one form], -[one meaning-one form]) 
Le., with respect to encoding, "one meaning-one form" is more natural than 
non-adherence to that principle (Mayerthaler 1981: 34; 1987: 49). 
A special case of 1.1: 
1.1.1. >sym (-inflected, +inflected) / surname in Slovenian 
28 Slovenski jezik - Slovene Linguistic Studies 3 (2001) 
Le with respect to encoding, an uninflected surname is more natural than an 
inflected surname, in Slovenian. 
1.2. >sem (masculine, feminine) 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, masculine is more natural than femi-
nine (Mayerthaler 1981: 15). 
2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants: 
2.1. >sym tends to associate with <sem 
2.2. <sym tends to associate with >sem 
3. The consequences: 
From 1.1.1, 1.2 and 2.1 it can be deduced: 
3.1. If there is any difference between men's surnames and women's surnames, such 
that one kind is inflected and the other not, it is women's surnames that tend not to 
be inflected. Q.E.D. 
From 1.1.1, 1.2 and 2.2 it can be deduced: 
3.2. If there is any difference between men's surnames and women's surnames, such 
that one kind is inflected and the other not, it is men's surnames that tend to be in-
flected. Q.E.D. 
28. Slovenian. The Slovenian geographical regions often have names ending in -sko 
and -ska, e.g., Gorenjsko, Gorenjska 'Upper Carniola'. The name in -sko tends to be 
used with spatial reading, e.g., na Gorenjskem 'in Upper Carniola', as against Go-
renjska je lepa 'Upper Carniola is beautiful' (Toporišič 1976: 236; 2000: 301; Rerrity 
2000: 62). 
The two syntactic variants: the type Gorenjsko, and the type Gorenjska. 
1. The assumptions of Naturalness Theory: 
1.1. >sem (the type Gorenjsko, the type Gorenjska) 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, the type Gorenjsko is more natural 
than the type Gorenjska.-The type Gorenjsko is the older of the two. The speakers 
are aware of this on the basis of the fact that the nominative Gorenjsko is obsole-
scent or obsolete. 
1.2. >sem (spatial reading, other reading) / of place names 
Le., with respect to semantic complexity, the spatial reading of a place name is 
more natural than any other reading of that place name (Rock 1991: 233). 
2. The assumptions of the Slovenian Theory, concerning any two syntactic variants: 
2.1. >sem tends to associate with another >sem 
2.2. <sem tends to associate with another <sem 
3. The consequences: 
From 1.1, 1.2 and 2.1 it can be deduced: 
3.1. If there is any difference between the region names in -sko and in -ska, such 
that one tends to be used with spatial reading, and the other not, it is the type Go-
renjsko that tends to be used with spatial reading. Q.E.D. 
From 1.1, 1.2 and 2.2 it can be deduced: 
J. Orešnik, Naturalness: Some Slovenian (Morpho)syntactic Examples 29 
3,2, If there is any difference between the region names in -sko and in -ska, such 
that one tends to be used with spatial reading, and the other not, it is the type Go-
renjska that tends not to be used with spatial reading. Q.E.D. 
References 
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan. 
1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman. 
Brandenstein, Wilhelm. 1966. Griechische Sprachwissenschaft. III. Syntax I. Berlin: 
de Gruyter. 
Corbett, Greville G. 1999. "Agreement," 12-8. In: Keith Brown and Jim Miller, eds., 
Concise encyclopedia of grammatical categories. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 
Dotter, Franz. 1990. Nichtarbitraritiit und lkonizitiit in der Syntax. Hamburg: Buske. 
Dressler, Wolfgang V., Willi Mayerthaler , Oswald Panagl, and Wolfgang V. Wurzel. 
1987. Leitmotifs in natural morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 
Dressler, Wolfgang V. 2000. "Naturalness," 288-96. In: Geert Booij, Christian Leh-
mann, and Joachim Mugdan, eds., Morphologie: Ein internationales Handbuch 
zur Flexion und Wortbildung. Volume 1. Berlin: de Gruyter. 
Fenk-Oczlon, Gertraud. 1991. "Frequenz und Kognition - Frequenz und Markiert-
heit," Folia Linguistica 25: 361-94. 
Herrity, Peter. 2000. Slovene: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge. 
Hock, Hans Henrich. 1991. Principles of historical linguistics. Second edition. Berlin: 
de Gruyter. 
Jakobson, Roman. 1932. "Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums," 74-84. In: Charis-
teria Gvilelmo Mathesio qvinqvagenario a discipvlis et Circvli lingvistici pra-
gensis sodalibvs oblata. Prague: Pražsky lingvisticky kroužek. 
Li, Charles N. 1986. "Direct and indirect speech: A functional study," 29-45. In: 
Florian Coulmas, ed., Direct and indirect speech. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 
Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge Vniversity Press. 
Mayerthaler , Willi. 1981. Morphologische Naturlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Athenaion.-Eng-
lish version: Mayerthaler 1988. 
Mayerthaler, Willi. 1987. "System-independent morphological naturalness," 25-58. In: 
Wolfgang V. Dressler, Willi Mayerthaler , Oswald Panagl, and Wolfgang V. 
Wurzel, Leitmotifs in natural morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 
Mayerthaler, Willi. 1988. Morphological naturalness. Ann Arbor: Karoma. 
Mayerthaler , Willi, and Gunther Fliedl. 1993. "Natlirlichkeitstheoretische Syntax," 
610-35. In: Joachim Jacobs, Armin von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld, and 
Theo Vennemann, eds., Syntax. Volume 1. Berlin: de Gruyter. 
Mayerthaler, Willi, Gunther Fliedl, and Christian Winkler. 1993. lnfinitivprominenz 
in europiiischen Sprachen. TeilI: Die Romania (samt Baskisch). Tubingen: Narr. 
30 Slovenski jezik - Slovene Linguistic Studies 3 (2001) 
Mayerthaler, Willi, Gunther Fliedl, and Christian Winkler. 1995. Infinitivprominenz 
in europiiischen Sprachen. Teil II: Der Alpen-Adria-Raum als Schnittstelle von 
Germanisch, Romanisch und Slawisch. Tubingen: Narr. 
Mayerthaler, Willi, Gunther Fliedl, and Christian Winkler. 1998. Lexikon der natur-
lichkeitstheoretischen Syntax und Morphosyntax. Tubingen: Stauffenburg. 
Milojevic-Sheppard, Milena, and Marija Golden. 2000. "Imperatives, negation and 
clitics in Slovene," 93-109. In: Jože Toporišič, ed., Razprave drugega razreda 
SAZU XVII. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti. 
Orešnik, Janez. 1999. "Naturalness: The English s-genitive and of-phrase," Studia 
anglica posnaniensia 34: 191-200. 
Orešnik, Janez. 2000. "Naturalness: The preterite and present perfect tenses in Ger-
man," 21-43. In: Irena Kovačič, Milena Milojevic-Sheppard, Silvana Orel-Kos, 
and Janez Orešnik, eds., Linguistics and language studies: Exploring language 
from different perspectives. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta. 
Perlmutter, David M., and Janez Orešnik. 1973. "Language particular rules and ex-
planation in syntax," 419-59. In: Stephen R. Anderson and Paul Kiparsky , eds., 
A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 
Toporišič, Jože. 1976. Slovenska slovnica. Maribor: Obzorja. 
Toporišič, Jože. 2000. Slovenska slovnica. Fourth (revised and augmented) edition. 
Maribor: Obzorja. 
Stoiz, Thomas. 1992. Sekundiire Flexionsbildung. Eine Polemik zur Zielgerichtetheit 
im Sprachwandel. Two volumes. Bochum: Brockmeyer. 
Wurzel, Wolfgang Ullrich. 1984. Flexionsmorphologie und Naturlichkeit. Berlin: 
Akademie-Verlag. 
Prispelo januarja 2001, sprejeto februarja 2001 
Received January 2001, accepted February 2001 
lezikovna naravnost - nekaj (obliko)skladenjskih zgledov iz slovenščine 
V slovenski izvedbi teorije o jezikovni naravnosti se obravnavajo naslednji veči­
noma (obliko)skladenjski pojavi slovenščine (številke se nanašajo na t. i. izpeljave v 
glavnem besedilu): 
2. Tip Brežice so bile mesto nasproti tipu to mesto so bile Brežice. 3. Glagolski 
vid v trdilnem in zanikanem velelniku. 4. Neformalno in manj neformalno ogovar-
janje edninskega sogovornika. 5. Formalno in manj formalno ogovarjanje edninskega 
sogovornika. 6. Umik levega pridevniškega prilastka desno od jedra samostalniške 
zveze. 7. Nevelelniške povedi kot čustveno poudarjeni različki velelnika. 8. Pogojnik 
izražen z velelniškim stavkom. 9. Raba trdilnega velelnika, podprtega s primernimi 
členki, namesto zanikanega velelnika. 10-11. Tožilnik v obliki soodnosnega rodilni-
ka, če je neživo jedro ob pridevniški besedi izpuščeno, npr. hočem belega (namreč 
bel avto). 12. Poudarjanje zunaj- in znotrajstavčne nikainice. 13. Stavčna nikalnica + 
osebna in neosebna glagolska oblika. 14. Povedkovo določilo povratnih srednjiških 
glagolov v imenovalniku in tožilniku. 15. Določna oblika pridevnika v zvalniku. 
J. Orešnik, Naturalness: Some Slovenian (Morpho)syntactic Examples 31 
16-7, Nezaimenski osebki ob glagolskih obliki v net ret ji osebi, npr. študentje garate. 
18-9. Zaimkovno izražena svojina, odtujljiva in neodtujljiva. 20. Glavni argumenti 
glagola in samostalnika. 21-2. Določna in nedoločna oblika pridevnika. 23. Določni 
člen ta-o 24. Opisovalni in določevalni svojilni pridevniki. 25. Osebkov rodilnik na-
sproti predmetnemu. 26. Premi predmet v nedoločniških polstavkih namere. 27. 
Sklanjanje moških in ženskih priimkov. 28. Slovenska pokrajinska imena na -ska in 
-ska, npr. Gorenjsko, Gorenjska. 
Naturalness: Some Slovenian (Morpho )syntactic Examples 
Within Naturalness Theory as practised in the local work, the following mostly 
(morpho )syntactic phenomena of Slovenian are considered (the numbering refers to 
the so-called deductions in the main text): 
2. The type Brežice so bile mesto 'Brežice was a town', as against to mesto so 
bile Brežice 'this town was Brežice'. 3. The verbal aspect in the affirmative and the 
negative imperative. 4. Informal and less informal addressing of one person. 5. For-
mal and less formal addressing of one person. 6. The displacement of the adjective 
modifier to the right of the head. 7. Non-imperative sentences as expressive variants 
of the imperative. 8. The conditional expressed with an imperative clause. 9. The use 
of the affirmative imperative supported with suitable particles instead of the negated 
imperative. 10-11. The accusative in the form of the corresponding genitive if the 
inanimate noun head of the adjectival is ellipted, e.g., hočem belega '1 want the 
white one (scil. the white car)'. 12. The emphasis of intra- and extra-clausal sentence 
negation. 13. The sentence negation + the finite and infinite verb. 14. The subject 
complement of middle-voice reflexive verbs in the nominative and in the accusative. 
15. The definite form of the adjective in vocatives. 16-7. Full noun phrase subjects 
with verbs in the non-third verbal person, e.g., študentje garate 'you students work 
hard'. 18-9. Pronominal possession, alienable and inalienable. 20. The main argu-
ments of the verb and of the noun. 21-2. Definite and indefinite adjective forms. 23. 
The definite article ta-o 24. Characterizing and identifying possessive adjectives. 25. 
Genitivus subiectivus V. genitivus obiectivus. 26. The direct object in infinite clauses 
of purpose. 27. Inflection of men's and women's surnames. 28. Slovenian geographi-
cal regions whose names end in -ska and -ska, e.g., Gorenjsko, Gorenjska 'Upper 
Carniola'.