education and research across time and space

UNIVERSITY “ST. KLIMENT OHRIDSKI” FACULTY OF EDUCATION BITOLA

Third International Conference EDUCATION ACROSS BORDERS

EDUCATION AND RESEARCH ACROSS TIME AND SPACE (1100th Death Anniversary of St. Clement of Ohrid)

6-7 October 2016 BITOLA

Third International Conference “Education across Borders” Education and Research across Time and Space (1100th Death Anniversary of St. Clement of Ohrid)

2017

Conference Proceedings University “St. Kliment Ohridski” in Bitola Faculty of Education

Third International Conference “Education across Borders” Education and Research across Time and Space (1100th Death Anniversary of St. Clement of Ohrid) 6-7 October 2016 Bitola

2|P a g e


2017

Organizing Institutions: University "St. Kliment Ohridski" in Bitola (Faculty of Education in Bitola) together with the University „Fan S. Noli“ – Korçё (Faculty of Education and Philology in Korçё), University of Niš (Faculty of Education in Vranje and Center for Byzantine-Slavic Studies in Niš), Plovdiv University “Paisii Hilendarski” (Faculty of Education in Plovdiv) and Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań (Faculty of Polish and Classical Philology and Institutes for Slavic and Polish Philology in Poznań).

Plenary Lectures: Dimitar Pandev, Faculty of Philology Blaže Koneski“ in Skopje A Word on the Slavic Patterned Teachings

Grozdanka Gojkov, Serbian Academy of Education in Belgrade Education and Research in Postmodern World

Conference topics:

 Ohrid Literary School – The First Slavic University  Language & Literature  Pedagogy & Psychology  Science, Math, ICT  Social Sciences

3|P a g e


2017

Program Committee: Sašo Korunovski, Rector of the University “St. Kliment Ohridski” - Bitola Ali Jashari, Rector of the University „Fan S. Noli“ - Korçё Bogumiła Kaniewska, Vice Rector of the Adam Mickiewicz University - Poznań Benita Stavre, Vice Rector of the University „Fan S. Noli“ - Korçё Valentina Gulevska, Faculty of Education - Bitola Sunčica Denić, Faculty of Education - Vranje Rumjana Tankova, Faculty of Education - Plovdiv Dragiša Bojović, Center for Byzantine-Slavic Studies - Niš Bogusław Zieliński, Institute for Slavic Philology - Poznań Dobri Petrovski, Faculty of Education - Bitola Jove Dimitrija Talevski, Faculty of Education - Bitola Donika Dardha, Faculty of Education and Philology - Korçё Vasilika Pojani, Faculty of Education and Philology - Korçё Slađana Ristić Gorgiev, Center for Byzantine-Slavic Studies - Niš Branko Gorgiev, Center for Byzantine-Slavic Studies - Niš Krzysztof Trybuś, Institute for Polish Philology - Poznań Božidara Kriviradeva, Faculty of Education - Sofia Galena Ivanova, Faculty of Education - Plovdiv Blagica Zlatković, Faculty of Education - Vranje Danijela Zdravković, Faculty of Education – Vranje

Organising Committee: PhD Biljana Cvetkova Dimov, President of the Organising Committee MA Meri Stoilkova-Kavkaleska PhD Metodija Stojanovski PhD Dobri Petrovski PhD Jove Dimitrija Talevski PhD Ljupčo Kevereski PhD Zlatko Žoglev PhD Tatjana Atanasoska PhD Valentina Gulevska PhD Dean Iliev PhD Violeta Januševa PhD Daniela Andonovska-Trajkovska PhD Mažana Severin-Kuzmanovska PhD Gordana Stojanoska PhD Jasminka Kočoska PhD Danče Sivakova-Neškovska PhD Biljana Gramatkovski PhD Silvana Neškovska PhD Marija Ristevska PhD Milena Pejčinovska PhD Bisera Kostadinovska-Stojčevska MA Stela Bosilkovska

4|P a g e


2017

Publisher University “St. Kliment Ohridski” - Bitola Faculty of Education - Bitola Dean prof. Valentina Gulevska, PhD

Executive and Editor-in-chief prof. Biljana Cvetkova-Dimov, PhD Cover Aleksandar Gulevski Technical & Computer support Jove Stojchevski

CIP - Каталогизација во публикација Национална и универзитетска библиотека "Св. Климент Охридски", Скопје 37.091.3(062) 821.163.1.09Св.Климент Охридски(062) 271.2-36Св.Климент Охридски (062) INTERNATIONAL conference "Education across borders" (3 ; 2016 ; Bitola) Education and research across time and space [Електронски извор] : conference proceedings : (1100 th death anniversary of St. Clement of Ohrid) / Third international conference "Education across borders", 6-7 October 2016 Bitola. - Bitola : University "St. Kliment Ohridski" in Bitola, Faculty of Еducation, 2017 Начин на пристап (URL): http://www.pfbt.uklo.edu.mk/eab. - Текст во PDF формат, содржи 1081 стр., илустр. - Наслов преземен од екранот. - Опис на изворот на ден 14.07.2017. - Библиографија кон трудовите ISBN 978-9989-100-50-5 а) Климент Охридски, св. (840-916) - Собири б) Образование и настава - Собири COBISS.MK-ID 103722250

5|P a g e


2017

CONTENT PLENARY LECTURES .......................................................................................................... 19 A WORD ON THE SLAVIC PATTERNED TEACHINGS .................................................. 20 Dimitar Pandev EDUCATION AND RESEARCH IN POSTMODERN WORLD .......................................... 25 Grozdanka Gojkov OHRID LITERARY SCHOOL – THE FIRST SLAVIC UNIVERSITY ............................... 40 HERMENEUTICS IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF SAINT CLEMENT OF OHRID ................ 41 Vera Georgieva &Valentina Gulevska CONTRIBUTION OF ST. CLEMENT OF OHRID FOR THE EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND SOCIETY………………………………………………………….........46 Zlatko Zhoglev THE SILVER BOX CONTIANING THE RELICS OF ST. CLEMENT OF OHRID FROM THE MONASTERY OF ST. NAUM OF OHRID IN THE TREASURY OF BITOLA METROPOLIS………………………………………...53 Aleksandar Gulevski TEACHERS AND DISCIPLES (FROM 9TH TO THE 14TH CENTURY): SOPHIOLOGAL AND EUCHARISTIC CONTEXT .......................................................................................... 59 Dragiša Bojović BRIEF REFLECTIONS ABOUT THE CHRONOLOGICAL ASPECT OF THE GLAGOLITIC AND CYRILLIC ............................................................................................ 68 Violeta Krsteska METHODICAL ASPECTS AND PRINCIPLES IN THE TEACHING ACTIVITY OF ST. CLEMENT OF OHRID ........................................................................................................... 73 Daniela Andonovska-Trajkovska ST. CLEMENT OF OHRID - PRECURSOR OF THE LEARNING FOR PEACE AND NON-VIOLENCE.................................................................................................................... 81 Gordana Stojanoska LANGUAGE& LITERATURE............................................................................................... 87

6|P a g e


2017

THE MODERN MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE – PROBLEMS IN THE TEACHING PRACTICE (ACCENTUAL UNITS AND CLITIC EXPRESSIONS)................................... 88 Violeta Januševa & Jana Jurukovska FOLK TALES AND ITS ROLE IN CHILDREN’S EDUCATION BEYOND SPACE AND TIME ........................................................................................................................................ 98 Ilir Shyta & Jonela Spaho CHILDREN’S LITERATURE AS A WAY OF PROVIDING OPENNESS TO DIFFERENT QUESTIONS ......................................................................................................................... 105 Sunčica Denić RUBRICS AS A TOOL FOR DEVELOPING PERFORMANCE, SOFT AND METACOGNITIVE SKILLS ................................................................................................ 112 Hilda Terlemezyan PROBLEM OF METHOD IN CHILD AND YOUTH LITERATURE ................................ 118 Hikmet Asutay USE OF LITERARY TEXTS AS A MEANS FOR ADOPTING MORPHOLOGICAL SYSTEM OF A LANGUAGE FOR PRESCHOOL CHILDREN ........................................ 123 Ljiljana Kelemen-Milojević & Blagoje Milojević LANGUAGE PLANNING AND LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT IN PRESCHOOL EDUCATION ........................................................................................................................ 134 Lulzim Ademi PRAGMATIC LANGUAGE SYSTEM OF PRESCHOOLERS .......................................... 140 Rriollza Agolli & Albina Pajo CORELATION BETWEEN MULTILINGUALISM AND SCORES ON MATHEMATICS TESTS .................................................................................................................................... 148 Nedelkoska Gabriela & Angjelkoska Violeta CREATIVITY AS A POWERFUL TEACHING TOOL IN HELPING LITTLE CHILDREN TO LOVE READING AND WRITING................................................................................ 153 Vesela Bogdanovikj EFFECTIVE METHODOLOGIES FOR TEACHING VOCABULARY IN THE ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE CLASSROOM.................................................................... 160 Bisera Kostadinovska-Stojčevska & Irina Petrovska SPEAKING - AN EFFECTIVE LANGUAGE SKILL TO BUILD COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE OF EFL LEARNERS ................................................................................. 165 Vasilika Pojani & Benita Stavre

7|P a g e


2017

THE MODERN MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE – PROBLEMS IN THE TEACHING PRACTICE (ACCENTUAL UNITS AND CLITIC EXPRESSIONS) Violeta Januševa Faculty of Education – Bitola [email protected] Jana Jurukovska Faculty of Education – Bitola [email protected]

Abstract Nowadays, the modern Macedonian language, built upon the central Macedonian dialects, as a beyond-dialect standardized variety, is a completely developed language system in various fields (phonetics and phonology, morphology, word-formation and word-building, lexicology, syntax etc.), which helps the speakers of the Macedonian language, in spoken as well in written form, to articulate the most complex abstract contents regarding the civilization and the cultural features of the society in every sphere of human activities. However, when learning the modern Macedonian language, teachers and students encounter certain difficulties in all of the above mentioned fields, mainly because the Macedonian language Course Textbooks do not provide precise explanation of certain segments that should be learned by the students. Taking this into consideration, the paper employs some of the most insufficiently explained and ambiguous content sections that are confusing for both, the teachers and the students, in the field of phonetics and phonology, and it offers commentaries, interpretations and explanation, in order to make this type of contents clearer. In the future, this analysis would be useful when preparing the new editions of the Macedonian language Course Textbooks and additional teaching materials. Keywords: Macedonian language, teaching practice, problems. Introduction The existence of the Macedonian people is marked by several historic moments. From the establishment of foundation of the literacy, until the transformation into its final form, the Macedonians went through several important periods. Namely, the most important period of all which represents the peak of the development of the language began in 1944, when the Macedonian people managed to escape from the claws of the enemies. This period was extremely important because of the first session of the Anti-Fascist Assembly for National Liberation of Macedonia (ASNOM) that resulted with the decision for codification of the Macedonian language. The questions regarding the alphabet and the orthography were clarified with the establishment of the following three principles: (1) the Macedonian literary language should include the forms of the central dialects which would connect all variations, and they would be easily acceptable for the people on the whole territory; (2) the language should be a reflection of the folk basis, meaning that the vocabulary should be enriched with words from the dialects, new words should be coined with native suffixes, and foreign words should be adopted only if there is a necessity; (3) the Macedonian alphabet should contain as many letters (grapheme) as there are sounds (phonemes) in the language, i.e. the orthography 88 | P a g e


2017

should be based on the phonological principle, (Koneski, 1987: 56–57). The newly formed country became part of the Yugoslav federation and the Macedonian literary language became an official language. The next important period began in 1991, when the country separated from the federation and became independent. In regard of the existence of specialized literature for studying the Macedonian language, it could be said that the first attempt to write a Macedonian grammar was done by Gjorgji Pulevski who printed “Slognica rečovska” in 1880 in Sofia. Further on, the year 1903 was very significant because Krste Petkov Misirkov introduced the book “On Macedonian matters”. In addition, Krume Kepeski publishes his book “Macedonian grammar” in 1946, followed by the voluminous book “Grammar of the Macedonian literary language I-II” written by Blaže Koneski, published in the period between 1952 and 1954(in the paper the reprinted edition from 1987 is used). Koneski also published another very important book named “History of the Macedonian language“ from 1981 in which he gives an insight of the history and the development of the Macedonian language. Today, the modern Macedonian language, build upon the central dialects, has all the features of modern language system which completely reflects the needs of its users and allows them to articulate the most complex and abstract contents. The specialized literature comprises topics concerning all aspects and all parts of the Macedonian language, including the field of phonetics and phonology. Namely, phonetics is a study that is concerned with the production of speech sounds, their description and classification, whereas phonology deals with interpretation of speech sounds in a particular language, with reference to their distribution and patterning. In phonetics, stress is the degree of emphasis that is given to certain syllables in a word (word stress), or to certain words in a phrase or sentence (sentence stress). When talking about word stress, it should be emphasized that there are words that have their own stress, and those words are independent, whereas the words that do not have their own stress are called clitics, and, as such, they are not independent. The accentual units are the most intriguing category because they are formed with two or more elements, and also because there is a lack of information concerning their formation. Above all, recently, changes were made in the overall information about the stress and the accentual units, which makes them even more complex for elaboration. Concerning the teaching process, it should be emphasized that the great number of specialized books indicates the importance of having well written materials for gaining proper knowledge of the language. Consequently, the teaching process should be performed with the help of appropriate and correctly written materials which would enable the students to perform their activities in the most effective and precise manner. The objective of the paper is to denote some of the most insufficiently explained and ambiguous content sections that are confusing for both, the teachers and the students, in the field of phonetics and phonology, and to offer commentaries, interpretations and explanation, in order to make this type of contents clearer. In the future, this analysis would be useful when preparing the new editions of the Macedonian language Course Textbooks and additional teaching materials. Methodology of the Research In order to obtain the desired results, this paper employs the qualitative paradigm (content analysis) and descriptive design. The data collection is performed on the basis of two fields of the language, that is, phonetics and phonology, or to be more precise the content sections that refer to stress and accentual units from the following sources: Grammar of the Macedonian literary language I-II (1987), Orthography of the Macedonian literary language (1998), Syntax of the Macedonian standard language (2000), Orthography of the Macedonian literary language (2005), Orthography of the Macedonian language (2015), and Macedonian Language Course Textbook for secondary education (1998). Consequently, the sample 89 | P a g e


2017

contains excerpts from the above-mentioned primary sources which refer to stress and accentual units. These books are the primary source which provides important information regarding the stress and the accentual units. Other sources are not taken into consideration because the provided information is the same as in the already mentioned primary sources. The analysis of the data is done from a point of view of its preciseness and correctness, and at the same time, the content sections are compared, providing a basis for obtaining conclusions. The methods used for processing the data, and also for obtaining conclusions are analysis and synthesis, and the comparative method. Results and Discussion The stress in the Macedonian language is dynamic, and also fixed because it is placed on the antepenult (third-from-the-last syllable) of words with three or more syllables. In disyllabic words the stress is placed on the second-from-the-last syllable, and in monosyllabic words the stress is placed on the only vowel in the syllable. The bearer of the stress is the vowel or, in certain cases, the consonant r. This rule is applied on native words, but also on foreign words that have adopted the Macedonian stress, (Koneski, 1987: 140–141). The stress mark ( ′ ) is placed above the vowel in the stressed syllable, (Orthography, 1998: 30; Orthography, 2005: 30). Before we continue with the analysis of excerpts from the abovementioned books that serve as primary sources for writing course textbooks, and also as additional teaching materials, it should be noted that, in the latest edition of the Orthography (2015), two relevant changes were made in the information regarding the stress and the accentual units. Accordingly,in the latest edition of the Orthography, the stress mark is changed, thus the initial stress mark ( ′ ) is replaced with other mark ( ' ) which should be placed before the vowel in the stressed syllable, (Orthography, 2015: 27). The second change is associated with the terminology. Namely, according to the latest edition of the Orthography, there is a distinction between accentual units formed with two independent words that have their own stress, and clitic expressions formed with clitic, which is an element that does not have its own stress, and an independent word that has its own stress, (Orthography, 2015: 33–34). So far, the content sections in the specialized literature that refer to the field of phonetics and phonology comprised only accentual units, that is, accentual units that contain two independent words, and accentual units that contain clitics (enclitics and proclitics), (Koneski, 1987: 161–177; Bojkovska et al., 1998: 84–88; Orthography, 1998: 35; Orthography, 2005: 35). This indicates that the term clitic expression does not exist in the above-mentioned specialized literature. Taking into consideration the fact that the part in the Orthography (2015) which refers to the stress, accentual units and clitic expressions is written by specialists in the field of phonetics and phonology, there is no uncertainty regarding the justification of the changes. However, it should be emphasized that these changes initiate imminent changes in the teaching practice, and in the area of publishing as well. This comes as a consequence to the fact that, until 2015, the teaching process in all of the educational stages (primary school, secondary school and university education) was performed and it is still performed with course textbooks and additional teaching materials that contain the old rules regarding the stress and the accentual units. Therefore, there is a necessity for promoting the changes among the teachers who would introduce those changes to the students. This would lead to their regular use in the teaching practice, and it would also lead to modification of this type of content in the course textbooks according to the new rules. Further in the text, the new terminology would be used. The attention would be given to the inaccuracies, vagueness and ambiguity of the content sections that refer to the stress, the accentual units, and also the clitic expressions. The majority of accentual units (formed with two independent words) and clitic expressions (formed with enclitic or proclitic and independent word) are stressed according to the rule for 90 | P a g e


2017

accentuating words with three syllables. However, in a clitic expression formed with proclitic and a verb, the stress could be placed either on the proclitic or on the verb, depending on the elements that are part of the unit. The same happens when a clitic expression is formed with proclitic and a noun, meaning that the stress could be placed on the proclitic or the noun, depending on the elements that are part of the unit. The vagueness and ambiguity are especially evident in the contents that refer to clitic expressions. In two editions of the Orthography, (1998: 35; 2005: 35) clitics are defined as words without their own stress, which is a correct statement. The ambiguity appears in the information which defines clitics as “short words”. Namely, in these two editions of the Orthography, there is not further information which would make the meaning of the phrase “short words” less ambiguous. For example, the short objective pronouns for third person singular mu(him) and for third person plural im(them) function as clitics and both could be considered short words. However, in the further analysis it would be seen that there are other words which function as clitics but are much longer than the short objective pronouns. Further on, in the two above-mentioned editions of the Orthography there is the following statement: “Clitics … form a unit with the short objective pronoun after them (i.e. enclitics) or before them (i.e. proclitics)…”, (Orthography, 1998: 35; 2005: 35). This statement is not correct because of three reasons. Firstly, it could be incorrectly understood that clitics are the independent words that have their own stress, and not the elements that go before or after the independent word. That is why, in the latest edition of the Orthography (2015: 34) it is clearly stated that clictics are the elements that appear before or after the independent words. Secondly, it could be incorrectly understood that only short objective pronouns function as clitics. Thirdly, it could be understood that there should be only one clitic before or after the independent word, which is also not correct, because there could be more than one, and all of them would function as enclitics after the independent word, or as proclitics before the independent word. The forms or the elements of the following groups usually function as proclitics before the verbs: “the short objective pronouns, the short reflexive pronouns, the particleskje(will)and bi (would), other particles, conjunctions, the verb to beas an auxiliary verb, interrogative words and so on.”, (Bojkovska et al., 1998: 87; Orthography, 1998: 36; Orthography, 2005: 36). As it can be noticed, part of the listed groups that function as proclitics are written with a definite article (the short objective pronouns, the short reflexive pronouns), which leads to the conclusion that all of the forms of the mentioned groups are included. However, other part of the listed groups that function as proclitics are not written with a definite article (other particles, conjunctions, interrogative words), which means that not all elements of the mentioned groups function as proclitics, but only some of them. Consequently, there is a dilemma about whether all of the elements of the mentioned groups always function as proclitics or there are situations in which they do not have that function. For example, whether all particles always function as proclitics or there are situations in which they do not have that function. In the effort to provide an answer to this question, we would first discuss the verb sum (to be) as an auxiliary verb. The above-mentioned list of proclitics does not indicate whether only the verb to be as an auxiliary verb in first person singular jas sum(I am) should be considered proclitic or all of the forms of the verb to be as an auxiliary verb, that is, for all the other persons in singular and plural in present tense: ti si (you are), toj/taa/toa e (he/she/it is), nie sme (we are), vie ste (you are), tie se (they are).The answer to this question could seemingly be found in the Orthography from 1998 (1998: 36) in which next to the following text: “… the verb to be as an auxiliary verb” … in parentheses the information: “(with its forms)” is written. The explanation in the parentheses does not solve the problem because, once again, it appears the question about whether this information refers only to the forms of the verb to be as an auxiliary verb in present tense: sum, si, e, sme, ste, se (am, is, are)or it refers to the forms of the verb to be as an auxiliary verb in all of the tenses. 91 | P a g e


2017

Moreover, the question cannot be answered with the help of the examples that are provided in the course textbooks, (Koneski, 1987: 161–177; Bojkovska et al., 1998: 86–88), nor in the different editions of the Orthography, (1998: 36; 2005: 36) because these materials only contain the forms of the verb to be as an auxiliary verb in present tense, and most often only the form for first person singular in present tense. In the latest edition of the Orthography from 2015, there are not examples for the verb to be as an auxiliary verb in a function of proclitic, (Orthography 2015: 33–36). Further on, the examples of the following type: kje beše dobar, kje bidam dobar (will have been fine, will be fine) and so on, are also problematic because there is lack of further explanation about them in the materials. Namely, the function of the elements in these two examples could be explained in two manners. Firstly, if it is agreed that the only forms of the auxiliary verb to be that could function as proclitics are those in present tense, then it could be said that, in this situation, the particle kje (will) functions as proclitic, whereas the form beše(have been) represents the form of the verb to be in imperfect, and the form bidam (was) is the form of the verb to be that denotes finished action (aorist). Consequently, in this situation, the two forms of the verb to be, that is, beše and bidam are regarded as word forms with their own stress, which means they are the independent element in the clitic expression, whereas the particle kje functions as proclitic in the clitic expression. On the other hand, if it is agreed that all forms of the verb to be as an auxiliary verb could function as proclitics, and not just those that are in present tense, then the situation would be different. In this case, it could be understood that the proclitic and also the auxiliary verb do not have their own stress, thus they form clitic expression with the adjective dobar (fine) and, accordingly, they are considered part of a copular verb. The function of the auxiliary verb to be as proclitic also evokes the following dilemma: If the only forms of the auxiliary verb to be that could function as proclitic are the forms in present tense, then how should the syntagm beše dobar (has been fine) be interpreted? Is it an accentual unit that consists two independent words, or is it a clitic expression that consists proclitic and an independent word? The fact that in the latest edition of the Orthography, (2015: 33–36) there is not even one example for accentual unit, nor for clitic expression that consists the auxiliary verb to be, makes the clarification of the dilemma more complicated. Moreover, it makes doubtful the explanation that already exists in the materials about the auxiliary verb to be in a function of proclitic. Consequently, it is more than evident that the information in the Orthography, (1998: 36): “… the verb to be as an auxiliary verb … (with its forms)” should have been supplemented with following text: …in all of the tenses …, so that there are not many possibilities for ambiguity. Nonetheless, this supplement would not have solved all the dilemmas that appear in the practical use of the language. When talking about the verb to be as an auxiliary verb another dilemma appears on the horizon. Namely, it cannot be determined for certain what function the auxiliary verb has in the answer: Jas sum (I am), when it comes as a response to the question: Koj e? (Who is?; Who is it?). Special attention should also be given to the question Koj e? (Who is?; Who is it?) because it contains the auxiliary verb to be only in third person singular. In this situation, it is neither reasonable nor logical to say that the auxiliary verb should be interpreted as proclitic. On the other hand, it is reasonable to question its function. Thus, the most logical question here would be whether, in this case, the auxiliary verb to be functions as independent word, or maybe it functions as enclitic. Proper answer cannot be provided, at least for now, although probably, in this case, the auxiliary verb functions as independent word. Further, let us assume that there is a question of the following type: Si za? (Are for?; Are you for?) that comes as a response to previous suggestion or proposal, and the answer to this question is simply: Sum (am). How should the auxiliary verb sum (am) be interpreted now? If, in this situation, the auxiliary verb sum (am) is equal in meaning to the particle da (yes), then the function of the particle da (yes), should be determined in this context. This makes the explanation even more 92 | P a g e


2017

complicated because particles are among the listed groups as words that function as proclitics. In this situation, we could address the information provided by Minova-Gjurkova, (2000: 163) in which it is explained that the interrogative particle for yes/no questions dali has its own stress and it could be used independently. However, slight degree of uncertainty is evoked by the syntagm used independently and also by its meaning. Logic implies that if we assume that the syntagm used independently means that the form has its own stress, and in certain cases, does not form clitic expression, then it could be said that the auxiliary verb in the last two situations has its own stress and as such it could be used independently, thus, it is not part of a clitic expression. On the other hand, if we accept that the auxiliary verb, in certain cases, functions as an independent word, then follows the question about whether it could be part of accentual units formed with two independent words. For instance, the following example: Jas sum (I am) implies that, in this case, most probably there is not an accentual unit because this type of examples are not given in the sources employed in this paper. However, in the following example: Jas sum toa što sum (I am that what am; I am what I am), it is evident that the verb sum (am) forms clitic expression with toa (that) and functions as proclitic. In the second part što sum (what am; what I am), the most logical explanation would be to say that što (what) functions as proclitic, and the verb sum (am) functions as the independent element in the clitic expression. In the above-mentioned list of proclitics, besides the particles kje (will) and bi (would) it is also written that there are other particles that function as proclitics, but there is not further information explaining which they are so that we would know for sure, (Bojkovska et al., 1998: 87; Orthography, 1998: 36; Orthography, 2005: 36). If we take into consideration the fact that the particles are diverse group of words, then it is questionable whether it could be generalized and said that all particles function as proclitics, or it rather could be suggested that each particle should be analyzed separately, i.e. depending on the context. For example, the negation ne (no) is a particle with negative meaning that does not have its own stress, but it is the bearer of the stress in the clitic expressions, (Koneski, 1987: 166;Bojkovska et al., 1998: 87; Orthography, 1998: 36; Orthography, 2005: 36; Orthography, 2015: 34). Thus, it could be concluded that this particle functions as proclitic. In the group of particles with negative meaning are also the particles ni (no, nor, neither) and nitu (no, nor, neither) which are used for the purpose of intensifying the negative meaning, (Minova-Gjurkova, 2000: 83). Thus, if we draw an analogy between the negation ne (no) and the particles ni (nor, neither) and nitu (nor, neither), it could be implied that the two of them also function as proclitics, which means that they do not have their own stress, for example niluk jal, niluk mirisal (nogarlic ate, nor/neithergarlic smelled,idiomatic exp.butter would not melt in his mouth); nituodam, nitusakam(neithergo, norwant; neither I go, nor I want to go) and so on. The negation ne (no) as a negative answer to a question can be used independently, thus, it is not clear whether in this case ne (no) has its own stress. On one hand, it could be understood that, in a situation such as this one, ne (no) does not have its own stress, because as it is known, the economy principle of the language implies that, in several occasions, some parts which have already been mentioned or are assumed, could be omitted. The answer to the following question: Dojde Marko? (Came Marko?; Did Marko come?) would be Ne (No), as it is assumed that the answer also includes the verb Nedojde (Nocame; He did not come). Consequently, although the negation ne (no) is used independently, it actually functions as proclitic which forms clitic expression with the verb. On the other hand, if we recall the statement which indicates that the interrogative particle for yes/no questions dali has its own stress and it can be used independently, and as it was mentioned earlier, the independent use signifies that the word has its own stress, then it could be acceptable to say that, in this situation, ne (no) is not proclitic. For instance, the example Ne, ne dojde (No, no came; No, he did not come) has a very interesting structure, because it is intriguing how the two 93 | P a g e


2017

negations would be interpreted in this situation. In addition, it is also questionable whether the comma causes changes in the interpretation. The most probable answer to this would be that the first particle is used independently and it does not function as proclitic, whereas the second particle forms clitic expression with the verb. In this situation, the comma does not lead to any changes in the interpretation. Further on, same interpretation could be given for the function of the particle da (yes) which is used for giving affirmative answer. The explanation given by Minova-Gjurkova, (2000: 75, 83) provides the conclusion that there should be a distinction between da (yes) as a particle for giving affirmative answer, and da (to + verb) as a particle-conjunction (modal particle, marker of the subjunctive). If we take into consideration the fact that da (to) functions as a conjunction in subordinate declarative clauses, (Minova-Gjurkova, 2000: 264), then it becomes clear that the question regarding the particles functioning as proclitics cannot be easily answered. The particle-conjunction is actually the bearer of the stress in the clitic expressions. For example, in the following clitic expression: davidi (tosee) the particle-conjunction da is the bearer of the stress. According to Minova-Gjurkova, the particle да (yes) as an affirmative answer is used independently. Thus, in this case, there is possibility for two different interpretations. The first interpretation would be that part of the affirmative answer is omitted because of the language economy. For instance, instead of Da, dojde (Yes, came; Yes, he came) the example could be simply Da (Yes). In this situation, even though the particle is used independently, it could still functions as proclitic. Also, it is also questionable whether the comma causes changes in the interpretation, but most probably it does not cause changes. The second interpretation would be that, in this situation, the particle da (yes), same as the negation ne (no), is used independently and does not function as proclitic. As it was already stated, the particle dali is an interrogative particle used for asking yes/no questions which has its own stress and it can be used independently, (Minova-Gjurkova, 2000: 163). Consequently, another question concerning the difference between an interrogative particle and an interrogative word appears. In the following example: Dalidojdovte (Didcome?; Did you come?) dali is a particle for asking questions which forms an accentual unitwith the verb dojdovte(came). In this situation it is not clear whether we could say that dali is also an interrogative word, but most probably it is both, i.e. an interrogative particle and also an interrogative word. The independent use of dali could be assumed in the following context. Namely, when someone says something in a form of a statement and the other speaker responds with the question Dali? (Is that so?), the person who asks the question actually expresses doubt about the statement made by the first speaker. Further on, there are other particles that function as proclitics (Koneski, 1987: 541–543; Minova-Gjurkova, 2000: 83), but there is not any information about their role as proclitics. Logically, it could be said that the particle neli (isn’t it so) functions in the same manner as dali, meaning that neli is a particle without its own stress, but also a particle with its own stress. The difference between dali and neli is that the latter is placed at the end of the statement. Above all, in the latest edition of the Orthography, (2015: 34–36) there is not information about the function of the particles as proclitics which makes the analysis of the particles that function as proclitics difficult to a great extent. On the other hand, special attention should be given to the demonstrative particles: eve (here), ene (there), and ete (there) (Koneski, 1987: 541; Minova-Gjurkova, 2000: 83; Orthography, 1998: 35; Orthography, 2005: 36). These demonstrative particles (in the latest edition of the Orthography they are defined as demonstrative words, 2015: 35) are considered words with their own stress, and as such, they form clitic expressions with short objective pronouns that are placed after them, for example, evego (herehim; here he is), eteja (thereher; there she is) and so on. Thus, in this situation, these particles function as the independent element of the clitic expression, whereas the short objective pronouns function as enclitics. Consequently, it cannot be generalized or said that all particles function 94 | P a g e


2017

as proclitics, but it rather could be suggested that each particle should be categorized as proclitic depending on the context. A further dilemma appears when considering the function of prepositions as proclitics. It is denoted that prepositions function as proclitics in clitic expressions formed with prepositions and nouns, (Koneski, 1987: 179–203; Bojkovska et al., 1998: 87–88; Orthography, 1998: 36–37; Orthography, 2005: 36–37). However, the word prepositions is not written with a definite article (the prepositions), which might suggest that not all prepositions function as proclitics when they are placed before a noun, but only some of them. The examples provided in the book by Bojkovska and in the editions of the Orthography from 1998 and 2005, cannot be used as a reference because there is only a list of the most common prepositions that are used as proclitics before the noun: od (from), bez (without), do (next to, beside, close, until), za (for), na (on), pred (before, in front of, earlier), pod (below, under), so (with). In the above-mentioned materials it is denoted that the stress does not transfer to the following prepositions: dokaj (until, about), zaradi (because), nakaj (towards, around), nasproti (against), osven (except, beside), otkaj (from, by), poradi (because), spored (according). However, it could be concluded that they function as proclitics. In addition, it could also be said that some of the prepositions that are listed here are in contrast with the information which defines clitics as “short words”. For instance, zaradi (because), nasproti (against), poradi (because) are prepositions that have three syllables, thus it could be confirmed that there are other words which function as clitics, but are longer than the short objective pronouns. Moreover, in all of the sources employed in this paper, except the latest edition of the Orthography (2015) there is a mention of the particles that have three syllables: poradi (because), zaradi (because), nasproti (against) and so on. Consequently, it is not clear why this kind of particles is not mentioned in the latest edition of the Orthography. One possible answer is that the term “preposition” includes all prepositions, thus there is no need to address them separately. The conclusion that these particles function as proctilics is also supported by sentences of the following type: Zaradi tebe … (Because you…; Because of you), Poradi nego …, (Because him…; Because of him), Nasproti toa …(Against that…) and so on. In (simple or complex) sentences these prepositions are part of the prepositional object. Even though they have three syllables, again, it should be emphasized that they function as proclitics, thus in the category of proclitics words that cannot be characterized as short are included. Further on, Koneski provides an overview of all the prepositions in the Macedonian language. In the overview there are examples which denote the situation in which the stress transfers to the prepositions, and the situation in which it does not transfer, depending on the word that comes after them. In the overview, the prepositions and the nouns are not connected with the mark for connecting clitic expressions (  ), but the prepositions are primarily analyzed from a point of view of whether the stress transfers or does not transfer to them. Although the provided information is not precise, this overview could be used as a confirmation that all prepositions can function as proclitics when they are placed before nouns. This conclusion is further confirmed with the examples that are given in the latest edition of the Orthography. Namely, the examples denote the situations in which prepositions function as proclitics: preposition + long objective pronoun; preposition + noun; disyllabic preposition + long objective pronoun; and disyllabic preposition + monosyllabic noun. In addition, the provided information in this edition of the Orthography indicates that all of the prepositions could function as proclitics and not just part of them, (2015: 34–35). Moreover, this conclusion is also supported by the fact that the prepositions and the nouns are connected with the mark for connecting clitic expressions (  ), even though in some situations the stress does not transfer to the prepositions. That is how we know that they form clitic expressions and that the prepositions functions as proclitic in that situation. 95 | P a g e


2017

Conclusion The analysis of the Macedonian Language Course Textbooks and the additional teaching materials, which are currently used in the teaching practice, demonstrates that certain contents contain inconsistencies and incorrect information. Certainly, this has an influence on the teaching practice of the teachers, as well as on the knowledge gained by the students. On one hand, it is more than certain that teachers provide correct and precise information to the students, but, on the other hand, it is also true that students rely on the course textbooks. Consequently, it is of a great importance that the materials for realization of the teaching process should be well written, and should contain precise and correct information, so that the students are able to gain proper knowledge of the language. Further on, the changes in the stress mark and also in the terminology, in the latest edition of the Orthography (2015) should be addressed, because they serve as a proof of the modifications that should be made so that the contents are less ambiguous. Moreover, the analysis demonstrates that only the latest edition of the Orthography (2015) gives precise explanation for the term clitics, which means that, in the last ten years, incorrect and ambiguous materials were in use, and students did not gain correct knowledge of the matter. The analysis demonstrates that the most ambiguous content that evokes most of the questions is the one that refers to the auxiliary verb to be and its function as proclitic. Namely, this conclusion comes as a result of the imprecise content which does not denote whether the only forms of the auxiliary the verb to be that function as proclitics are those in present tense, or in all of the tenses. The answer to this dilemma could make a great difference in the interpretation of numerous sentences, i.e. the content would be much less ambiguous with the above-mentioned supplement that all of the forms of the verb to be as an auxiliary verb could function as proclitics. In addition, it could be concluded that the verb to be as an auxiliary verb also functions as independent element, thus a special attention should be given to this information when considering the contents from this field of the language. Nonetheless, it remains unclear whether the auxiliary verb to be forms accentual units with two independent words. Furthermore, the most common dilemma that appears is whether all elements of certain groups could function as proclitics, or only part of them. The fact that part of the listed groups that function as proclitics are written with a definite article (the short objective pronouns, the short reflexive pronouns), and other part of the listed groups that function as proclitics are not written with a definite article (other particles, conjunctions, interrogative words) makes the conclusion more difficult to grasp. For instance, for the particles the conclusion that it cannot be generalized and said that all of them function as proclitics was reached, but rather it could be suggested that each particle should be analyzed separately, i.e. depending on the context. That was the case of the demonstrative particles eve (here), ene (there), and ete (there) that have their own stress and, as such, they function as the independent element of the clitic expression, and not as proclitics. The analysis also demonstrates that the ambiguity of the information which defines clitics as “short words” is consisted in the fact that there are words that have three syllables, such as the prepositions zaradi (because), nasproti (against), poradi (because) which function as clitics as well. Thus, it could be said that this type of information is not only ambiguous, but also incorrect, because with the analysis it could be confirmed that there are other words which function as clitics but are longer than the short objective pronouns. Finally, the economy principle of the language also contributes to the ambiguity by implying that, in several occasions, some parts that have already been mentioned or are assumed, could be omitted. For instance, the example Ne (No) from the longer answer Ne dojde (No came; He did not come) lead to the conclusion that the negation ne (no) functions as proclitic which forms clitic expression with 96 | P a g e


2017

the verb, even though, in this situation, it is used independently. On the other hand, the example Ne, ne dojde (No, no came; No, he did not come) indicates that the first particle ne (no) could also have its own stress, and as such, it can be used independently and not as proclitic, whereas the second particle ne (no) functions as proclitic because it forms clitic expression with the verb dojde (came). The analysis of the materials and the provided information indicate the need for more precise and correct contents in the Course Textbooks, and the additional teaching materials which refer to this important segment of the language. The inconsistencies in the contents lead to ambiguity, and most certainly lead to knowledge that is not in accordance with the latest changes in the language. The commentaries, interpretations and explanation that are given in this paper are with the purpose of making this type of content sections clearer for both, the teacher and the students. In the future, this analysis would be very useful when preparing the new editions of the Macedonian language Course Textbooks and additional teaching materials.

Bibliography Bojkovska, S., Pandev, D., Minova-Gjurkova, L., Cvetkovski, Ž. (1998). Macedonian Language Course Textbook for secondary education (1998). Skopje, Prosvetno delo, pp. 84–88 Kepeski, K. (1946). Macedonian grammar. National publishing house of Macedonia Koneski, B. (1981, reprinted 1996). History of the Macedonian language. Skopje, Detska radost Koneski, B. (1987). Grammar of the Macedonian literary language I-II. Skopje, Kultura, p. 56–57, 140–141, 161–177, 179–203, 541 Minova-Gjurkova, L. (2000). Syntax of the Macedonian standard language. Skopje, Rading, p. 75, 83, 163, 264 Misirkov, P. K. (1903, reprinted 1946). On Macedonian matters. National publishing house of Macedonia Orthography of the Macedonian language. (2015). Skopje, Institute for Macedonian language “K. Misirkov”, pp. 33–36 Pulevski, Gj. (1880). Slognica rečovska. Sofia, National publishing house Vidoeski, B., Dimitrovski, T., Koneski, K., Ugrinovska-Skalovska, R. (1998). Orthography of the Macedonian literary language (1998). Skopje. Prosvetno delo, pp. 30–37 Vidoeski, B., Dimitrovski, T., Koneski, K., Ugrinovska-Skalovska, R. (2005). Orthography of the Macedonian literary language. Skopje, Prosvetno delo, pp. 30–37

97 | P a g e