PRAGMATICIZATION OF BI IN MACEDONIAN 1

The Pragmaticization of the Hypothetical Marker bi

in Macedonian

Liljana Mitkovska and Eleni Bužarovska

Skopje, Republic of Macedonia

0. Abstract
The paper focuses on the pragmatic use of the modal particle bi, the main exponent
of the hypothetical mood in Macedonian. The authors conduct an analysis of
independent bi-constructions in literary and spoken language to show that this
function is on the rise in standard Macedonian. The paper looks at two syntactic
environments of bi-constructions: with modal verbs and with lexical verbs.
Although moderately represented in the language 40 years ago, the pragmatic use
of bi was registered by Kramer (1986: 117) with the verb saka ‘want/like’ “to
express a more modest or a polite wish” and “to decrease the categoricalness of a
request”. Drawing on her in-depth analysis of the particle bi in Macedonian, the
authors argue that the instability of bi has been almost eliminated over the last 40
years. The independent bi-constructions have become stabilized for hypothetical
functions, with the habitual and purpose functions not taking ground, and their
pragmatic use has expanded.

1. Introduction
This paper investigates the pragmatic functions of the modal particle bi in standard
Macedonian and its spoken variants. In contemporary Macedonian the uninflected
particle bi forms a periphrastic construction with the l-participle marked for aspect
and gender/number distinctions. It is an exponent of the ‘potential mood’ which
goes back to the Old Church Slavonic conditional (Gołąb 1964:23), a periphrastic
structure comprising the inflected forms of the verb *byti ‘to be’ and the ‘past
active participle’ (l-participle).1 In Macedonian it has developed in line with

1
The particle bi occurs in some rare cases, more typically in folk literature, with the particle da
and the present tense forms of the verb. We do not include them in this study since such
constructions have a rather different semantics (see Mitkovska 2018). Another formal variant are
structures with the auxiliary sum ‘be’ (Ne bi sme znaele ‘We wouldn’t know’). They are quite
Balkanistica 33 (2019)
2 LILJANA MITKOVSKA AND ELENI BUŽAROVSKA

similar processes in the other South Slavic languages, with some particularity both
in its form and in its functional distribution. Structurally, the auxiliary has
grammaticalized into a particle and on the functional level it competes for semantic
space with the da- and ќe-constructions, modal markers which have arisen within
the Balkan language area.2
The grammatical category of mood marks the semantic category of
modality, which has a wide range of meanings and various structural realizations.
There is extensive scholarship on the nature of the modal meanings (see Narrog
2012 for a comprehensive overview). In general, the accepted view is that
“[m]odality is concerned with the status of the proposition that describes the event”
(Palmer 2001:1), unlike tense and aspect, which relate to the portrayed event. This
means that modality markers convey the speaker’s assessment of the event as
factual (unmarked) or non-factual (marked), but Hacking (1999:418–419), relying
on Aronson (1977) points out that this evaluation can be of two types: objective
(whether the event is real or irreal) or subjective (expressing speaker’s view). The
former is characteristic of the grammatical category of mood and the latter of
status. Though it is not unanimously understood which criteria serve for
distinguishing subjective from objective assessments (see the discussion in Narrog
2012), Kramer (1986:115–118) shows that this distinction could be useful in
explaining the differences between Macedonian mood markers.
In the relevant literature bi is said to be marked for hypotheticalness as it is
“used to denote actions which were or are possible or desirable, but which were not
or have not been fulfilled” (Kramer 1986:115). The construction bi + l-participle
may occur in conditional clauses, either in the apodosis, or both in protasis and
apodosis.3 However, the potential mood in Macedonian is also frequently used
independently, outside the conditional period, in a wide variety of sentence types,
or more precisely, speech acts. In a study on the use of bi-constructions in
Macedonian interactive portals Mitkovska (2018) finds that only about 20% of the
excerpted 520 examples represented full conditional sentences and 80% were in

rare in contemporary use and seem to have the same function as the regular bi-constructions
(Kramer 1986:111, Mitkovska 2018). See Lunt (1952:100) for a different opinion.
2
For more details see Kramer’s (1986:105–109) discussion of the features which differentiate
Macedonian from Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian. Comparison of bi-constructions with the
competing ones is beyond the scope of this paper.
3
Ako si doma, bi naminal. ‘If you are at home I could drop by’; Koga bi zaminal porano, bi mi
javil. ‘Had he left early, he would have called me.’
Balkanistica 33 (2019)
PRAGMATICIZATION OF BI IN MACEDONIAN 3

various other constructions.4 Similar results were obtained in a study on literary

texts, only 17% of the 405 excerpted examples were in conditional clauses
(Apostolovska 2018). Therefore, these uses cannot be neglected and deserve a
thorough analysis.
In non-conditional uses (referred to as independent) bi is stylistically
marked. Kramer’s investigation (1986) shows that the situation related to the use of
independent bi at that time (30-40 years ago) was characterized by instability,
which is succinctly captured in the observation that the position of bi within the
Macedonian modal system was “in a state of flux” (Kramer 1986:125). She points
out some tendencies in the use of the independent bi, addressing Koneski’s
hypothesis (1987) regarding the revival of bi under the influence of neighboring
Slavic languages, especially Serbian/Croatian. Drawing on Kramer’s conclusions,
the paper investigates the functions of the independent bi in contemporary
Macedonian in order to find out how its use has developed. It is argued that the
functions of the independent bi cannot be fully understood without placing them in
a pragmatic perspective. In particular, the focus is on the pragmatic function of bi,
which Kramer (1986:117) dubs “politeness”. For this purpose a large body of
examples with bi in non-conditional contexts was analyzed. We elaborate on
several observations expressed in Kramer (1986) about the tendencies in the use of
bi: that some functions at that time were undergoing obliteration, while others were
on the increase. It is assumed here that the present use of the independent bi has
been stabilized. The purpose and habitual-iterative uses are considered substandard
and archaic, but the pragmatic function has been firmly entrenched and is widely
used in the standard.
The pragmatic function of bi represents a relatively recent innovation as it is
not documented in folk tales and older plays. The main hypothesis is that today bi
is used as a hypothetical marker which, in certain speech acts, functions as a
politeness marker. The norms of politeness in an urban society have influenced the
spread of the pragmatic bi. From marking hypothetical mood (epistemic modality)
its functional scope has spread from assertions into utterances expressing deontic
modality. The cognitive link is provided by the semantics of hypothetical modality
which presupposes epistemic distance. In uttering a speech act with bi the speaker
distances him/herself from the truth of the proposition. Since in some speech acts
4
Only 1.4% had a purpose sense, proving its marginal status in the functional spectrum of the
Macedonian potential mood.
Balkanistica 33 (2019)
4 LILJANA MITKOVSKA AND ELENI BUŽAROVSKA

epistemic distance translates into social distance, distancing by means of bi

belongs to negative politeness strategies (Brown and Levinson 1987). Thus the use
of bi has expanded the range of communicative means that signal pragmatic
distance in standard Macedonian.
The paper is organized as follows: section 2 gives a short overview of
previous relevant studies on the use of bi in Macedonian; section 3 presents the
analysis of the collected examples: first we provide an outline of the pragmatic
functions of bi followed by a detailed analysis of the sample examples; section 4
sums up the results of the investigation.

2. Previous studies on potential mood in Macedonian

Potential mood in Macedonian is mentioned in all accounts on Macedonian
grammar (e.g., Lunt 1952, Koneski 1987) or modality marking in Slavic languages
(Gołąb 1964, Topolinjska 2008, Xrakovskij 2009, Lindstedt 2010 among others).
There are also three studies devoted to Macedonian in particular: Hausmann
(1956), Kramer (1986), Koneski K. (1999). Below we present a short overview of
the basic characteristics of independent bi-constructions.
Gołąb (1964) discusses the grammatical moods in Slavic, pointing out the
distinct structural differentiation in them: while in North Slavic (Polish, Czech,
Russian) there is a system of two moods: indicative and conjunctive, South Slavic
(e.g., Serbo-Croatian) has a system of three moods: indicative, subjunctive,
potential and even four: indicative, subjunctive, potential, conditional in
Macedonian, Bulgarian and South Serbian dialects (Gołąb 1964:23). 5 Thus, the
situation in the Balkan Slavic languages is much more complex; in addition, the
fact that the functional scope of all moods partly overlaps, the place of the potential
mood in the grammatical system of these languages is difficult to determine.
It is generally considered that the Balkan constructions with da and ќe have
almost taken over all but a few marginal functions of the Slavic bi-forms in the
dialects and that it is rare in colloquial speech. Most authors have expressed the
view that its spread after the standardization of the Macedonian language is due to
the influence of other Slavic languages, Serbo-Croatian in particular (Hausmann
1956:27, Koneski 1987:499–500, Topolinjska 2008:51, Hacking 1998:115,
5
The Imperative is not included here because it is considered an impressive mood belonging to
the sphere of appeal (Gołąb 1964:2).
Balkanistica 33 (2019)
PRAGMATICIZATION OF BI IN MACEDONIAN 5

Koneski К. 1999:120, Lindstedt 2010:414). Moreover, it has been noted that the
use of the potential mood has a literary overtone and is stylistically marked (Gołąb
1964:201, Asenova 2002:228, Koneski К. 1999:120). Nevertheless, Topolinjska
(2008:51) argues that “[i]n the Macedonian writings of the 19th century, as well as
in the present-day Macedonian standard language it has assumed a firm position.”
We can say that the potential bi-construction has been established in the
contemporary Macedonian at all levels.
Scholars have generally tried to define the overall character of the potential
mood in Macedonian by pointing out its hypothetical nature. Lunt’s (1952:100)
claim that “the general meaning is potential action; the act is viewed as possible or
desirable, but not yet achieved” agrees with that of Koneski’s (1987:500) that the
forms with the modal particle bi express a potential meaning conveying that “an
event is assumed as possible to occur”. He states explicitly that this verb form does
not locate the event in time “it could refer to the past, present or future.” After the
analysis of the various uses of the potential bi-construction, Kramer (1986:125)
summarizes its uses as follows: “in Macedonian the particle bi is most typically
used to express an action which is viewed as hypothetically fulfillable, but whose
fulfillment is in doubt, or whose fulfillment is expressed as a hypothetical future
action with no explicit expectation that the action will occur.”
Regarding the functional scope of bi-constructions, Koneski (1987:500–501)
states that the potential mood in contemporary Macedonian standard occurs in both
the dependent (protasis) and the main (apodosis) clause of conditional sentences,
but it is also encountered in structures out of such syntactic environments “to
express a potential event without a precise expression of the condition.” Since our
focus is on this latter use of the potential mood, we discuss some views regarding
the functional variations of the independently used bi-constructions placing special
emphasis on the observations related to their pragmatic use. 6 It seems that in
independent structures bi has become well-established for three types of functions:
potentiality, volition and politeness (as discussed in Mitkovska 2018).
Kramer (1986:118) concludes that “[t]he most important function of non-
conditional bi remains, however, to express a future action whose fulfillment is
presented as only hypothetically possible.” Hausmann (1956:32) also observes that
6
Accounts on the use of bi in conditional clauses include those in Gołąb (1964), Kramer 1986,
Hacking (1998), Minova-Gjurkova (1997), Mišiḱ (1990), Marsh-Stefanovska (1990), Gajdova
(2008), Bužarovska (2018).
Balkanistica 33 (2019)
6 LILJANA MITKOVSKA AND ELENI BUŽAROVSKA

in the literary language the potential mood is most often used to express a
potential, hypothetical event. It is usually an event that has not really occurred, but
the use of bi highlights the possibility that such event may occur (Toa e fakt što bi
vi pomognal. ‘This is a fact that could help’) or bi marks a speculation of what
might happen if an event were to be realized in the future or had been realized in
the past (… poarno od vas bi se odrodila otkolku so nea da se zasvatam ‘… I
would rather estrange myself from you than get her as an in-law’).
Expressing wishes is one of the original Slavic functions in which bi was
preserved in Macedonian dialects as in Da bi volci te jale! ‘May wolves eat you!’
(Koneski 1987:500), and it is still a productive pattern of creating blessings and
curses in some areas (Labroska 2018). In the standard it is possible to use bi for
unreal wishes (Eh koga bi možela da smenam sѐ! ‘If only I could change
everything!’), but the subjunctive da-construction (da+present/ imperfect verb
forms) is still more common in optative functions (Eh da možam/možev da
smenam sѐ!). Hausmann (1956:38) also observes that the potential can express an
intended activity which is viewed as fulfillable, though not certain, but in any case
wished for (Bi ti go rekla toa, tuku se sramuva. ‘She would tell you but she is
shy’). We find such uses of the potential mood in present-day colloquial standard
(Ne bi nosela ni venčanica tuku nekoe skromno fustanče. ‘I wouldn’t wear a
wedding dress but some modest dress’ (Mitkovska 2018:108), where the wish
coalesces with the intent and often carries an expressive note.
Xrakovskij (2009:278) observes that the potential mood markers in Slavic
languages have been extended to non-prototypical uses such as requests, wishes or
advice, where it serves pragmatic purposes, since it is felt to be more polite. It has
been noticed that the meaning of uncertainty in bi is exploited for pragmatic
functions in Macedonian as well. However, most of the authors notice that this is
typical of more formal styles, “as a stylistic means of the intelligentsia”
(Hausmann 1956:35),7 while in colloquial and dialectal registers da and ќe are
more appropriate. Hausmann (1956:34–36) notes that bi is sometimes used to
present the event as potential even though its certainty is clear from the context,
which makes the utterance sound “rather modest and polite” (Sekako bi vi bil
mnogu blagodaren. ‘Naturally, I would most grateful’) and that it is especially
common with verbs marked for modality, such as saka ‘want/like’, može
‘can/may’, treba ‘should’. According to Kramer (1986:117), in such cases “bi
7
A position shared by Koneski K. (1999:120).
Balkanistica 33 (2019)
PRAGMATICIZATION OF BI IN MACEDONIAN 7

serves to decrease the categoricalness of a request.” It is in fact used in other

speech acts for the purpose of softening the imposition. Koneski K. (1999:117)
notes that some expressions of this type are frequently used to introduce the topic,
such as: bi bilo dobro da ... ‘it would be nice to…’, bi vi dal eden sovet ... ‘I’d give
you a piece of advice…’ , jas (ne) bi rekol/rekla ..., ‘I wouldn’t say...’. We can add
here Hausmann’s (1956:37) observation that the potential serves for expressing
“subjective opinion”: there are objective possibilities for the event to happen, but it
is presented as uncertain. The choice of this form also makes the statement less
categorical, hence less intrusive, especially when formulated as questions: Ne bi
bilo dobro da si se oženilo? ‘Wouldn’t it be better if you got married?’ Other
contexts where bi softens the assertion is in counter-to-fact situations, which
present the event in a more tentative manner, though impossible: Na takva laga i
mrtvite bi se nasmeale ‘Even the dead would laugh at such a lie’ (Hausmann
(1956: 41). He claims that the potential and the conditional ќe+imperfect (Futur II)
are not easily interchangeable in such and similar contexts. Therefore he concludes
that the potential mood is a category with its unique functions which can be fully
covered with this form only.
Similar views are expressed by Lindstedt ( 2010:414) regarding Bulgarian:
“there are modal contexts where the Bulgarian bi conditional cannot be replaced
with the Past Future, notably as a courtesy marker in expressions such as bix vi
pomolil ‘I’d like to ask you’ or bixte li mi pomognali? ‘could you please help
me?’.” In the same vein, Mitkovska (2018:110) demonstrates that bi is not easily
replaceable by other constructions in pragmatic functions and that it is in this
domain that the potential mood in Macedonian needs to be further investigated.

3. Analysis of the pragmatic functions of the independent bi

As stated in the Introduction, the main goal of this investigation is to explain the
pragmatic functions of the potential mood marker bi in Macedonian. To achieve
this, we collected a large body of examples with independent bi and classified
them according to functional distribution. The examined sample comprised 335
examples from contemporary prose (works written after 1970), 8 454 examples
8
The following works were included: P. Andreevski: Pirej (PA), D. Solev: Kratkta prolet na
Mone Samonikov (DS), M. Madžunkov: Devet raskazi (MM), A. Prokopiev: Izbrani raskazi
(AP), K. Kolbe: Snegot vo Kazablanka (KK), V. Andonovski: Papokot na svetot (VA), and two
collections of short stories: Makedonski raskazi (MR) and Antologija na makedonskiot
Balkanistica 33 (2019)
8 LILJANA MITKOVSKA AND ELENI BUŽAROVSKA

from blogs9 and a spoken language batch of 77 examples (based on the transcripts
of taped telephone conversations).10
The analysis of the collected examples from these three samples has filtered
out two types of speech acts in which independent bi-constructions are used as
politeness markers: constatives and performative speech acts (Austin 1962).11 In
constative utterances, in which speakers provide statements about the world, bi
serves to decrease the force of such assertions. The non-committal stance of the
speaker indicated by bi softens the categoricalness of speaker’s judgement, thereby
mitigating the possible undesirable effects for the addressee’s face. Perfomative
speech acts are distinguished by the communicative intention of the speaker or
illocutionary force. In directives, which cover a wide range of functions (advice,
suggestions, recommendations etc) bi reduces the force of the imposition, by
creating a greater distance with the addressee, and thus acts as a face saving
strategy. Commissives include refusals, offers, promises, vows and threats, while
expressives cover verbal acts expected by social norms such as thanking,
apologizing, greeting, complimenting etc. It is important to point out that the
function of these utterances is typically realized in first person, but sometimes they
are found with other persons and impersonal marking.
In order to separate the pragmatic uses of the independent bi-constructions
from hypothetical-potential and desiderative more reliable criteria are needed than
person marking. Since the hedging function of bi is built on hypotheticality, we
argue that the pragmatic function appears in specific contexts and to a different
degree. This means that the basic criterion for their delimitation is the
communicative intention of the speaker for producing a speech act, which cannot
be established without a wider context.
It is assumed that the pragmatic uses of bi-constructions are characterized by
the loss or fading of its inherent meaning of hypotheticality in particular contexts,
as pointed out by other authors discussed above. We rely on this criterion in
delimitating this function from the other functions of independent bi-constructions.

postmodernistički raskaz (Ant).

9
http://forum.kajgana.com/ (kajgana) and http://forum.crnobelo.com/ (crnobelo)
10
Available on http://prizma.birn.eu.com/мк
11
Although later critisized, Austin’s initial distinction allows to explain the pragmatic use of bi in
constative and performative utterances. However, we exclude “ceremonial” performatives
(declarations) from the analysis as they never employ bi.
Balkanistica 33 (2019)
PRAGMATICIZATION OF BI IN MACEDONIAN 9

However, the separation of pragmatic from non-pragmatic uses of the independent

bi was not an easy task since the semantics of bi is underspecified. Marked for
hypotheticality and subjectivity in independent use its meaning is usually context-
dependent and subject to multiple interpretations.
We look at two syntactic structures the independent bi occurs in: bi may
form a periphrastic construction with a modal verb or with a lexical verb:
a) in a lexical verb construction bi heads a lexical verb (l-form) and is semantically
restricted to controlled events. Therefore, examples such as Utre bi došla ‘I
could/would/would like to come tomorrow’ are grammatical, which is not the case
with examples coding uncontrolled events as in *Bi vrnelo ‘It would rain’.
b) in a modal verb construction bi heads a modal verb in participle form (može
‘can/may’, mora ‘must’, treba ‘should’) or the deontic volition verb saka ‘want’
which governs the da-construction containing a lexical verb: Utre bi
sakala/možela/morala/trebalo da dojdam. ‘I’d like to/could/must/should come
tomorrow.’ The semantic restriction regarding controlled events is suspended: Utre
bi trebalo/moželo da vrne. ‘It should/might rain tomorrow.’
The modal verb is not just an explicit expression of the implicit modal
meaning in the bi construction. The function of bi seems to differ between the two
constructions that express the same propositional meaning. They are only partially
synonymous, e.g., Bi odela utre. ‘I’d go tomorrow’ cannot be considered a
structural variant of Bi sakala da odam utre. ‘I’d like to go tomorrow’, since apart
from volition, depending on the circumstances, it could also be interpreted as
possibility (‘I could go tomorrow’) or a hypothetical event dependent on some
unexpressed condition (‘I would go there tomorrow’). This entails that the function
of bi in lexical verb constructions displays a more pronounced contextual
dependency. In the rest of this section we investigate the function of the pragmatic
bi in assertive (constative) and performative utterances.

3.1. Bi-constructions with a modal verb

In constructions with modal verbs bi is often used as a negative politeness strategy
that imposes greater distance between the interlocutors. By reducing the force of
the modal saka ‘want/like’, može ‘can/may’, treba ‘should’ and mora ‘must’, bi
preserves addressee’s negative face. These mitigating effects are most salient when

Balkanistica 33 (2019)
10 LILJANA MITKOVSKA AND ELENI BUŽAROVSKA

used with deontic modal verbs in first and second person. We look at each verb in
turn, pointing out contexts in which the primary potential-hypothetical semantics
of the bi-construction fades and it acquires a pragmatic function.
The expansion of bi in non-hypothetical contexts is particularly pronounced
with the volitional verb saka ‘want/like’, which is predominantly used in first
person singular. Totally void of hypotheticality, the bi-constructions with saka
‘want/like’ may be considered as a routinized politeness marker used very
frequently in everyday communication. In the following examples bi mitigates the
imposing force of saka, both in positive and negative wishes. Thus with bi
speaker’s desire for a future event is presented as a preference rather than an
inconsiderate and selfish wish. Strong wishes may be accompanied by intensifiers,
such as kolku ‘how much’, navistina ‘really’, mnogu, baš ‘a lot’ etc.
(1) – Ќe te birame za sudija ili ne te birame?
‘Shall we elect you judge or not?’
– Jas bi sakala da me birate. (audio)
‘I would like you to elect me.’
(2) Ne bi sakala roditelite da gi optovaruvam so toa. (kajgana)
‘I wouldn’t want to bother my parents with this.’
(3) Baš bi sakala da znam. (DS)
‘I’d really want to know to find out.’
Wishes can also refer to the present, and then they sound less realistic (4). It seems
that bi with sakam (first person) has been routinized into a fixed expression when
used in optative functions. Such wishes sound more unrealistic hence less direct
than with the desiderative verb in present tense sakam ‘I wish/want’.
(4) Kolku bi sakala da e so mene da go pregrnam. (kajgana)
‘I wish he were near me so that I could hug him.’
It is possible, though rare, to direct this wish to an ontologically irreal situation,
which is expressed by the Balkan subjunctivus praeteriti construction
da+imperfect (5) or da+l-perfect (6).
(5) Bi sakala da možev da gi zadržam ... (crnobelo)
‘I wish I could have kept them.’

Balkanistica 33 (2019)
PRAGMATICIZATION OF BI IN MACEDONIAN 11

(6) Kolku bi sakala da sum živeela vo toa vreme... (crnobelo)

‘I wish I had lived in that time.’
Its downtoning nature makes first person bi sakal,-a suitable for use in various
speech acts. Serving to soften the strength of performative verbs, it is typically
found in requests (7 and 8). However, such idiomatized constructions have become
very common as introductions to expressive speech acts, for expressing gratitude
(bi sakal da vi se zablagodaram ‘I’d like to thank you’), excuses (bi sakal da se
izvinam ‘I’d like to apologize’), congratulations, condolences etc. They are used in
formal situations, especially in written communication as a face saving strategy.
(7) Za početok bi sakala da ve zamolam site što ste na ovaa tema da mi pomognete
so vašite iskustva i mislenje. (kajgana)
‘In the beginning, I’d like to ask everyone writing on this subject to help me
with your experience and advice.’
(8) Pridonesete slobodno vo diskusijata, baš bi sakala da čujam i vaše mislenje za
ova. (kajgana)
‘Feel free to take part in the discussion, I’d love to hear your opinion on this.’
First person bi sakal also serves to soften the strength of speaker imposition in
directive speech acts, such as suggestions (9), requests (10), advice (11), where the
speaker’s intention is hedged.
(9) Dali nešto so nea ќe možeme da porazgovarame? Sega ne bi sakal po telefon.
(audio)
‘Would it be perhaps possible to talk to her? I wouldn’t want to talk now over
the phone.’
(10) Po možnost, bi sakala da postirate i fotografii od vaši spleteni dela. (kajgana)
‘If possible, I’d prefer that you posted photos of your knitted items.’
(11) Bi sakala da vi obrnam vnimanie na nekoi preventivni merki koi bi trebalo da
gi prezemete... (https://tvoebebe.com/forum)
‘I’d like to turn your attention to some preventive measures you should
undertake.’
It is debatable whether the pragmatic role of bi is preserved in contexts that involve
subjects of saka other than the speaker. It seems that the idiomatized construction
Balkanistica 33 (2019)
12 LILJANA MITKOVSKA AND ELENI BUŽAROVSKA

bi sakal can be used routinely even for situations in which a third party wants to
carry out an event which is undesirable for the speaker (12) or simply a statement
about someone’s feelings (13). Such constative utterances may also imply
hypotheticality. When used to address the interlocutor (14) the utterance may serve
various communicative purposes in which bi has a mitigating effect.
(12) Oni bi sakale da se site na pitački stap i na ulica, da nemaat leb da jadat.
(audio)
‘They’d like to see everybody begging on the streets for bread.’
(13) Bi sakala da plače, no ne može veќе. (MR)
‘She’d like to go on crying, but she couldn’t any longer.’
(14) Ti bi sakal odednaš da zasjaeš, a toa e samo senzacionalna literatura. (DS)
‘You’d like to shine right away, but this is only sensational literature.’
The blend of semantic and pragmatic meaning of bi sakal,-a can be exemplified by
comparing it with the unmarked corresponding utterance in the minimal pair (15).
In both assertions speaker’s intention is coded by the volition verb saka ‘want/like’
but bi in the second one conveys lower speaker commitment. This is evident in the
incompatibility of this hypothetical statement with the accompanying confident
prediction. In addition to uncertainty in (b), the inherent epistemic distance of bi
implies social distance from the addressee.
(15) a. Sakam da dojdam i sigurno ќе dojdam. ‘I want to come and I’ll certainly
do.’
b. Bi sakala da dojdam *i sigurno ќе dojdam. ‘I’d like to come and *I’ll
certainly do.’
The case with bi-constructions which involve the modal verb može ‘may/can’ is
more complex, because this verb expresses both types of root modality: dynamic
modality, i.e., ability and circumstantial possibility. The latter may shade into
epistemic possibility. Since possibility is one of the main semantic features of the
potential bi-constructions, when used with the verb može ‘can/may’ it does not
introduce a new meaning, but emphasizes the hypothetical nature of the designated
event. This is valid for all uses of bi možel ‘I/you/he could’, especially in third
person: ability (16), circumstantial possibility (17), epistemic possibility (18). The
speaker’s strengthened non-commitment to the truth of the utterance results in

Balkanistica 33 (2019)
PRAGMATICIZATION OF BI IN MACEDONIAN 13

distance effects. However, bi performs the same function in constatives with first
person, both with the modal expressing ability (19) and circumstantial possibility
(20).
(16) Bi možel, na primer, da ja rastrebi masata od onie vesnici, pepelnici, knigi i
ronki. (DS)
‘He could, say, clear the newspapers, ashtrays, books and crumbs off the
table.’
(17) Samo nekoj od niv bi možel da me potkaže vo direkcijata na fondacijata.
(KK)
‘Only one of them could tell on me to the board of the fund.’
(18) Da, sega proveruvam. Veќе imame sumlja na toj eden što bi možel da go pravi
seto toa. (audio)
‘Yes, we are checking this out. We already suspect someone who might be
doing this.’
(19) Ne bi možel sega konkretno da se setam na naslovot od filmot. (crnobelo)
‘I wouldn’t be able to remember now the title of the movie.’
(20) Me fati strav deka bi možela da imam problemi so turističkata viza. (KK)
‘I feared that I could be having problems with my tourist visa.’
However, because bi implies distancing it is suitable for performative speech acts,
where the hypothetical meaning is backgrounded or, in some cases, totally absent.
This face-saving strategy is employed in both explicit requests (21), agreements
(22) etc. or indirect offers (23) and suggestions (24). The complete reanalysis of bi
from a hypothetical to a politeness marker is typical in first person singular (rarely
plural), because it softens the force of speaker’s imposition in directive speech acts
such as requests and commissive promises and disagreements. With second person,
when the speaker intends to manipulate with the interlocutor’s behavior, bi is
found in requests (25) and suggestions (26).
(21) Izvinete, bi možel li da dobijam ušte edno limonadče? (AP)
‘Excuse me, could I get another lemonade?’
(22) So vakvo objasnuvanje veќе bi možel da se složam. (DS)

Balkanistica 33 (2019)
14 LILJANA MITKOVSKA AND ELENI BUŽAROVSKA

‘I could agree now with this explanation.’

(23) Bi možel da se obidam. (MR)
‘I could try.’
(24) Bi možel da te zapoznaam, reče po mala pauza. (DS)
‘I could introduce you to her, he said after a pause.’
(25) Dali sepak bi možele da mi gi prodadete? (KK)
‘Could you perhaps sell them to me?’
(26) A bi možel i ti da kupiš eden broj. (AP)
‘You might as well buy a copy.’
The use of bi možel is widely employed in wishes, which are invariably interpreted
as unfulfillable (27) and thus often express regrets.
(27) Ehh koga bi možela da promenam nešto, ama kasno e. (kajgana)
‘Oh, if only I could change anything, but it is too late.’
Questions are universally used as politeness strategy, since they make the utterance
less direct, thereby serving as a mitigating strategy in reactions to various speech
acts. The use of the modal verb može ‘can/may’ makes them sound as rhetorical
questions: implying that the realization of the event is far from possible no real
answer is expected. Thus bi seems to increase the hypotheticality of the utterance
and absolve the speaker from responsibility. This function of bi is most salient
with first person (28), but the effect is the same in impersonal constructions where
the presence of the speaker is implied (29). With third person subjects (30) bi does
not express the subject’s stance but the less categorical speaker’s attitude.
(28) Što bi možel da pravam? (DS)
‘What could I do?’
(29) Zarem postoi nešto so što bi moželo da se plati seto ova? (crnobelo)
‘Is there anything that could be used to pay all this?’
(30) Pak ќе rečam, taa e dete. Šo bi možel toj da prevzema? (crnobelo)
‘I’ll say it again, she is a child. What could he have done?’

Balkanistica 33 (2019)
PRAGMATICIZATION OF BI IN MACEDONIAN 15

The modal verb treba ‘should’ is used for both deontic and epistemic necessity and
in both cases it can occur in the bi-construction. Bi has mitigation effects on the
modal verb treba ‘should’12 when it is used to express epistemic necessity:
something that the agent or the theme is expected to do (Bi trebalo da se vratam
rano. ‘I should be back soon.’ Sostanokot bi trebalo da završi rano. ‘The meeting
should end soon’). Utterances with treba express strong predictions, but the use of
bi makes these predictions less confident and thus more polite. It seems that bi
carries a blend of epistemic and pragmatic meaning in bi trebalo. As with bi možel
‘I might/could’ for possibility, bi trebalo softens the meaning of necessity and
makes the assertion more acceptable for the addressee. By reducing the
commitment to the truth of the proposition it also creates a covert manipulative
“space” for the speaker, as in (32).
(32) Jas na vlada sum sega ne znam od kolku saat, bi trebalo brzo da završam.
(audio)
‘I am in the government meeting don’t know since when, it should be over
soon.’
The same function is present in third person constatives, which express a tentative
opinion (33) or speaker’s estimation of the situation (34).
(33) Ali bi trebalo, znaeš, zaradi site nas, da site go pravat toa. (audio)
‘But everybody should, you know, for the sake of us all, do that.’
(34) Ne se mnogu skapi poveќе od 500 denari ne bi trebalo da bidat. (kajgana)
‘They are not very expensive, shouldn’t be over 500 denars.’
Deontic treba ‘should’ expresses mild obligation so it is suitable for expressing
advice and unobtrusive suggestions. The use of bi in such situations does not bring
in hypotheticality, but softens the illocutionary force making the utterance less
direct. That is the reason why utterances with bi are felt as more polite and their
use is on the increase. In our corpus such constructions are most often encountered
for giving advice and suggesting in second and third person (35) or for asking
advice, usually in first person (36).
(35) Analiza na krvta bi trebalo da napravite barem ednaš godišno. (kajgana)

12
The modal verb treba ‘should’ is predominantly used with no inflection in all verb forms, but
the verb in the da-construction marks the person.
Balkanistica 33 (2019)
16 LILJANA MITKOVSKA AND ELENI BUŽAROVSKA

‘You should do a blood test at least a once a year.’

(36) Ušte koi testovi bi trebalo da gi napravam za točna dijagnoza? (kajgana)
‘What more tests am I supposed to do for the right diagnosis?
The modal verb mora ‘must’ expresses strong deontic necessity and epistemic
deduction. It is used in bi-constructions much less frequently than treba ‘should’
and može ‘can/may’ and most of the time as part of a conditional period, rarely
independently.13 Even though mora can be used epistemically to express a
confident deduction (Mora da se tuka, ova e nivnata kola. ‘They must be here, this
is their car’), we do not find it with bi, as is the case of treba ‘should’.
Deontic mora ‘must’ expresses strong obligation both subjective (from the
speaker) and circumstantial. In constative uses of bi moral ‘I would have to’ the
hypothetical meaning prevails (37). However, when used in conversation there are
cases where the speaker may additionally want to express some distancing in order
to weaken the assertoric force of the utterance (37). This is more noticeable in
questions, which themselves serve as a downtoning strategy (38).
(37) Taka vsušnost, ... jas bi morala da im veruvam na dobroinformiranite prijateli.
(KK)
‘So, actually, … I would have to believe my well informed friends.’
(38) Zošto bi morala da vi odgovoram na toa prašanje? (https://books.google.de/books)
‘Why should I answer this question?’
The analysis so far leads to the conclusion that bi most tightly links with saka
‘want/like’ and the epistemic treba ‘should’ (for assumptions and estimations),
where it has become a fixed phrase for pragmatic downtoning. With deontic treba
‘should’ and može ‘can/may’ bi imports a hypothetical nuance into constatives, but
when these verbs are used in performative speech acts bi is interpreted as a
distancing device and a politeness marker. The use of bi is the least common with
the modal verb mora ‘must’ where it preserves its hypotheticality.

3.2. Bi-constructions with a lexical verb

13
We found only four examples in our sample, though an internet search renders some more.
Balkanistica 33 (2019)
PRAGMATICIZATION OF BI IN MACEDONIAN 17

In lexical verb constructions the pragmatic functions of bi is more opaque than in

modal verb constructions. In addition, it is manifested to a different degree
depending on a speech act in which it is used. In constatives, apart from the typical
semantics of hypotheticality, bi can also create other modal implicatures, such as
potentiality (39), necessity (40) or volition (41), where the speaker/writer chooses
not to use the modal verb može ‘can/may’, treba ‘should’ or saka ‘want/like’,
respectively.
(39) Poprvo bi naučil kineski otkolku da sfatam matematika ili hemija. (crnobelo)
‘I’d sooner learn Chinese than understand Math or physics.’
(40) Treba da kažeme točno vo koja prostorija bi bilo toa. (audio)
‘We should say precisely in which room and how it would be.’
(41) Mrazam boš muabeti, poprvo bi sedel vo tišina otkolku da pravam muabet za
vremeto denes. (crnobelo)
‘I hate small talk, I’d rather sit in silence than talk about today’s weather.’
Unlike in constructions with modal verbs, these utterances are polysemous as their
interpretation relies heavily on the context. This tendency is more pronounced in
performative speech acts. Thus Utre bi došla ‘I would/could come tomorrow’ is
ambiguous between volitional and potential meanings (Utre bi sakala da dojdam ‘I
would like to come tomorrow’ and Utre bi možela da dojdam ‘I could come
tomorrow’.
However, in certain situations bi occurs in contexts that do not motivate the
use of a hypothetical construction. Thus in (42) there is a fixed arrangement about
the planned events, and (43) leaves no doubt about the name of the mountain. It
seems that the uncertainty expressed by bi should be interpreted as a cautionary
strategy which can be understood with the help of contextual clues.
(42) Mislam, site gi imaat moite telefoni, sѐ se dogovorivme kako bi funkcioniralo.
(audio)
‘I mean, everybody has my number, we agreed fully on how it would go.’
(43) …planinata narečena Kholat Syakhl … što vo prevod bi značelo Mrtva
Planina. (crnobelo)

Balkanistica 33 (2019)
18 LILJANA MITKOVSKA AND ELENI BUŽAROVSKA

‘…the mountain, called Kholat Syakhl ... which would mean Dead Mountain
in translation.’
The use of bi with faded hypotheticality is also found in directives with explicit
speech act verbs in first and second person, where they decrease speaker’s
imposition on the addressee. In frequent constructions such as bi prašal/
zamolil/sovetuval, predložil/preporačal… ‘I would ask/request/advise/suggest/
recommend’ bi should be interpreted as a pure politeness marker.
(44) Ja bi ti preporačal da vežbaš. (crnobelo)
‘I’d recommend you do physical exercise.’
(45) Bi zamolila da vnimavame što govorime ovde. (VA)
‘I’d ask you to be careful what we say here.’
(46) Dali vie poiskusnite bi mi sovetuvale nešto? (crnobelo)
‘Would you, more experienced, advise me on this?’
In speech acts without speech act verbs the difference between constatives and
performatives is blurred. Moreover, the ambiguity between the volitional and
potential meaning may persist, as in (47). The bi-construction here expresses a
pragmatic and semantic blend laced over by mitigation effects of bi and the
negation. If bi is removed (?ne te teram ‘I don’t force you’) the utterance is too
direct, though the communicative goal of persuading is achieved, whereas (48),
which conveys the speaker’s goal more transparently, may be classified as a tactful
agreement.
(47) Ni na son ne bi te teral da potpišeš nešto, utre da ideš vo zatvor za toa. (audio)
‘I wouldn’t even dream to make you sign something like this.’
(48) Da, reče Mono, ne bi imal ništo protiv. (DS)
‘Yes, said Mono, I wouldn’t have anything against it.’
In all examples belonging to performative speech acts bi operates as a negative
politeness marker. It can be suggested that in lexical verb constructions the
pragmatic function of bi can be subsumed under hedging. This is most evident in
negated statements (49) where bi neutralizes the effect of the speech acts of refusal
or disagreement, void completely of hypotheticality.

Balkanistica 33 (2019)
PRAGMATICIZATION OF BI IN MACEDONIAN 19

(49) Za toa ne bi znaela da ti odgovoram, no sigurno imala nekoi svoi pričini štom
go napravila toa. (crnobelo)
‘I wouldn’t know an answer to this, but certainly she had reasons for doing
this.’
There are cases when certain hedged assertions may be understood as directives,
for instance as indirect advice (50) or a recommendation (51). Their
underspecification may be resolved by a wider context only.
(50) Jas bi izbrala nekoj vakov model ili sličen. (kajgana)
‘I’d choose some dress like this or something similar.’
(51) Jas tie dve bi gi iskombinirala. (kajgana)
‘I’d combine those two.’
The tentative meaning conveyed by bi may be strengthened in statements with
parenthetical epistemic predicates, such as mislam ‘I think’ (52), but bi can also
serve to decrease the categoricalness of an assertion of a higher predicate of
certainty (53).
(52) Bez niv mislam poubavo bi izgledal. (kajgana)
‘Without them, I think it (the dress) would look better.’
(53) Sigurna sum deka bi me razbral iljada pati podobro od majka mi. (kajgana)
‘I’m sure he would understand me thousand times better than my mother.’
The hedging effect of bi is person-dependent, i.e., it may be salient to a different
degree and become less prominent in assertions about a third party. In uttering
such statements with a bi-construction the speaker expresses a less committed
attitude signaled by a verb of propositional attitude (54).
(54) Iako mislam deka on bi preferiral Caci da mu ja puštiš. (audio)
‘Though I think he’d prefer that you send Tsatsi to him.’
Parenthetical constructions with bi are also frequent, especially with the verb reče
‘say’. With first person (bi rekol,-a ‘I’d say’) it functions as an epistemic predicate
for expressing opinion by which the speaker mitigates the responsibility for what
s/he is saying.
(55) Da, jas bi rekol deka toa e samo edna od možnite pričini. (crnobelo)

Balkanistica 33 (2019)
20 LILJANA MITKOVSKA AND ELENI BUŽAROVSKA

‘Yes, I’d say this is one of many possible reasons.’

The expressions with reče ‘say’ have a specific discourse function in third person
(56) or in impersonal se-construction (bi se reklo). By attributing the utterance to a
third party, depending on the situation, the speaker aims to either distance
him/herself from it or to strengthen its validity. This strategy focuses on the
interlocutor and creates a strong intersubjective effect.
(56) Da de naše členstvo, što bi rekol B.C. (audio)
‘Yeah, our members, as B.C. would say.’
The pragmatic potential of the bi-construction is frequently employed in
suggestions. They may be formulated as questions, which makes suggestions
cautious and unobtrusive (57 and 58). Another strategy for giving tactful advice is
formed with a potential copula construction with the verb be and an evaluative
predicate such as dobro ‘good’, najdobro ‘best’, fino ‘nice’ (59). By inserting the
phrase spored mene ‘in my opinion’ the speaker emphasizes that the advice is
purely subjective and should not be taken as interfering with addressee’s position
(60). Similarly, this strategy of not impinging on addressee’s negative face is
applied in seeking advice or information (61).
(57) Kako bi bilo da trgneme? (KK)
‘How about leaving?’
(58) Kako bi ti došlo edno patuvanje? (DS)
‘How would you feel about a trip?’
(59) … fino bi bilo vo sabota da se obideme … (audio)
‘It’d be nice if we could try on Saturday.’
(60) Spored mene najdobro bi bilo da razgovaraš so majka ti … (crnobelo)
‘In my opinion, it’d be best if you talked to your mum …’
(61) Zadolžitelna li bi bila konsultacija so hematolog? (kajgana)
‘Would it be compulsory to see a hematologist?’
Furthermore, bi may be used in commissive speech acts of accepting offers or in
expressing a subjective stance to a certain situation. In such more formal cases it

Balkanistica 33 (2019)
PRAGMATICIZATION OF BI IN MACEDONIAN 21

has been conventionalized into a politeness marker employed in a face saving

strategy.
(62) Bi ostanala so radost. (KK)
‘I’d love to stay.’
(63) Navistina, mnogu bi me raduvalo Vašeto društvo. (KK)
‘I’d really enjoy your company.’
In wishes (64) and emotionally-charged statements (65) bi mitigates the strength of
the utterance while preserving its hypothetical function.
(64) Samo koga bi znaela sѐ. (crnobelo)
‘If only I knew everything.’
(65) Ne znam što bi pravela bez nego. (kajgana)
‘I would know what I would do without him.’
To sum up, with lexical verbs bi can function as an indirect speech act strategy.
The hypothetical-potential sense is backgrounded and reanalyzed as a distance
marker used to reduce the strength of the illocutionary force. This is typical of
more formal styles, but some frequent combinations (e.g., with the copula or with
the verb reče ‘say’) have spread to colloquial contexts as formulaic expressions.

4. Concluding remarks
The presented analysis provides an overview of the ways the Macedonian potential
mood marker is employed in pragmatic functions. It shows that the mitigating
function of the independent bi in reducing speaker imposition is not easily
separated from its hypothetical meaning. The subjective stance induced in the bi-
construction already implies distancing, which is typically reanalyzed as social
distance. This is most obvious in less hypothetical contexts such as constructions
with performative predicates: when the speaker does not want to sound forceful
and obtrusive s/he chooses the negative politeness strategy with bi. In assertive
utterances bi imports a non-committal stance to the truth of the proposition thereby
softening its categoricalness.
The analysis shows that the pragmatic function of bi is less conspicuous in
constatives than in performatives, where the hypotheticality and potentiality of bi
Balkanistica 33 (2019)
22 LILJANA MITKOVSKA AND ELENI BUŽAROVSKA

fades away due to its reanalysis into a face saving device. As pointed out in the
discussion, when used with modal verbs bi-constructions are more likely to be
interpreted as a politeness strategy since they tone down the existing modality.
While still characteristic of a formal style, it is in structures with the verbs saka
‘want/like’, treba ‘should’ and in idiomatized expressions with lexical verbs that
the politeness function of bi has spread to the vernacular.

References
Asenova, Petya. 2002. Balkansko ezikoznanie: Osnovni problem na balkanskija
ezikov sǎjuz. V. Tǎrnovo: Faber.
Apostolova, Anastasija. 2018. Prevodnite ekvivalenti na makedonskiot možen
način vo angliskiot jazik. MA thesis. UKIM, Skopje.
Austin, John. 1962. How to Do Things With Words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness. Some Universals in
Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bužarovska, Eleni. 2018. “Funkcijata na bi za izrazuvanje obusloveni dejstva vo
makedonskiot jazik,” Topolijnska, Zuzana (ed). Skopje: MANU, pp. 25–48.
Gajdova, Ubavka. 2008. Uslovniot period vo dijalektite na makedonskiot jazik.
Skopje: IMJ.
Gołąb, Zbigniew. 1964. “The Problem of Verbal Mood in Slavic Languages,”
International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 8, pp. 1–36.
Hacking, Jane F. 1998. Coding the Hypothetical: A Comparative Typology of
Russian and Macedonian Conditionals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hacking, Jane F. 1999. “Grammaticalization Theory and the Particle bi/by in
Bulgarian, Macedonian and Russian,” Canadian Slavonic Papers 41:3/4, pp.
415–430.
Hausmann, Klaus. 1956. Der Potential im Mazedonischen. Doctoral dissertation.
Georg August University, Göttingen.
Kramer, Christina E. 1986. Analytic Modality in Macedonian. Munich: Otto
Sagner.
Koneski, Blaže. 1987. Gramatika na makedonskiot litararuren jazik. Skopje:
Kultura.
Koneski, Kiril. 1999. Za makedonskiot glagol. Skopje: Detska radost.

Balkanistica 33 (2019)
PRAGMATICIZATION OF BI IN MACEDONIAN 23

Labroska, Veselinka. 2018. “Funkciite an partikulata bi vo zapadnoto narečje,”

Topolijnska, Zuzana (ed). Skopje: MANU, pp. 75–88.
Lindstedt, Jouko. 2010. “Mood in Bulgarian and Macedonian,” Mood in the
Languages of Europe, Rothstein, Bjöern and Rolf Thieroff (eds.). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins, pp. 409–421.
Lunt, Horace. 1952. А Grammar of the Macedonian Literary Language. Skopje:
n.p.
Marsh-Stefanovska, Patricia. 1990. “Semantičkite funkcii na uslovnite rečenici vo
sovremeniot makedonski jazik,” XVI Naučna diskusija. Skopje: UKIM, pp. 53–
62.
Minova-Gjurkova Liljana. 1997. Svrzuvačkite sredstva vo makedonskiot jazik.
Skopje: Detska radost.
Mitkovska, Liljana. 2018. “Možniot način nadvor od uslovniot period vo
sovremeniot makedonski jazik,” Topolijnska, Zuzana (ed). Skopje: MANU, pp.
97–118.
Mišiḱ, Mirka. 1990. “Nositeli na uslovnosta vo makedonskite uslovni rečenici,”
XVI Naučna diskusija. Skopje: UKIM, pp. 85–90.
Narrog, Heiko. 2012. Modality, Subjectivity, and Semantic Change. A Cross-
Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Palmer, Frank. 2001. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Topolinjska, Zuzana. 2008. Polski-Makedonski: gramatička konfrontacija (8).
Razvitok na gramatičkite kategorii. Skopje: MANU.
Topolinjska, Zuzana (ed). 2018. Statusot na modalnata morfema bi vo
makedonskiot jazik i nejzinite funkcionalni ekvivalenti vo drugite slovenski i
neslovenski jazici. Skopje: MANU.
Xrakovskij, Viktor S. 2009. “The Conditional,” The Slavic languages: an
international handbook of their structure, their history and their investigation,
Kempgen, Sebastian, Peter Kosta, Tilman Berger and Karl Gutschmidt (eds.).
Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 275–281.

Balkanistica 33 (2019)