On the nature of the conjunction dok (‘while’) denoting opposition (contrast)
Authors: Klikovac Duska 
Published: November 2022

The article first discusses whether the conjunction dok (?while?) belongs to
the category of coordinating or subordinating conjunctions. The analysis
demonstrates that this conjunction possesses some of the properties
characterizing the most typical coordinating conjunctions (i.e. it indicates
a contrast and the clauses can ?revolve around? it), some properties which
make it a marginal member of this category (i.e. it cannot coordinate
syntactic units other than independent clauses and the part of the second
clause which this clause shares with the first clause cannot be omitted
from the sentence), but that it also has a feature that the other
coordinating conjunctions do not exhibit and which would even place it
outside this category (i.e. it can also come before the first clause).
Nevertheless, the fact that its position in a sentence can vary without
changing the position of the clauses, that is to say, the position of the
clauses can change while that of the conjunction remains the same, clearly
indicates that this conjunction does not belong to either of them; hence, it
is not a subordinating conjunction. This can be inferred from some other
features as well - for instance, the predicate of the clause following this
conjunction - when referring to the future - can only be used in the Future
2 tense, and not the Future 1. It simultaneously has a strong tendency to
come between the two clauses, in which case it is preceded by a pause, i.e.
a comma. The conjunction dok thus shows that when it comes to two
contrasting categories, membership in one of them can depend not only on the
features which are typical of this particular category, but also on those
unacceptable to the other one. More generally, this conjunction additionally
shows that grammatical classifications, which are essentially based on
dichotomies, in some cases do not accurately reflect actual linguistic
phenomena. The second part of the article discusses how dok developed the
meaning of contrast. In relation to this, pseudo-subordinate temporal
dok-clauses are identified, in which dok still refers to simultaneity, but
the situation expressed in the dok-clause does not represent the reference
point relative to which the event in the main clause can be temporally
located; dok then means ?meanwhile?. The analysis suggests that the
separation of the two domains in which this conjunction can be interpreted
is pivotal to the development of the meaning of contrast - namely, the
temporal domain (when it is interpreted in its temporal sense, i.e.
indicating simultaneity) and the domain of comparison (when it is
interpreted as adversative). The aforementioned separation is possible in
ambiguous examples, where, in addition to the simultaneity of two
situations, there is also a contrast - either a contrast between these two
situations or between some of their components. It should also be added
that, if the conjunction has a temporal meaning, the possible element of
contrast is still present; but if its meaning is that of contrast, the
temporal component fades completely. Finally, the article provides a
possible explanation for why the conjunction dok in particular, unlike the
other temporal conjunctions, or other conjunctions for that matter, has
developed the potential to denote a contrast as well: it is when two events
occur simultaneously that the contrast between them is most noticeable -
they are ?before our eyes? at the same time.