5,669
edits
Difference between revisions of "Pozornost', d'akovné, všimné (Slovakia)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Pozornost', d'akovné, všimné (Slovakia) (view source)
Revision as of 21:08, 20 May 2016
, 21:08, 20 May 2016no edit summary
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
Gécziová, K. 2015. 'Ďakovné dávajú mamičky lekárom zvyčajne po pôrode' ('They usually give ďakovné to doctors after giving birth'), SME.sk, 24 February, http://kosice.korzar.sme.sk/c/7662753/dakovne-davaju-mamicky-lekarom-zvycajne-po-porode.html</ref>). The 1987 edition of the dictionary (which included all the words judged most likely to be used at that time by high-school graduates) contained no entry for either ďakovné or všimné. This suggests either that these terms were morally ambiguous, and/or that they were not frequently used. The 2003 edition of the same dictionary (which listed the 60,000 words most frequently used at that time in everyday speech) defined the term všimné as a jocular way of referring to a small bribe, while ďakovné received no mention. | Gécziová, K. 2015. 'Ďakovné dávajú mamičky lekárom zvyčajne po pôrode' ('They usually give ďakovné to doctors after giving birth'), SME.sk, 24 February, http://kosice.korzar.sme.sk/c/7662753/dakovne-davaju-mamicky-lekarom-zvycajne-po-porode.html</ref>). The 1987 edition of the dictionary (which included all the words judged most likely to be used at that time by high-school graduates) contained no entry for either ďakovné or všimné. This suggests either that these terms were morally ambiguous, and/or that they were not frequently used. The 2003 edition of the same dictionary (which listed the 60,000 words most frequently used at that time in everyday speech) defined the term všimné as a jocular way of referring to a small bribe, while ďakovné received no mention. | ||
Today, ďakovné is still used relatively rarely. It seems to have an archaic connotation. (Indeed, linguistically similar terms can be found in a dictionary published in 1825 [Lexicon Slavicum, 1825]). By contrast, both pozornosť and všimné are commonly used, normally in the context of the spread of informal practices and corruption in the Slovak public services. | Today, ďakovné is still used relatively rarely. It seems to have an archaic connotation. (Indeed, linguistically similar terms can be found in a dictionary published in 1825 [Lexicon Slavicum, 1825]<ref>Lexicon Slavicum. http://www.juls.savba.sk/ediela/bernolak/</ref>). By contrast, both pozornosť and všimné are commonly used, normally in the context of the spread of informal practices and corruption in the Slovak public services. | ||
Všimné can also be found today in the popular online dictionary, Slovnik Online. There it is defined as a clear case of a bribe but is also likened to tipping (bakshis) – that is, a relatively small amount of money given for services rendered. Because tipping is not seen as reprehensible, the moral meaning of všimné remains ambivalent: unacceptable when associated with bribery but acceptable when associated with tipping. | Všimné can also be found today in the popular online dictionary, Slovnik Online. There it is defined as a clear case of a bribe but is also likened to tipping (bakshis) – that is, a relatively small amount of money given for services rendered. Because tipping is not seen as reprehensible, the moral meaning of všimné remains ambivalent: unacceptable when associated with bribery but acceptable when associated with tipping. | ||
The same ambivalence can be found in the use of pozornosť, loosely defined as ‘appreciation of someone´s attention in official relations’ or — in a simpler sense, ‘a present given without expectation of recompense’ or ‘something given as an expression of gratitude’ (Slovnik Online). Where informal practices are concerned, ‘official relations’ might include public services such as health-care, education or registering official documents. As measured by the Global Corruption Barometer 2013, the frequency with which such practices are carried out in Slovakia is similar to those in the Czech Republic and Italy as well as many countries around the world. | The same ambivalence can be found in the use of pozornosť, loosely defined as ‘appreciation of someone´s attention in official relations’ or — in a simpler sense, ‘a present given without expectation of recompense’ or ‘something given as an expression of gratitude’ (Slovnik Online)<ref>Slovnik Online (privately-run portal). http://slovnik.azet.sk/synonyma/?q=v%C5%A1imn%C3%A9</ref>. Where informal practices are concerned, ‘official relations’ might include public services such as health-care, education or registering official documents. As measured by the Global Corruption Barometer 2013, the frequency with which such practices are carried out in Slovakia is similar to those in the Czech Republic and Italy as well as many countries around the world. | ||
The relatively low approval ratings enjoyed by Slovakia’s public services appear to confirm the negative impact of practices such as pozornosť. Slovakia’s ratings lag behind those of many other developed countries. A study conducted over the period 1995-2009 compared the performance of nine public services in 28 developed countries. Comparing outcomes (‘what is achieved? ’) and financial efficiency (‘at what price?’), the study found that Slovakia scored on the low side as regards public administration, health-care, housing, economic affairs and infrastructure. Similarly low scores were reported in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia. In line with their relatively low performance, public confidence in the public sector in the Central European countries was also found to be below average (Jonker 2012:17). | The relatively low approval ratings enjoyed by Slovakia’s public services appear to confirm the negative impact of practices such as pozornosť. Slovakia’s ratings lag behind those of many other developed countries. A study conducted over the period 1995-2009 compared the performance of nine public services in 28 developed countries. Comparing outcomes (‘what is achieved? ’) and financial efficiency (‘at what price?’), the study found that Slovakia scored on the low side as regards public administration, health-care, housing, economic affairs and infrastructure. Similarly low scores were reported in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia. In line with their relatively low performance, public confidence in the public sector in the Central European countries was also found to be below average (Jonker 2012:17)<ref>Jonker, J.-J. (ed.) 2012. Countries compared on public performance. A study of public sector performance in 28 countries. The Hague: The Netherlands Institute for Social Research | ||
Krempaský, J. and Vražda, D. 2012. 'Bonboniéra je u lekára povolená mena', SME.sk, August 14 http://www.sme.sk/c/6497773/bonboniera-je-u-lekara-povolena-mena.html</ref>. | |||
In Slovak media mini-surveys, one can find questions related specifically to the practice of všimné (see, for example, the daily newspaper SME during the 2014 presidential election campaign). The fact that this term was selected for inclusion in the questionnaires, and in the possible responses that were offered, indicated the moral ambiguity of the term. When asked whether they had ever offered a všimné, four presidential candidates replied ‘No,’ while three replied ‘Yes’ with reference to giving všimné to a doctor or physician. However, even some of those who responded in the negative admitted to having given some presents (such as a box of chocolates) to a doctor after they or their family had received medical treatment. One presidential candidate considered všimné to be a warm ‘thank you’ for health-care services. In other words, there was no consensus among the candidates over the reading of všimné or its positive or negative connotations (SME 2014). | In Slovak media mini-surveys, one can find questions related specifically to the practice of všimné (see, for example, the daily newspaper SME during the 2014 presidential election campaign). The fact that this term was selected for inclusion in the questionnaires, and in the possible responses that were offered, indicated the moral ambiguity of the term. When asked whether they had ever offered a všimné, four presidential candidates replied ‘No,’ while three replied ‘Yes’ with reference to giving všimné to a doctor or physician. However, even some of those who responded in the negative admitted to having given some presents (such as a box of chocolates) to a doctor after they or their family had received medical treatment. One presidential candidate considered všimné to be a warm ‘thank you’ for health-care services. In other words, there was no consensus among the candidates over the reading of všimné or its positive or negative connotations (SME 2014). | ||