Relacja: predykat > argument – centralne ogniwo struktury tekstu

• Authors: Topolińska Zuzanna

Title variants

EN

Relation: predicate > argument – the basic link in the construction of the text

• Languages of publication: PL

Abstracts

EN

Starting with the assumption that the proposition (i.e. predicate > argument(s) structure) is the basic unit of the semantic structure of the text, the author argues that the relation > predicate > argument in its turn is the basic link in the process of the construction of the text. She distinguishes three types of predicates: (a) those which inform about the relations between the parts of the world around us and about the characteristics of these parts (cf. ‘stand’, ‘sleep’, ‘build’, ‘destroy’, ‘white’, ‘old’, ‘tall’, ‘man’, ‘animal’, ‘river’, sea’) and which accept arguments whose referents are parts of that world; (b) those which inform about our mental, emotional, volitional reactions to that world (cf. ‘think’, ‘know’, ‘like’, ‘wish’, ‘want’, ‘ask’, ‘command’) and which accept also arguments whose referents are events, states of affairs, processes, i.e. propositional arguments; (c) those which inform about the ways of our thinking and concluding about the events, states, processes happening around us (cf. ‘coexist’, ‘exclude’, ‘succeed’, ‘precede’, ‘overlap’, ‘cause’, ‘let’, ‘stipulate’, ‘and’, ‘or’, ‘before’, after’, because’, ‘if’) and which only accept propositional arguments. She concludes that however complex and/or context dependent a sentence is, it should be understood and interpreted as a hierarchically organized proposition.

Keywords

EN

argument; Polish; predicate; proposition; syntax

• Publisher: Committee on Slavic Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences
• Journal: Rocznik Slawistyczny
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 63
• Pages: 145-155
• Document type: ARTICLE

Contributors

author

Topolińska Zuzanna

• The Research Centre for Areal Linguistics of the Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts

References

• Dane publikacji
• Relacja: predykat > argument – centralne ogniwo struktury tekstu Artykuł
• Czasopismo : Rocznik Slawistyczny - Revue Slavistique Tom: 63, Strony: 145-155
• Zuzanna Topolińska [1]
• [1]
• The Research Centre for Areal Linguistics of the Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts
• Data publikacji: 2014 Główny język publikacji: polski
• Liczba arkuszy: 0,65
• Cechy publikacji
• -
• Artykuł monograficzny
• Zrecenzowana naukowo
• Tłumaczenie tytułu
• -
• angielski :
• Relation: predicate > argument – the basic link in the construction of the text
• Dyscypliny naukowe
• -
• Językoznawstwo
• Słowa kluczowe
• -
• angielski :
• argument, Polish, predicate, proposition, syntax
• Abstrakty ( angielski )
• -
• Starting with the assumption that the proposition (i.e. predicate > argument(s) structure) is the basic unit of the semantic structure of the text, the author argues that the relation > predicate > argument in its turn is the basic link in the process of the construction of the text. She distinguishes three types of predicates: (a) those which inform about the relations between the parts of the world around us and about the characteristics of these parts (cf. ‘stand’, ‘sleep’, ‘build’, ‘destroy’, ‘white’, ‘old’, ‘tall’, ‘man’, ‘animal’, ‘river’, sea’) and which accept arguments whose referents are parts of that world; (b) those which inform about our mental, emotional, volitional reactions to that world (cf. ‘think’, ‘know’, ‘like’, ‘wish’, ‘want’, ‘ask’, ‘command’) and which accept also arguments whose referents are events, states of affairs, processes, i.e. propositional arguments; (c) those which inform about the ways of our thinking and concluding about the events, states, processes happening around us (cf. ‘coexist’, ‘exclude’, ‘succeed’, ‘precede’, ‘overlap’, ‘cause’, ‘let’, ‘stipulate’, ‘and’, ‘or’, ‘before’, after’, because’, ‘if’) and which only accept propositional arguments. She concludes that however complex and/or context dependent a sentence is, it should be understood and interpreted as a hierarchically organized proposition.
• Bibliografia
• -
• Fillmore Ch. J., 1966, Toward a modern theory of case, The Ohio State University project on linguistic analysis, report No 13, Columbus: Ohio State University, pp. 1–24.
• Fillmore Ch. J., 1968, The Case for Case, [In] Form and Meaning in Language, pp. 21–294.
• Gramatyka 1984, Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego. Składnia, red. Z. Topolińska, Warszawa: PWN.
• Morfologia 1999, Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego. Morfologia, red. R. Grzegorczykowa, R. Laskowski, H. Wróbel, wyd. 3. poprawione, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
• Topolińska Z., 2013, Uwagi o predykatach fazowych, „Linguistica Copernicana” 1 [9], s. 25–31.
• Zapomniane konstrukcje 1966, Zapomniane konstrukcje składni staropolskiej. Wybór przykładów, oprac. Z. Klemensiewicz, K. Pisarkowa, J. Konieczna-Twardzikowa, Wrocław: Ossolineum.
• Zapomniane konstrukcje 1973, Zapomniane konstrukcje składni średniopolskiej (1700–1780). Wybór przykładów, oprac. A. Kałkowska, K. Pisarkowa, M. Szybistowa, J. Twardzikowa, Wrocław: Ossolineum.
• Zapomniane konstrukcje 1977, Zapomniane konstrukcje składni nowopolskiej (1863–1918). Wybór przykładów, oprac. A. Kałkowska, K. Pisarkowa, M. Szybistowa, J. Twardzikowa, Wrocław: Ossolineum.
• Апресян et al. 2010, Апресян Ю. Д., Богуславский И. М., Иомдин Л. Л., Санников В. З., Теоретические проблемы русского синтаксиса. Взаимодействие грамматики и словаря, Москва: Языки славянских культур.