Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 7

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  LANGUAGE CULTIVATION
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The paper reviews the beginnings of the journal 'Édes Anyanyelvünk' (Our Mother Tongue), its first editorial board, and its role in the context of language cultivation in Hungary. Two areas are discussed in detail: the propagation of knowledge on language, and the recognition of new phenomena in language (langue) and in everyday language use (parole). The paper also deals with novel areas of inquiry (the interdependence between language use and behaviour, spoken language research), supporting its claims by a number of articles from the journal. The author takes issue with widespread views that deny the effectiveness and usefulness of language cultivation.
EN
This paper is a review and recommendation of 'The Concise Dictionary of Language Cultivation', edited by Laszlo Gretsy and Gabor Kemeny, published by Tinta Konyvkiado, Budapest, 2005. The author formulates his general views on mother tongue, language cultivation, and dictionaries of language cultivation. He mentions entries of the present dictionary that he finds impeccable, but also ones that he thinks are to be extended, formulated more clearly, corrected, or modified in their content. Also, he brings up certain phenomena that the dictionary fails to discuss.
EN
In Hungarian, as in other languages, simple verbs are often replaced by analytical constructions using a deverbal noun derived from a simple verb and a semantically depleted 'delexical' verb. Traditional language cultivation holds that such constructions are alien to the spirit of the language: they come from other languages through translation. It is also claimed that analytical constructions are more difficult to comprehend than simple verbs, and are only used by people who are lazy to think and talk straight. However, the Handbook of Language Cultivation concedes that some analytical constructions are acceptable, some have no single-verb alternatives, and some 'sound' downright good. From a descriptive point of view we wish to raise two related questions. Can the opinions described above be supported by more than subjective judgement? Can it be shown by quantitative analysis that translations, indeed, are responsible for the infiltration of analytical constructions? Second, can it be supported by psycholinguistic evidence that the constructions ostracized by purists do indeed interfere with comprehension, while those labelled as acceptable or recommended do not? What is the cause of the proliferation of analytical constructions in certain texts and situations, apart from the traditional explanation that people are lazy to talk straight? The paper reports on two studies. The first study does not find evidence that translated texts contain more analytical constructions than original Hungarian texts. The second study, aimed at exploring the processing of analytical constructions vs. simple verbs finds that analytical constructions marked as unacceptable by language cultivation are indeed more difficult to process than simple verbs.
EN
The author of this paper investigates three interrelated phenomena of language use with respect to the family as a scene of linguistic encounters. Her questionnaire survey gives the reader a glimpse of the language use of four generations in three types of settlements. With respect to the topics indicated in the title, the analysis reveals the characteristics of the language use of the individual generations and presents the differences between them. The study is sociolinguistically-based, the author does not refer to language cultivation issues related to these topics; but she does cover phenomena that seem to contradict the existence of tendencies that are a matter of popular belief and are often commented on in the language cultivation literature.
EN
This article provides a theoretical and practical response to the so-called Concept of Minimal Intervention (CMI) first outlined in Cvrcek (2008a), and later expanded upon in Cvrcek (2008b). The theoretical part uses the analogy with Macura's (1995) analysis of the early National Revival discourse and presents examples of (un)successful interventions into the language to provide textual proof that the CMI discourse consists of contradictory statements. It is thus revealed that the function of these statements is not to describe the phenomenon, but rather, to serve Cvrcek's own purpose: the negative depiction of language regulation and intervention into language. Presenting evidence from the language counselling service of the Czech Language Institute, the practical part demonstrates that CMI's call for minimal intervention is not in accordance with the needs of the general public and that the means proposed to minimise intervention by linguists would not work as expected. A current view of the traditional concept of language cultivation, its terminology and methodology - refused by CMI - is also presented.
6
Content available remote

Kultivace (standardního) jazyka

32%
EN
This paper outlines the basics of the Prague School concept of language cultivation and main features of how it has been put into practice in the Czech Republic, and compares this approach with current language planning in Sweden. The paper aims at (1) placing the Prague School concept of language cultivation within the framework of international sociolinguistics, (2) pointing out that this concept contributes only partially to solving the language problems of contemporary societies, (3) outlining the possibilities of language cultivation in the post-modern era, while paying attention to language standardization, de-standardization and management. The author argues that the access of the Czech Republic to the EU will change the language situation of the country including the focus of and attitudes toward language planning.
EN
This article is concerned with texts by Frantisek Cermak devoted to issues of Czech language cultivation. Four major topics are analyzed: standard vs. common Czech, written vs. spoken Czech, prescriptivism and the native language of Czechs. Various problems in the analyzed texts result from an unclear methodological background. Many concepts are used without argumentation: Cermak fails to substantiate their suitability for his language description. We can find uncorroborated generalizations which can be interpreted as Cermak's communicative strategy. Many statements are rather impressionistic and are not based on relevant language observations. With regard to these findings, the author of this paper argues that a deep-reaching dialogue should be held, which may help to clarify the indeterminate situation in Czech linguistics concerning issues of language cultivation.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.