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

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
On the occasion of the 20th Congress of Linguists, which was a manifestation of the dominance of the socio-cognitive paradigm, we compare the functionalist approach and the cognitive approach to understanding the nature of lexical meaning. Both theoretical frames have a strong explanatory dimension and are significantly compatible. Within a certain methodological synthesis, we examine the internal consistency as well as mutual compatibility of aspects of some models of meaning outlined or developed in the literature (V. Mathesius, J. Filipec, J. Dolník, D. Geeraerts, P. Hanks, J. Kořenský, M. Nagy). As a theoretically primary model, we find the one reflecting the processual character of language, i.e. meaning in actual speech and the assumptions of this process in the form of the meaning potential – the dynamically and probabilistically organized cognitive base, semantic-pragmatic network. Word represents a unilateral sign in this model. The compatibility of cognitivist interpretations with psychological and neurobiological knowledge should be regarded. The secondary model, i.e. a user-oriented presentation model (such as a lexicographical entry), has a more static character. It uses the presentational inventory of functional structural linguistics and “discretizes” the cognitive continuum into the form of bilateral units. This model is usage-based, so its basis is a large volume of the evidence of language usage that can be pre-processed by corpus tools into contextual patterns, i.e. “units” larger than the word, which is the characteristic feature of corpus approaches.
EN
We try to answer the question: When does the reflexive marker “sa” accompanying a verb present the clitic form of the pronoun “seba”? Linguists do not share a common view whether the Czech and Slovak constructions “verb + reflexive marker sa”, both in the type “umývať sa”, and in “vidieť sa/hodnotiť sa”, are to be considered as demonstrations of syntactic reflexivity (syntactic constructions with a reflexive pronoun), lexical reflexivity (reflexive verbs with derivative morpheme), or whether they are of the same nature at all. Considering the results of a modified commutation test (possibility/impossibility to substitute the reflexive “sa” marker by a pronominal expression “sám seba”), we came to the conclusion that the expressions within the type “vnímať sa” represent syntactic constructions (predicate + object) where the respective “sa” marker (object) has a pronominal status.
EN
The first part of the study deals with the question of how the domestication of Anglicisms is related to the ethno-structural and orthographic setting of the receiving, i.e., from the point of view of adaptation, the dominant language. Attention is also drawn to the fact that the degree of adaptation differs significantly in individual thematic groups of words and communication spheres. The second part explains how this disparity is related to the naming function of the borrowed words, but also to the attitudes of Slovak speakers. The third part of the study reflects the increasing number of intolerant attitudes towards adapted forms of Anglicisms naming common realities. This phenomenon and its consequences in the form of a weakening of the principle of dominance of the receiving language is demonstrated in the textual functioning of the unadapt Anglicism puzzle and its adapted variant pucle.
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.