The aim of the paper is to provoke a discussion about linguistic style in science, required features of discourse and freedom of narration. Characteristic features of the linguistic style in science have been presented and two styles distinguished: severe and vivid one. In the milieu of technical universities, some variance in assessment of linguistic correctness of dissertations may be seen. The source of that variance is controversial requirement for use of severe style. As a supporter of the vivid style, the author presents arguments in favour of it. Characteristic for the language in science is frequent occurrence of impersonal forms, passive voice, lack of emotional attitude and avoidance of subjective judgements. These features, though dominant, cannot be absolutely required in the whole of scientific texts, as he tries to prove.
This article is devoted to the long-term problem of which aspectual value of the verb soustředit se (to concentrate) should be used. It explores the question of whether the present-day imperfective usage is a result of the speaker’s diminished ability to discern between the perfect and imperfect aspect, or whether it is an unsurprising consequence of the position of the verb in the system of prefixed verbs.
The article’s authors are linguists representing various foreign philologies (Slavistics, Arabistics, Indology, Sinology, Mongolistics) working as experts on the Polish Chief Geodesist’s Commission on Standardization of Geographical Names Outside the Republic of Poland. They have evaluated the selection of entries, the form and etymology of geographic names included in two Polish dictionaries of correct usage, and other information found there on names and objects. The article contains two extensive lists of names given in the dictionaries mentioned above. Entries were singled out that should be corrected or changed; also indicated were erroneous transcriptions, numerous implausible name etymologies, as well as incorrect locations (administrative and geographical) of objects. Each of the authors, independently of the others, formulated very similar conclusions and objections. It is pointed out that in publications of this sort, meticulous compilation is essential so that the reader will not lose confidence in the academic sources of knowledge. This also applies to an accurate, current form of the name, its recording, the spatial localization of the object, its administrative affiliation, and so forth, as well as plausible etymology checked by appropriate specialists. In the case of academic publications, sparing use of reviewers is harmful for the whole community, not just the academic.
The units of this category of non-restrictive (non-defining) clauses do not express a quality of the denotatum of the head noun, but they provide a continuation of the semantic content of the head clause (continuative clauses), present an explanation of it or further information about it, or simply comment on it (explicative clauses). Puristically oriented linguists reject these units as 'incorrect', 'false', whereas other scholars accept them without reservations, some with certain stylistic limitations. The present author points to the stylistic relevance, necessity and utility of this special category of relative clauses and to the fact that they are currently used in various written genres. Such clauses are freely used in a number of European languages and the author does not find any reasonable argument why they should not be considered and accepted as a fully standard, correct means of expression in Czech as well.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.