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

Results found: 5

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  biaspectual verbs
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Biaspectuals Revisited

100%
Starý Z.
Studie z aplikované lingvistiky - Studies in Applied Linguistics
|
2017
|
vol. 8
|
issue 1
111-123
XX
The article deals with (or rather begins with) Czech biaspectual verbs. Although biaspectuals (sometimes referred to as aspectual homonyms) distinguish between perfective vs. imperfective meaning, there is nothing in their morphological makeup to signal this meaning distinction. To determine the aspect of a biaspectual, i.e. to disambiguate its aspectual homonymy, biaspectuals are sometimes synonymously substituted by verbs whose morphological makeup does signal their aspect; the biaspectuals are then considered perfective or imperfective (used perfectively vs. imperfectively) depending on the aspect of their substituents. The article demonstrates that this method is deficient: it is not necessarily conclusive. To demonstrate this, the following observations were made and conclusions drawn on Czech aspect and aspect in general. i. Despite the fact that aspect is thought of as an obligatory verbal category in Czech, it is not a matter of the verb alone, but rather of a larger linguistic expression. The mutual morphological makeup of the verb is only one of the many factors/exponents which (“in cooperation”) determine the aspectual interpretation of the respective linguistic expression. Some of these factors are identifiable as aspectual exponents in the expression itself (for example tense, verb complements, adverbial verb complements among them), others are beyond its scope, i.e. they are part of the (situational) context in which the expression is used. ii. Linguistic expression can be interpreted as perfective, imperfective, aspectually unspecific or the aspectual distinction can be irrelevant for it — despite that, aspect is considered to be an obligatory category. iii. Furthermore, the morphological imperfective can be used to co-express perfectivity, and the morphological perfective can be used to refer to an imperfectively conceived process/event. Therefore, due to this and points i. and ii. above, the verb IS NOT inherently perfective or imperfective, it is USED perfectively, imperfectively, or in an aspectually unspecific way.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

K vývojovým tendencím vybraných obouvidových sloves v češtině

80%
Janečka M., Návratová M.
Časopis pro moderní filologii (Journal for Modern Philology)
|
2020
|
vol. 102
|
issue 2
230-249
EN
The theoretical part of this article is focused on verbal aspect, particularly on biaspectual verbs in Czech. The creation of a perfective verb from a biaspectual verb by means of prefixation is described. Within corpus research, usage of biaspectual verbs in a perfective context is explored in contrast to its perfective correlate. Then we focus on syntactic restrictions, considering the usage of certain biaspectual verbs, and on the fact that the aspect of biaspectual verbs cannot be identified out of context. Czech biaspectual verbs develop over time and they can also lose their biaspectuality over time. The perfective forms of biaspectual verbs were verified for the following verbs: adaptovat, definovat, organizovat, faulovat, kontaktovat, realizovat, exportovat, publikovat, kompromitovat and korumpovat. Our research indicates that half of the selected verbs cannot be used in their perfective forms in time-subordinate sentences, and that in this type of sentence they are replaced by their prefixed perfective correlates. This finding leads us to the conclusion that in certain contexts, Czech biaspectual verbs can lose their biaspectuality over time.
3
Content available remote

Slibuju, že už nechybuju? Je sloveso chybovat obouvidové?

80%
Veselý L.
Naše řeč (Our Speech)
|
2018
|
vol. 101
|
issue 2
65-80
EN
One of the tasks of this text is to find out whether the verb chybovat is only imperfective, or biaspectual (imperfective and perfective), while it has never been determined as biaspectual. With the help of introspection, questionnaire and corpus investigation, the author concludes that this verb is ambivalent as to expressing perfectivity. It is just somewhere on the way between the verbs only imperfective and verbs biaspectual, being exposed to many factors determining its further direction. The units that are currently undergoing change should be given, according to the author, increased research attention, as this could lead to a deeper understanding of the principles of linguistic changes. A part of the text is also a reflection on the causes of difficulties in trying to include a particular unit in the corresponding language class.
4
Content available remote

Poznámka k perifrastickému futuru u obouvidových sloves aneb Prezident bude abdikovat

80%
Veselý L.
Naše řeč (Our Speech)
|
2018
|
vol. 101
|
issue 4
204-217
EN
This paper presents a phenomenon (almost) thus far unnoticed, namely the use of a periphrastic futurum for the purpose of expressing perfectivity in the future tense of the biaspectual verbs (bude vetovat, bude exkomunikovat, bude rezignovat). This is actually a competition between the perfective present tense (prezident abdikujepf.) and the periphrastic futurum (prezident bude abdikovat). One of the main aims of this text is to explain this phenomenon. The author concludes that: (1) the cause or trigger of the observed phenomenon is the homonymy of the perfective and imperfective present tense, respectively their ambiguity, which may interfere with the smooth course of communication, (2) the purpose is to clearly indicate that it refers to the action in the future, (3) the relatively unambiguous expression of perfectivity by the periphrastic futurum is made possible by the lexical semantics of the respective verbs, their “non-durativity” or “short-term nature”. Other issues dealt with in this study are: (1) the possible undesirable consequences of aspectual homonymy, (2) the ways and means of their elimination, and (3) the causes of the persistence of aspectual homonymy.
5

Czasownik nie do końca (nie)dokonany: „dać się” w użyciu modalnym

80%
von Waldenfels R.
Język Polski
|
2015
|
vol. 95
|
issue 4
316-324
PL
Artykuł traktuje o semantyce i właciwościach aspektowych konstrukcji modalnych z „dać się”. We współczesnej polszczyźnie konstrukcja ta występuje w dwu wariantach. W pierwszym, starszym wariancie pacjens występuje jako podmiot; w drugim, nowszym wariancie nie ma podmiotu, konstrukcja ta jest więc bezosobowa. Drugi wariant, który rozpowszechnił się dopiero w XX w., w porównaniu z pierwszym jest silniej zgramatykalizowany. Nie jest on jednoznacznie dokonany, ale wykazuje wiele cech czasownika dokonanego. Jego status w zakresie aspektu czasownikowego można więc uważać za przejściowy.
EN
The article deals with the semantics and aspectual characteristics of modal constructions formed with "dać" ‘give, let’ in combination with the reflexive particle "się". In Polish today, this construction appears in two varieties: in the first, diachronically older variant, the notional object is coded as a subject, while the second, younger variant is impersonal in the sense that it does not contain a subject. This second variant became current only in the 20th century and is more grammaticalized than its older sibling in several respects. Notably, it is not unanimously perfective, but shares many, but not all, characteristics of an imperfective verb, thereby exhibiting traits of a transitional aspectual status.
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.