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

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  korpusová analýza
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
This paper investigates the phenomenon of intensification from the point of view of semantics. Specifically, such intensifiers, which by their meaning specify the degree of the property, at the same time exhibit other semantic features. In communication, they can express, for example, what kind of feelings a given utterance evokes in the speaker. The analysis of intensifiers and their collocates is performed on Finnish material. Two groups of intensifiers are compared with the finding that the semantic features of the intensifiers themselves affect their collocability; but apparently synonymous intensifiers also have different semantic preferences.
2
Content available remote

Ke klasifikaci morfologických variant

80%
EN
After briefly discussing the heterogeneities inherent to language production and how they influence corpus evidence, we describe a scale for the classification of individual morphological variants by their relative frequencies that has recently been independently proposed in Mluvnice současné češtiny (2010) (A Grammar of Contemporary Czech, hereafter GCCz), of which we are co-authors, and in Bermel & Knittl (2012). Those variants with relative frequency (roughly) within 1% and 10% are classified by the respective authors as “sparse” and “marked”, and those occurring in (roughly) less than 1% cases as “unexpected” and “isolated”. Another feature of the scale is the “equipollence” of variants of a doublet having relative frequencies within (roughly) 1/3 and 2/3 (for this criterion see also Štícha 2009). The scale in GCCz is heuristically based on Shannon entropy and valid for synchronic functionally equivalent variants. Recently, R. Čech (2012) has claimed to have revealed “a serious statistical deficiency” in GCCz. We show that this is a misunderstanding stemming from his not distinguishing between the null-hypothesis statistical significance testing and the effect size evaluation. We end with a brief note on the structure of the resources employed in GCCz.
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.