The paper proposes an empirical method to investigate linguistic prescriptions as inherent corrective behaviors. The behaviors in question may but need not necessarily be supported by any explicit knowledge of rules. It is possible to gain insight into them, for example by extracting information about corrections from revision histories of texts (or by analyzing speech corpora where users correct themselves or one another). One easily available source of such information is the revision history of Wikipedia. As is shown, the most frequent and short corrections are limited to linguistic errors such as typos (and editorial conventions adopted in Wikipedia). By perusing an automatically generated revision corpus, one gains insight into the prescriptive nature of language empirically. At the same time, the prescriptions offered are not reducible to descriptions of the most frequent linguistic use.
The central metaethical contention of "Veritatis Splendor" is that an indispensable element of any plausible conception of moral agency must always be a specific notion of a moral act – an act executed by a moral agent. In my paper I focus on the way in which the interpretation of a moral act as a specific enterprise fully identifiable and determined by its clearly outlined aim (the object of an act) informs the concept of moral agency – human faculty of deliberating upon and performing moral acts. In view of the pledge made by the encyclical’s author not to “impose upon the faithful any particular theological system, still less a philosophical one” I try to demonstrate that the dependence (or perhaps interdependence) in question is of the most basic nature and can thus be construed as a key condition for a genuinely rational character of any ethical theory.
The paper deals with moral theory by Richard Mervyn Hare (1919—2002), British philosopher and meta-ethicist, who searched for the moral thinking in setting the agreement between formalism and utilitarianism. Having discussed basic axioms of Hare’s prescriptivism the author discusses it critically.
DE
Der Artikel handelt über die ethische Lehre von Richard Mervyn Hare (1919—2002), dem britischen Philosophen und Metaethiker, der den Kern des Moraldenkens in der Vereinbarung zwischen dem Formalismus und Utilitarismus sah. Auf wichtigste Grundsätze und Thesen des Präskriptivismus von Hare hinweisend zählt die Verfasserin alle Stärken und Schwächen des Standpunktes auf.
Przedmiotem artykułu jest relacja między pedagogiką a etyką. Artykuł ma charakter analityczny oraz metateoretyczny. Celem artykułu jest uzasadnienie tezy o potrzebie systemowej obecności etyki w pedagogice. Zdaniem autora jej brak prowadzi do degeneracji pedagogiki jako nauki w jej aspekcie (poziomie) normatywnym. Sformułowaną tezę autor uznaje za istotną w kontekście dyskusji dotyczących naukowego statusu pedagogiki, zwłaszcza jej humanistycznej specyfiki oraz upowszechniania się naturalistycznego paradygmatu nauki.
EN
The subject of this article is the relation between pedagogy and ethics. The character of the article is analytical and metatheoretical. The article aims at justifying the thesis about the need of systemic presence of ethics in pedagogy. In the author’s opinion, the lack of ethics leads to the degeneration of pedagogy as a field of study in its normative aspect (level). The formulated thesis is regarded by the author as crucial in the context of discussions concerning the scientific status of pedagogy: its humanistic specificity as well as popularisation of the naturalistic paradigm of study in particular.
This article is concerned with texts by František Čermák 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: Čermák fails to substantiate their suitability for his language description. We can find uncorroborated generalizations which can be interpreted as Čermák’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.
Although “literary language”, i.e. standard language or spisovná čestina, was the central notion of the Prague Linguistic Circle’s Theory of the Cultivation of Language, it has never been defined. This article deals with the problem of definition of “literariness”, a concept which forms the base for the codification criterion of “correspondence with the literary norm”. Several attempts to define it or to provide criteria for “literariness” were made, but, as I explain, none of them were successful in reproducing the codified set of language means. These attempts can be divided into two groups: nominalistic and realistic. The former suggests that literariness (i.e. being a part of literary/standard language) is “a mere label”, a characteristic that is acquired by being codified, the latter supposes that language means are standard or nonstandard (or something in between) depending on their usage. The nominalistic approach appears to be inadequate, as it provides no opportunity for language development. Realistic criteria, however, are either methodologically dubious or highly controversial among Czech linguists.
Since the publication of the Concept of Minimal Intervention (Cvrček 2008a, Cvrček 2008b), three critical reactions have been published (Adam 2009, Beneš & Prošek 2011, Homoláč & Mrázková 2011) defending the current language policy (based on the Theory of Language Cultivation). This paper discusses the most important points of their criticism: axiology in the concepts of language regulation, prescriptivism in the Czech language situation and the means of measuring it, the role and nature of current and future codifications, speakers’ attitudes toward language and the validity of their elicitation in linguistic research, the notion of the “literariness” of language, etc. This paper also enriches the original Concept of Minimal Intervention with observations and conclusions based on the experience of making the first non-interventional description of Czech, the Grammar of Contemporary Czech (Cvrček et al. 2010). The paper emphasizes three crucial differences between the Concept of Minimal Intervention and interventional approaches (esp. the Theory of Language Cultivation): preoccupation with literary language in the language regulation in current language policy, the priority of the noetic potential of the discipline over the public demand for language regulation, and the perception of linguists’ activity as an artificial part of the language situation.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.