Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

1

Kodifikovaná plurálová shoda neuter v nominativu a akuzativu: mizející realita?

100%

Sojka P.

Bohemistyka

|

2018

|

nr 3

205-218

EN

It can hardly be argued that – for historical reasons – the neuter plural agreement has been one of the weak points of the Standard Czech morphology at least since the 1800s. At least since the early 1980s the only codified form (ta velká města zanikla) has been regarded by many speakers and even by many bohemists as too „bookish” whereas the Colloquial Czech form used in informal style in Bohemia (ty velký města zanikly) has still retained a high degree of colloquiality and the Moravian form (ty velké města zanikly) doesn’t meet with general acceptance in Bohemia (according to sociolinguistic research). This paper aims to answer the question to what extent the codified form of neuter plural agreement is applied in present-day TV interviews. The examined specimen contains 200 recordings of the Interview ČT24 show. The 200 interviewees are celebrities from political and social walks of life.

CS

Z historických příčin je plurálová shoda neuter bezesporu jedním ze slabých míst spisovného českého tvarosloví, a to nejméně od počátku 19. století. Přinejmenším od 80. let 20. století je jediná kodifikovaná varianta (ta velká města zanikla) považována mnohými uživateli jazyka, ale i některými bohemisty za vypjatě knižní. Obecněčeská podoba Ty velký města zanikly si však stále zachovala nespisovný charakter a ani moravská podoba Ty velké města zanikly není přijímána jednoznačně kladně (zejména mluvčími z Čech). Tento příspěvek se snaží odpovědět na otázku, jak silnou pozici mají kodifikované varianty v současných televizních interview. Zjištění vycházejí z analýzy 200 vysílání publicistického pořadu Interview ČT24, jehož hosty jsou osobnosti z politické sféry, jakož i z dalších společenských oblastí.

2

Několik teoreticko-metodologických poznámek k Mluvnici současné češtiny

80%

Čech R.

Slovo a slovesnost: časopis pro otázky teorie a kultury jazyka (Slovo a slovesnost: A journal for the theory of language and language cultivation)

|

2012

|

tom 73

|

nr 3

208-216

EN

The article is concerned with the critical analysis of some aspects of the methodology and language theory on which Mluvnice současné češtiny [Grammar of Contemporary Czech] (Cvrček et al. 2010) is based. First, the statement by the authors of Mluvnice současné češtiny concerning the character of the description of language and its relationship to reality is criticized. Specifically, it is argued that the use of corpora does not lead to the recognition of “real” language properties, since every description of reality is an interpretation. The idea concerning the representativeness of corpus is also called into question. Furthermore, a serious statistical deficiency is revealed. Namely, it is demonstrated that the assignment of difference expressed by a percentage as significant (or non-significant) is unacceptable – the results should be interpreted using common statistical methods. Next, fundamental problems of the semantic theory (naive mentalism) used in Mluvnice současné češtiny are discussed. A rather different view of a semantic analysis based on experimental methodology is mentioned as an alternative to the traditional approach. Finally, the langue-parole dichotomy, viewed by the author as a residue of Platonism, is argued to be inconsistent with the empirical methodological approach adopted by the authors of Mluvnice současné češtiny.

3

Prima principia linguae Bohemicae - stručná mluvnička češtiny ze 17. století

80%

Vintr J.

Naše řeč (Our Speech)

|

2010

|

tom 93

|

nr 4-5

248-254

EN

In addition to the Jesuit grammars of Czech by J. Drachovius (Olomouc, 1660), J. Konstanc (Prague, 1667) and M. V. Šteyer (Prague, 1668), the anonymous concise grammar book Prima principia linguae Bohemicae (approx. 1678) was also published at the Jesuit printing office in Prague. On 48 pages, it contains the basic rules of Czech orthography and the nominal and verbal paradigms. The majority of the paradigms and the orthography rules correspond to those in the handbook by M. V. Šteyer, who probably is also the author of Prima principia. The book’s description of the main traits of what was at that time the higher standard bears witness to its stabilized form and continuity not only up until the end of the 18th century, which is reflected by its reprint in 1783, but also in the long term. If we compare the phonological formation and the paradigms of this higher variety of Middle Czech with the forms of the present-day standard, we do not find any essential differences.

4

Klad a zápor po slovesech bránění

80%

Kopecký J.

Naše řeč (Our Speech)

|

2012

|

tom 95

|

nr 5

225-237

EN

The papper deals with the meaning and distribution of the negative and positive content clauses following verbs of preventing (e.g. bránit 'prevent', zakázat 'forbid') in Czech. It has often been assumed that the negation in these clauses is neutralized, thus the negative and positive clauses have the same meaning and can both be used in standard Czech. The analyses of constructions containing the verbs bránit, zabránit and zakázat, based on the Czech National Corpus, reveal that negative clauses after these verbs are less frequent than positive ones, and that sentences with a non-neutralized negation in the content clause, expressing the opposite of the positive clause, are also used.

5

Slibuju, že už nechybuju? Je sloveso chybovat obouvidové?

80%

Veselý L.

Naše řeč (Our Speech)

|

2018

|

tom 101

|

nr 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.