The aim of this chapter is to analyze meaning and function of the expression jediný (sole). Older... more The aim of this chapter is to analyze meaning and function of the expression jediný (sole). Older Czech monolingual dictionaries regard this expression as an adjective. Due to the fact that the basic component of its semantics amounts to the meaning of number 1, we suggest classifying it as a numeral. In its primary meaning (jen jeden / only one), the expression jediný states that the entity denoted by the syntactically governing noun phrase has a solitary character. In negative sentences, the expression jediný usually acts as a negative pronoun (žádný/none): it denies the existence of an element that would be held as true in a given statement. In the third meaning that is usually neglected in Czech dictionaries and grammars, the expression jediný acts as an actualizer, i.e. as a specific type of a particle unit (jen, pouze / only). In this case, it refers to the solitary character of an entity having the property denoted by the predicate of the sentence. The expression jediný used as a particle unit stands next to the expression which it emphasizes. In distant position, as a part of the predicate, the expression jediný acts as a verbal attribute, although it differs semantically from typical verbal attributes.
The book discusses various theoretical approaches to presuppositions as well as various models of... more The book discusses various theoretical approaches to presuppositions as well as various models of the so-called presupposition projection. The author presents his concept of these phenomena, based on the analysis of Czech language material. Presuppositions are viewed from the perspective of the use of language in communication, as a means that contributes to the coherence of the text. The author shows that presuppositions are not (completely) rigid in meaning, but can be modified to some extent, i.e. adapted to the context of the sentence. This view of presuppositions is applied in a case study on the meaning and functions of the particle také ‘too, also’, which is part of the book.
The paper presents an analysis of two types of syntactic constructions: constructions with a quan... more The paper presents an analysis of two types of syntactic constructions: constructions with a quantized verb like zaklepat 'knock' and a quantifier like dvakrát 'twice' on the one hand and constructions with reciprocals like navštívit se (vzájemně) 'visit each other' and a quantifier like dvakrát 'twice' on the other hand. Both of these syntactic construction types display a similar ambiguity: for instance, dva krát zaklepat 'to knock twice' means either 'to make two knocks' or 'to make two series of knocks' while dvakrát se vzájemně navštívit means either 'to make two visits' or 'to make four visits (two and two),' with the former senses being instances of "internal" quantification (what is quantified is part of the meaning of the quantized verb and the reciprocal, but it cannot be directly expressed with it). Through this analysis a group of conditions has been identified which arguably have to be met so that the ambiguity could arise: 1. The denotation of the predicate can be divided into sepa rate actions. If reciprocals like navštívit se (vzájemně) 'to visit (each other)' are considered autonomous verbs (i.e. not syntactic constructions), then it is the case that: 2. The separate actions can be expressed with a verb which is a base for the respective quantized verb or the reciprocal verb in a derivational sense; 3. The verb is syntactically intransitive. A general condition for the observed ambiguity is an interaction of two quantifiers. It can be assumed that when an "external" quantification is opted for, i.e., sets of events are counted, the quantification carried out by the quantized verb or by the reciprocal usually happens before the quantification related to a quantifier like dvakrát 'twice.'
The paper presents a case study the purpose of which is to examine the assumption that in syntact... more The paper presents a case study the purpose of which is to examine the assumption that in syntactical constructions with modal verbs, non-agentivity of the lexical verb might only allow the epistemic use of the modal (i.e. disallow the root interpretation), as was suggested by various researches. The case study is corpus-based; fifteen datasets including occurrences of the Czech modal muset 'must, have to' and various lexical verbs, five agentive and ten non-agentive ones, were manually annotated in terms of modality types. A total of four different modal meanings were distinguished: 1. deontic/bouletic modality, 2. the meaning of necessary condition, 3. the meaning of necessary consequence, 4. epistemic modality (with types 1 to 3 being subtypes of root modality). The results indicate that non-agentivity of the lexical verb does not generally prevent root interpretation of the modal but significantly impedes deontic/bouletic interpretation (without, however, making it impossible) which results in lower share of occurrences displaying root modality, compared to constructions with agentive lexical verbs. The research also highlighted the proximity of various modal senses, which often makes them hard to distinguish.
Studie nastoluje a zodpovídá otázku, zda existuje analogie mezi určitými typy denotátů reciprok a... more Studie nastoluje a zodpovídá otázku, zda existuje analogie mezi určitými typy denotátů reciprok a určitými typy denotátů pluralií tantum a zda má tato analogie svůj korelát i v jazykovém výrazu. Základem analýzy je 1) rozlišení reciprok na a) jednodějová a b) dvoudějová (prát se, líbat se, milovat se (o sexu) versus nenávidět se, navštěvovat se, milovat se (o citu)) a 2) v rámci pluralií tantum rozlišení mezi a) párovými jmény typu brýle, nůžky, kleště a b) párovými jmény typu ruce, boty, brusle. Dále jsou tematizovány jazykové prostředky úzce související s oběma uvedenými distinkcemi, zejména adverbia spolu, navzájem/vzájemně, násobné číslovky typu dvakrát; souborové číslovky typu jedny, dvoje, substantivum pár a úhrnné číslovky typu čtvero. Rozebírány jsou různé možnosti (a nemožnosti) užívání a interpretace těchto prostředků ve vztahu k daným třídám reciprok a párových jmen. Jistá míra analogie je pozorována mezi denotáty jednodějových reciprok (líbat se) a denotáty jmen typu brýle a také mezi denotáty dvoudějových reciprok (navštěvovat se) a denotáty jmen typu boty. V souladu s tím jsou identifikovány i jisté analogické rysy mezi adverbiem spolu a souborovými číslovkami jedny, dvoje, mezi adverbiem navzájem/vzájemně a substantivem pár a mezi násobnými číslovkami typu dvakrát a úhrnnnými číslovkami typu čtvero. Autoři docházejí k závěru, že předpokládaná analogie mezi jazykovou oblastí vzájemnosti a pomnožnosti skutečně existuje, avšak má své limity.
The paper responds to the paper Let's codify language descriptively-and by doing that, let's prac... more The paper responds to the paper Let's codify language descriptively-and by doing that, let's practice linguistics! A response to paper by Luboš and Vojtěch Veselý by Martin Beneš and Ondřej Dufek, which was formulated as a polemic with the paper Let's not codify language, let's describe and explain its norms and usage instead: let's practice linguistics instead of refining language. In the first part of the paper, the authors comment critically on the line of reasoning as well as on individual claims of M. Beneš and O. Dufek. Second part of the paper presents analysis of two cases of a mismatch between language use and present codification, namely: 1) spelling of the noun výjimka (the form vyjímka is considered incorrect by the codification), 2) sentences of the type Byl jsem dítě, kterého když se učitel na něco zeptal, odpovídalo váhavě 'I was a child who answered hesitantly when asked by a teacher' (in such cases the syntactic engagement of the pronoun který is considered incorrect by the codification, as opposed to the correct alternative …které když se ho učitel na něco zeptal…). The aim of the second part of the paper is 1) to show that codifying language norms in a prescriptive way actually happens, 2) to provide an attempt to elucidate both phenomena (from wordformation, semantic and phone tic perspectives in the former case, and from semanticsyntactic perspective in the latter case). The authors suggest that a descriptive approach (instead of a prescriptive one) should be opted for especially with such language phenomena which are difficult to analyze and explain; spell ing of the noun výjimka and the question of the syntactic engagement of the pronoun který in the aforementioned sentence are two examples of such phenomena.
The paper deals with the question whether contradictory oppositions occur not only between state ... more The paper deals with the question whether contradictory oppositions occur not only between state verbs (mít 'have' – chybět 'lack'), process verbs (spát 'sleep' – bdít 'be awake', mluvit 'speak' - mlčet 'be silent') and event verbs (opustit 'leave' – zůstat 'stay, remain', vzít 'take' – nechat 'leave') but also in such cases where one verb denotes a state/process and the other verb denotes an event which terminates the respective state/process. There could potentially be many such pairs. The paper sheds light on three pairs of verbs of this kind: zazlívat 'blame' – odpustit 'forgive', pamatovat si/se 'remember' – zapomenout 'forget', žít 'live' – zemřít 'die'. Of them only the pair žít 'live' – zemřít 'die' can be considered contra dictory in the systemic sense. However, the categorial discrepancy between both verbs is alleviated by the fact that the respective state is conceptualized as an event. In the case of the other two pairs of verbs, the state/process verbs are conceived of as event verbs only in particular contexts, therefore there is no contradiction in the systemic sense. The author considers it probable that in Czech there are not many verbal pairs similar to the pair žít 'live' – zemřít 'die'.
The study deals with prefixed verbs with při- and pře- which imply a preceding action, namely one... more The study deals with prefixed verbs with při- and pře- which imply a preceding action, namely one identical or similar to the action denoted by a given verb (přisladit čaj 'sweeten tea (a little more)'; převážit rybu 'reweigh a fish'). The paper addresses these questions: 1) What factors cause the implication of a preceding action to be perceived with varying strength for different verbs? 2) Does the meaning of a preceding action belong to the realm of semantics or pragmatics? The following findings are formulated: 1) Strength of the implication is affected by the amount of resemblance of the implied action to the action directly denoted: if two identical actions with identical result are concerned (přeočkovat dítě 'revaccinate a child') the implication is strong. If the verb expresses a change of state (přeformulovat text 'reformulate a text') the implication is weaker. 2) The character of the implied meaning is also a factor: if the implication is strongly determined by pragmatics (přisolit 'add (more) salt') it is merely loosely associated with the verb. If the implication is not dependent on pragmatics (převážit kapra 'reweigh a carp') it seems to be part of the lexical meaning and is strong.
The paper presents a corpus-based case study concerning quantification of the Czech plurale tantu... more The paper presents a corpus-based case study concerning quantification of the Czech plurale tantum dveře 'door' (but also of other plularia tantum). The study is a contribution to the research on language dynamism, i. e. dynamic changes in properties/behaviour of language units. According to both the authors' intuition and the corpus data available, the plurale tantum dveře 'door' usually does not combine with the basic numeral dvě 'two' (hence dvoje dveře 'two door' is the only option) but quite commonly combines with basic numerals of higher numbers (tři 'three', čtyři 'four', etc.) which hereby comprise an alternative to set numerals (troje 'three (sets)', čtvery 'four (sets)', etc.). Therefore, dvě dveře 'two doors' is not common while tři dveře 'three doors', čtyři dveře 'four doors', etc., is common to some extent. As for other cases besides nominative and accusative, on the other hand, basic numerals of all numbers are common (dvou dveří 'of two doors', tří dveří 'of three doors', etc.). The following rationale is provided: the phrase dvě dveře 'two doors' is not acceptable because the numeral marks gender while the noun does not (as a result, the two forms are not compatible); the phrases dvou dveří 'of two doors', tři dveře 'three doors', tří dveří 'of three doors', etc., are also acceptable because neither the numerals nor the nouns mark gender. Other factors having an impact on the competition between basic and set numerals are also pointed out, especially: a) the nature of the denotate of the noun, b) the morphological type of the noun. The impact of various factors is examined via analysis of corpus data. It turns out that the (desired) ceteris paribus condition cannot be fully met as the respective factors interact with one another.
The aim of this contribution is to analyze the meaning of the Czech verbs zůstat 'stay, remain', ... more The aim of this contribution is to analyze the meaning of the Czech verbs zůstat 'stay, remain', nechat 'keep, leave, let' and zapomenout 'forget'. We will argue they are mutational verbs sui generis: their positive forms express a denial that a mutational action has been carried out, whereas the negative forms express the carrying out of a mutation. Since such behaviour is contrary to prototypically mutational verbs, we call zůstat, nechat and zapomenout negative-mutational verbs. This construal makes it possible to maintain the assumption that a presupposition of an initial situation is a sufficient condition for the mutational meaning. If combined with an infinitive complement, the verbs zůstat, nechat, zapomenout belong to the class of implicative verbs (zapomenout is negative-implicative). In this use, the given verbs retain the status of negative-mutational verbs provided certain conditions imposed on the infinitive are fulfilled.
The paper raises the question whether Czech linguistic community should make an effort to codify ... more The paper raises the question whether Czech linguistic community should make an effort to codify language norms (in a prescriptive way). In our opinion, linguists should first and foremost endeavour to describe and interpret the usage of language; creating an empirically adequate codification would be hardly feasable. Our standpoint is substantiated by an analysis of six cases of discrepancy between standard use of a language unit and the up-to-date codification. They are related to the following topics: 1) aspect of the verb soustředit se 'focus, concentrate', 2) agreement of a predicate / verbal attribute with a compound subject containing a noun with neutral declension, 3) competition between the units zpěčovat se and vzpěčovat se 'defy', 4) ortographic codification of verbs like zkomponovat 'compose', zkombinovat 'combine', zkonstruovat 'construct', 5) competition between the verbs zešeřit se and sešeřit se 'get dark', 6) competition between so-called purpose adjectives ending with -icí and so-called verbal adjectives ending with -ící.
The paper assumes that the reflexive elements se, si which form the so-called proper reflexive ve... more The paper assumes that the reflexive elements se, si which form the so-called proper reflexive verbs have the status of derivational morphemes. The aim of the paper is to describe the consequences of the adoption of the given premise for the interpretation of various types of reflexive verbs. It can be assumed that different groups of reflexive verbs represent derivational types which are distinctive and clearly defined to varying degrees. The more obviously the reflexive verb and the non-reflexive verb differ in terms of (a) semantic valency, (b) syntactic and semantic transitivity, the more distinctive the derivational function of the reflexive morpheme is. A distinctive, easy to define derivational type is represented by reflexive verbs (derived from transitive verbs) which are both syntactically and semantically intransitive (verbs of the type hnát se, rozbít se). A less distinctive derivational type comprises verbs which are syntactically intransitive but retain a certain degree of semantic transitivity (proper reflexive verbs formed with the morpheme se). The least distinctive derivational type is represented by verbs which are transitive in both the syntactic and semantic senses (some types of reflexive verbs formed with morpheme si).
The paper deals with the question whether it is possible to combine 1) two prefixes with opposite... more The paper deals with the question whether it is possible to combine 1) two prefixes with opposite meaning (and distinct form) and 2) two prefixes with identical meaning (and identical form) in one expression. The author argues that the combination of two prefixes with opposite meaning is quite seldom in both verbal and non-verbal expressions. Two prefixes of identical form usually may not have identical meaning when attached to verbs. In the case of substantive and adverbial derivatives, however, such combinations are very possible.
The paper shows that a predominance of plural forms of a noun over its singular forms often indic... more The paper shows that a predominance of plural forms of a noun over its singular forms often indicates a semantic distinction between them. We argue that, in the case of nouns whose plural forms express collective meaning and nouns whose plural forms tend to be interpreted as mass names, this semantic distinction is of a grammatico-lexical nature. Plural forms expressing collective meaning may be semantically specified with a phrase containing a categorial noun (jedny cigarety = jedna krabička cigaret 'one pack of cigarettes'). Due to their semantic relationship to plural forms with a non-collective meaning, the opposition between singular and plural morphology is not fully neutralized (as in the case of pluralia tantum), but only partially so. The close relationship between plural forms inclined toward a mass interpretation (maliny 'raspberries'; piliny 'sawdust') and proper mass nouns is proven by the fact that they are combined with the same type of quantifiers and measure phrases. The paper also shows how the semantics of nouns with predominantly plural morphology is reflected in the Academic Dictionary of Contemporary Czech (Akademický slovník současné češtiny or ASSČ) which is currently being compiled.
The paper deals with the semantics of numerals with kind, set, summative and multiplicative mean... more The paper deals with the semantics of numerals with kind, set, summative and multiplicative meanings (e.g. čtverý 'four kinds', čtvery 'four sets', čtvero 'four elements altogether', čtyřikrát 'four times', respectively). The kind meaning is based on a division of the denoted item into elements and their sets. However, in combination with some abstract nouns, kind numerals do not express a number of kinds, but rather, a number of single elements, e.g. dvojím způsobem 'in two ways'. Multiplicative numerals primarily express a number of repetitions of a process or a resulting state. Numerals formed with the component-krát quantify not only absolutely, but also relatively, comparing an amount of some quality or a number of elements in two situations, e.g. Petr je dvakrát starší než Jan 'Peter is twice as old as John'.
The aim of this paper is to analyze semantic relations in appositional groups consisting of nomin... more The aim of this paper is to analyze semantic relations in appositional groups consisting of nominal or adverbial phrases. It is possible to identify either a single potential semantic relation, or two opposing potential semantic relations between components of an appositional group. The opposing relations are either of the same type (predication vs. predication, determination vs. determination), or of a different one (predication vs. determination). The realization of these relations is influenced by a formal factor, i.e. the linear and intonational rendering of the appositional group. In general, predication can be realized both regressively and progressively, whereas determination can be realized only regressively, unless the second component of the appositional group is made up of a semantically incomplete word, e.g. a relationally locative adverb, or unless the relationship between the components is something different than referential identity/inclusion. Relationally locative adverbs determine either (expressed or unexpressed) defined space or a (expressed or unexpressed) spatial orientator; in the latter case they are functionally close to prepositions.
The deictic words obojí, oboje, obé and všechno The incongruent deictic words obojí, oboje, obé a... more The deictic words obojí, oboje, obé and všechno The incongruent deictic words obojí, oboje, obé and všechno are parallel to the congruent forms oba, obojí, oboje, obé and všechen. Whereas in Czech monolingual dictionaries všechno-všechen are interpreted as two units, obojí, oboje (congruent) and obojí, oboje, obé (incongruent) do not have a separate intepretation, but should. In most cases, the quantification expressed by the incongruent forms obojí, oboje, obé-in contrast to obojí, oboje (congruent), všechno, všechen and other words with quantificational function-relates to textual positions, not to the external reality.
Deiktické výrazy s komponentem bůhví, popř. bůh ví psané s čárkou stojí ve větě v iniciální pozic... more Deiktické výrazy s komponentem bůhví, popř. bůh ví psané s čárkou stojí ve větě v iniciální pozici a plní funkci vlastního rématu. Deiktické výrazy s komponenty bůhví, bůhví nebo bůh ví psané bez čárky plní funkci vlastního rématu – pak stojí na konci věty, popř. (méně vhodně) na začátku věty –, nebo funkci diatématu realizovaného ve větě v iniciální pozici. Podoby psané bez čárky někdy vyjadřují sekundární významy, ve kterých je sém neurčitosti zastíněn jinými sémy. Tyto významy obvykle vyžadují explicitní nebo implicitní přítomnost negace, záporový protiklad je však v některých kontextech neutralizován.
An indefinite quantifier always determines the quantum and usually also assesses it. It quantifie... more An indefinite quantifier always determines the quantum and usually also assesses it. It quantifies both substances and attributes. The assessment has a binary structure which is formed through a basis of quantification and a quantum that is denoted. This quantum is compared with the basis and assessed as small or large. There are four types of basis: (1) a quantum perceived by the speaker as standard in a certain communication situation (mnoho, trochu, velmi, etc.); (2) a quantum perceived by the speaker as the smallest or the largest desirable one in a certain communication situation (příliš, dost in some contexts); (3) a quantum separating the realization of some process from its non-realization (příliš, dost in some contexts); (4) a quantum which is expressed in the sentence and characterized as potentially invalid (přinejmenším, téměř, etc.). The first three types correspond to autosemantic quantifiers (traditionally nouns, adjectives, numerals and adverbs), the fourth type to synsemantic quantifiers (particles). The synsemantic quantifiers require combination with an autosemantic expression which determines the value of the basis of quantification.
The aim of this chapter is to analyze meaning and function of the expression jediný (sole). Older... more The aim of this chapter is to analyze meaning and function of the expression jediný (sole). Older Czech monolingual dictionaries regard this expression as an adjective. Due to the fact that the basic component of its semantics amounts to the meaning of number 1, we suggest classifying it as a numeral. In its primary meaning (jen jeden / only one), the expression jediný states that the entity denoted by the syntactically governing noun phrase has a solitary character. In negative sentences, the expression jediný usually acts as a negative pronoun (žádný/none): it denies the existence of an element that would be held as true in a given statement. In the third meaning that is usually neglected in Czech dictionaries and grammars, the expression jediný acts as an actualizer, i.e. as a specific type of a particle unit (jen, pouze / only). In this case, it refers to the solitary character of an entity having the property denoted by the predicate of the sentence. The expression jediný used as a particle unit stands next to the expression which it emphasizes. In distant position, as a part of the predicate, the expression jediný acts as a verbal attribute, although it differs semantically from typical verbal attributes.
The book discusses various theoretical approaches to presuppositions as well as various models of... more The book discusses various theoretical approaches to presuppositions as well as various models of the so-called presupposition projection. The author presents his concept of these phenomena, based on the analysis of Czech language material. Presuppositions are viewed from the perspective of the use of language in communication, as a means that contributes to the coherence of the text. The author shows that presuppositions are not (completely) rigid in meaning, but can be modified to some extent, i.e. adapted to the context of the sentence. This view of presuppositions is applied in a case study on the meaning and functions of the particle také ‘too, also’, which is part of the book.
The paper presents an analysis of two types of syntactic constructions: constructions with a quan... more The paper presents an analysis of two types of syntactic constructions: constructions with a quantized verb like zaklepat 'knock' and a quantifier like dvakrát 'twice' on the one hand and constructions with reciprocals like navštívit se (vzájemně) 'visit each other' and a quantifier like dvakrát 'twice' on the other hand. Both of these syntactic construction types display a similar ambiguity: for instance, dva krát zaklepat 'to knock twice' means either 'to make two knocks' or 'to make two series of knocks' while dvakrát se vzájemně navštívit means either 'to make two visits' or 'to make four visits (two and two),' with the former senses being instances of "internal" quantification (what is quantified is part of the meaning of the quantized verb and the reciprocal, but it cannot be directly expressed with it). Through this analysis a group of conditions has been identified which arguably have to be met so that the ambiguity could arise: 1. The denotation of the predicate can be divided into sepa rate actions. If reciprocals like navštívit se (vzájemně) 'to visit (each other)' are considered autonomous verbs (i.e. not syntactic constructions), then it is the case that: 2. The separate actions can be expressed with a verb which is a base for the respective quantized verb or the reciprocal verb in a derivational sense; 3. The verb is syntactically intransitive. A general condition for the observed ambiguity is an interaction of two quantifiers. It can be assumed that when an "external" quantification is opted for, i.e., sets of events are counted, the quantification carried out by the quantized verb or by the reciprocal usually happens before the quantification related to a quantifier like dvakrát 'twice.'
The paper presents a case study the purpose of which is to examine the assumption that in syntact... more The paper presents a case study the purpose of which is to examine the assumption that in syntactical constructions with modal verbs, non-agentivity of the lexical verb might only allow the epistemic use of the modal (i.e. disallow the root interpretation), as was suggested by various researches. The case study is corpus-based; fifteen datasets including occurrences of the Czech modal muset 'must, have to' and various lexical verbs, five agentive and ten non-agentive ones, were manually annotated in terms of modality types. A total of four different modal meanings were distinguished: 1. deontic/bouletic modality, 2. the meaning of necessary condition, 3. the meaning of necessary consequence, 4. epistemic modality (with types 1 to 3 being subtypes of root modality). The results indicate that non-agentivity of the lexical verb does not generally prevent root interpretation of the modal but significantly impedes deontic/bouletic interpretation (without, however, making it impossible) which results in lower share of occurrences displaying root modality, compared to constructions with agentive lexical verbs. The research also highlighted the proximity of various modal senses, which often makes them hard to distinguish.
Studie nastoluje a zodpovídá otázku, zda existuje analogie mezi určitými typy denotátů reciprok a... more Studie nastoluje a zodpovídá otázku, zda existuje analogie mezi určitými typy denotátů reciprok a určitými typy denotátů pluralií tantum a zda má tato analogie svůj korelát i v jazykovém výrazu. Základem analýzy je 1) rozlišení reciprok na a) jednodějová a b) dvoudějová (prát se, líbat se, milovat se (o sexu) versus nenávidět se, navštěvovat se, milovat se (o citu)) a 2) v rámci pluralií tantum rozlišení mezi a) párovými jmény typu brýle, nůžky, kleště a b) párovými jmény typu ruce, boty, brusle. Dále jsou tematizovány jazykové prostředky úzce související s oběma uvedenými distinkcemi, zejména adverbia spolu, navzájem/vzájemně, násobné číslovky typu dvakrát; souborové číslovky typu jedny, dvoje, substantivum pár a úhrnné číslovky typu čtvero. Rozebírány jsou různé možnosti (a nemožnosti) užívání a interpretace těchto prostředků ve vztahu k daným třídám reciprok a párových jmen. Jistá míra analogie je pozorována mezi denotáty jednodějových reciprok (líbat se) a denotáty jmen typu brýle a také mezi denotáty dvoudějových reciprok (navštěvovat se) a denotáty jmen typu boty. V souladu s tím jsou identifikovány i jisté analogické rysy mezi adverbiem spolu a souborovými číslovkami jedny, dvoje, mezi adverbiem navzájem/vzájemně a substantivem pár a mezi násobnými číslovkami typu dvakrát a úhrnnnými číslovkami typu čtvero. Autoři docházejí k závěru, že předpokládaná analogie mezi jazykovou oblastí vzájemnosti a pomnožnosti skutečně existuje, avšak má své limity.
The paper responds to the paper Let's codify language descriptively-and by doing that, let's prac... more The paper responds to the paper Let's codify language descriptively-and by doing that, let's practice linguistics! A response to paper by Luboš and Vojtěch Veselý by Martin Beneš and Ondřej Dufek, which was formulated as a polemic with the paper Let's not codify language, let's describe and explain its norms and usage instead: let's practice linguistics instead of refining language. In the first part of the paper, the authors comment critically on the line of reasoning as well as on individual claims of M. Beneš and O. Dufek. Second part of the paper presents analysis of two cases of a mismatch between language use and present codification, namely: 1) spelling of the noun výjimka (the form vyjímka is considered incorrect by the codification), 2) sentences of the type Byl jsem dítě, kterého když se učitel na něco zeptal, odpovídalo váhavě 'I was a child who answered hesitantly when asked by a teacher' (in such cases the syntactic engagement of the pronoun který is considered incorrect by the codification, as opposed to the correct alternative …které když se ho učitel na něco zeptal…). The aim of the second part of the paper is 1) to show that codifying language norms in a prescriptive way actually happens, 2) to provide an attempt to elucidate both phenomena (from wordformation, semantic and phone tic perspectives in the former case, and from semanticsyntactic perspective in the latter case). The authors suggest that a descriptive approach (instead of a prescriptive one) should be opted for especially with such language phenomena which are difficult to analyze and explain; spell ing of the noun výjimka and the question of the syntactic engagement of the pronoun který in the aforementioned sentence are two examples of such phenomena.
The paper deals with the question whether contradictory oppositions occur not only between state ... more The paper deals with the question whether contradictory oppositions occur not only between state verbs (mít 'have' – chybět 'lack'), process verbs (spát 'sleep' – bdít 'be awake', mluvit 'speak' - mlčet 'be silent') and event verbs (opustit 'leave' – zůstat 'stay, remain', vzít 'take' – nechat 'leave') but also in such cases where one verb denotes a state/process and the other verb denotes an event which terminates the respective state/process. There could potentially be many such pairs. The paper sheds light on three pairs of verbs of this kind: zazlívat 'blame' – odpustit 'forgive', pamatovat si/se 'remember' – zapomenout 'forget', žít 'live' – zemřít 'die'. Of them only the pair žít 'live' – zemřít 'die' can be considered contra dictory in the systemic sense. However, the categorial discrepancy between both verbs is alleviated by the fact that the respective state is conceptualized as an event. In the case of the other two pairs of verbs, the state/process verbs are conceived of as event verbs only in particular contexts, therefore there is no contradiction in the systemic sense. The author considers it probable that in Czech there are not many verbal pairs similar to the pair žít 'live' – zemřít 'die'.
The study deals with prefixed verbs with při- and pře- which imply a preceding action, namely one... more The study deals with prefixed verbs with při- and pře- which imply a preceding action, namely one identical or similar to the action denoted by a given verb (přisladit čaj 'sweeten tea (a little more)'; převážit rybu 'reweigh a fish'). The paper addresses these questions: 1) What factors cause the implication of a preceding action to be perceived with varying strength for different verbs? 2) Does the meaning of a preceding action belong to the realm of semantics or pragmatics? The following findings are formulated: 1) Strength of the implication is affected by the amount of resemblance of the implied action to the action directly denoted: if two identical actions with identical result are concerned (přeočkovat dítě 'revaccinate a child') the implication is strong. If the verb expresses a change of state (přeformulovat text 'reformulate a text') the implication is weaker. 2) The character of the implied meaning is also a factor: if the implication is strongly determined by pragmatics (přisolit 'add (more) salt') it is merely loosely associated with the verb. If the implication is not dependent on pragmatics (převážit kapra 'reweigh a carp') it seems to be part of the lexical meaning and is strong.
The paper presents a corpus-based case study concerning quantification of the Czech plurale tantu... more The paper presents a corpus-based case study concerning quantification of the Czech plurale tantum dveře 'door' (but also of other plularia tantum). The study is a contribution to the research on language dynamism, i. e. dynamic changes in properties/behaviour of language units. According to both the authors' intuition and the corpus data available, the plurale tantum dveře 'door' usually does not combine with the basic numeral dvě 'two' (hence dvoje dveře 'two door' is the only option) but quite commonly combines with basic numerals of higher numbers (tři 'three', čtyři 'four', etc.) which hereby comprise an alternative to set numerals (troje 'three (sets)', čtvery 'four (sets)', etc.). Therefore, dvě dveře 'two doors' is not common while tři dveře 'three doors', čtyři dveře 'four doors', etc., is common to some extent. As for other cases besides nominative and accusative, on the other hand, basic numerals of all numbers are common (dvou dveří 'of two doors', tří dveří 'of three doors', etc.). The following rationale is provided: the phrase dvě dveře 'two doors' is not acceptable because the numeral marks gender while the noun does not (as a result, the two forms are not compatible); the phrases dvou dveří 'of two doors', tři dveře 'three doors', tří dveří 'of three doors', etc., are also acceptable because neither the numerals nor the nouns mark gender. Other factors having an impact on the competition between basic and set numerals are also pointed out, especially: a) the nature of the denotate of the noun, b) the morphological type of the noun. The impact of various factors is examined via analysis of corpus data. It turns out that the (desired) ceteris paribus condition cannot be fully met as the respective factors interact with one another.
The aim of this contribution is to analyze the meaning of the Czech verbs zůstat 'stay, remain', ... more The aim of this contribution is to analyze the meaning of the Czech verbs zůstat 'stay, remain', nechat 'keep, leave, let' and zapomenout 'forget'. We will argue they are mutational verbs sui generis: their positive forms express a denial that a mutational action has been carried out, whereas the negative forms express the carrying out of a mutation. Since such behaviour is contrary to prototypically mutational verbs, we call zůstat, nechat and zapomenout negative-mutational verbs. This construal makes it possible to maintain the assumption that a presupposition of an initial situation is a sufficient condition for the mutational meaning. If combined with an infinitive complement, the verbs zůstat, nechat, zapomenout belong to the class of implicative verbs (zapomenout is negative-implicative). In this use, the given verbs retain the status of negative-mutational verbs provided certain conditions imposed on the infinitive are fulfilled.
The paper raises the question whether Czech linguistic community should make an effort to codify ... more The paper raises the question whether Czech linguistic community should make an effort to codify language norms (in a prescriptive way). In our opinion, linguists should first and foremost endeavour to describe and interpret the usage of language; creating an empirically adequate codification would be hardly feasable. Our standpoint is substantiated by an analysis of six cases of discrepancy between standard use of a language unit and the up-to-date codification. They are related to the following topics: 1) aspect of the verb soustředit se 'focus, concentrate', 2) agreement of a predicate / verbal attribute with a compound subject containing a noun with neutral declension, 3) competition between the units zpěčovat se and vzpěčovat se 'defy', 4) ortographic codification of verbs like zkomponovat 'compose', zkombinovat 'combine', zkonstruovat 'construct', 5) competition between the verbs zešeřit se and sešeřit se 'get dark', 6) competition between so-called purpose adjectives ending with -icí and so-called verbal adjectives ending with -ící.
The paper assumes that the reflexive elements se, si which form the so-called proper reflexive ve... more The paper assumes that the reflexive elements se, si which form the so-called proper reflexive verbs have the status of derivational morphemes. The aim of the paper is to describe the consequences of the adoption of the given premise for the interpretation of various types of reflexive verbs. It can be assumed that different groups of reflexive verbs represent derivational types which are distinctive and clearly defined to varying degrees. The more obviously the reflexive verb and the non-reflexive verb differ in terms of (a) semantic valency, (b) syntactic and semantic transitivity, the more distinctive the derivational function of the reflexive morpheme is. A distinctive, easy to define derivational type is represented by reflexive verbs (derived from transitive verbs) which are both syntactically and semantically intransitive (verbs of the type hnát se, rozbít se). A less distinctive derivational type comprises verbs which are syntactically intransitive but retain a certain degree of semantic transitivity (proper reflexive verbs formed with the morpheme se). The least distinctive derivational type is represented by verbs which are transitive in both the syntactic and semantic senses (some types of reflexive verbs formed with morpheme si).
The paper deals with the question whether it is possible to combine 1) two prefixes with opposite... more The paper deals with the question whether it is possible to combine 1) two prefixes with opposite meaning (and distinct form) and 2) two prefixes with identical meaning (and identical form) in one expression. The author argues that the combination of two prefixes with opposite meaning is quite seldom in both verbal and non-verbal expressions. Two prefixes of identical form usually may not have identical meaning when attached to verbs. In the case of substantive and adverbial derivatives, however, such combinations are very possible.
The paper shows that a predominance of plural forms of a noun over its singular forms often indic... more The paper shows that a predominance of plural forms of a noun over its singular forms often indicates a semantic distinction between them. We argue that, in the case of nouns whose plural forms express collective meaning and nouns whose plural forms tend to be interpreted as mass names, this semantic distinction is of a grammatico-lexical nature. Plural forms expressing collective meaning may be semantically specified with a phrase containing a categorial noun (jedny cigarety = jedna krabička cigaret 'one pack of cigarettes'). Due to their semantic relationship to plural forms with a non-collective meaning, the opposition between singular and plural morphology is not fully neutralized (as in the case of pluralia tantum), but only partially so. The close relationship between plural forms inclined toward a mass interpretation (maliny 'raspberries'; piliny 'sawdust') and proper mass nouns is proven by the fact that they are combined with the same type of quantifiers and measure phrases. The paper also shows how the semantics of nouns with predominantly plural morphology is reflected in the Academic Dictionary of Contemporary Czech (Akademický slovník současné češtiny or ASSČ) which is currently being compiled.
The paper deals with the semantics of numerals with kind, set, summative and multiplicative mean... more The paper deals with the semantics of numerals with kind, set, summative and multiplicative meanings (e.g. čtverý 'four kinds', čtvery 'four sets', čtvero 'four elements altogether', čtyřikrát 'four times', respectively). The kind meaning is based on a division of the denoted item into elements and their sets. However, in combination with some abstract nouns, kind numerals do not express a number of kinds, but rather, a number of single elements, e.g. dvojím způsobem 'in two ways'. Multiplicative numerals primarily express a number of repetitions of a process or a resulting state. Numerals formed with the component-krát quantify not only absolutely, but also relatively, comparing an amount of some quality or a number of elements in two situations, e.g. Petr je dvakrát starší než Jan 'Peter is twice as old as John'.
The aim of this paper is to analyze semantic relations in appositional groups consisting of nomin... more The aim of this paper is to analyze semantic relations in appositional groups consisting of nominal or adverbial phrases. It is possible to identify either a single potential semantic relation, or two opposing potential semantic relations between components of an appositional group. The opposing relations are either of the same type (predication vs. predication, determination vs. determination), or of a different one (predication vs. determination). The realization of these relations is influenced by a formal factor, i.e. the linear and intonational rendering of the appositional group. In general, predication can be realized both regressively and progressively, whereas determination can be realized only regressively, unless the second component of the appositional group is made up of a semantically incomplete word, e.g. a relationally locative adverb, or unless the relationship between the components is something different than referential identity/inclusion. Relationally locative adverbs determine either (expressed or unexpressed) defined space or a (expressed or unexpressed) spatial orientator; in the latter case they are functionally close to prepositions.
The deictic words obojí, oboje, obé and všechno The incongruent deictic words obojí, oboje, obé a... more The deictic words obojí, oboje, obé and všechno The incongruent deictic words obojí, oboje, obé and všechno are parallel to the congruent forms oba, obojí, oboje, obé and všechen. Whereas in Czech monolingual dictionaries všechno-všechen are interpreted as two units, obojí, oboje (congruent) and obojí, oboje, obé (incongruent) do not have a separate intepretation, but should. In most cases, the quantification expressed by the incongruent forms obojí, oboje, obé-in contrast to obojí, oboje (congruent), všechno, všechen and other words with quantificational function-relates to textual positions, not to the external reality.
Deiktické výrazy s komponentem bůhví, popř. bůh ví psané s čárkou stojí ve větě v iniciální pozic... more Deiktické výrazy s komponentem bůhví, popř. bůh ví psané s čárkou stojí ve větě v iniciální pozici a plní funkci vlastního rématu. Deiktické výrazy s komponenty bůhví, bůhví nebo bůh ví psané bez čárky plní funkci vlastního rématu – pak stojí na konci věty, popř. (méně vhodně) na začátku věty –, nebo funkci diatématu realizovaného ve větě v iniciální pozici. Podoby psané bez čárky někdy vyjadřují sekundární významy, ve kterých je sém neurčitosti zastíněn jinými sémy. Tyto významy obvykle vyžadují explicitní nebo implicitní přítomnost negace, záporový protiklad je však v některých kontextech neutralizován.
An indefinite quantifier always determines the quantum and usually also assesses it. It quantifie... more An indefinite quantifier always determines the quantum and usually also assesses it. It quantifies both substances and attributes. The assessment has a binary structure which is formed through a basis of quantification and a quantum that is denoted. This quantum is compared with the basis and assessed as small or large. There are four types of basis: (1) a quantum perceived by the speaker as standard in a certain communication situation (mnoho, trochu, velmi, etc.); (2) a quantum perceived by the speaker as the smallest or the largest desirable one in a certain communication situation (příliš, dost in some contexts); (3) a quantum separating the realization of some process from its non-realization (příliš, dost in some contexts); (4) a quantum which is expressed in the sentence and characterized as potentially invalid (přinejmenším, téměř, etc.). The first three types correspond to autosemantic quantifiers (traditionally nouns, adjectives, numerals and adverbs), the fourth type to synsemantic quantifiers (particles). The synsemantic quantifiers require combination with an autosemantic expression which determines the value of the basis of quantification.
Uploads
Papers by Vojtěch Veselý
nebo funkci diatématu realizovaného ve větě v iniciální pozici. Podoby psané bez čárky někdy vyjadřují sekundární významy, ve kterých je sém neurčitosti zastíněn jinými sémy. Tyto významy obvykle vyžadují explicitní nebo implicitní přítomnost negace, záporový protiklad je však v některých
kontextech neutralizován.
nebo funkci diatématu realizovaného ve větě v iniciální pozici. Podoby psané bez čárky někdy vyjadřují sekundární významy, ve kterých je sém neurčitosti zastíněn jinými sémy. Tyto významy obvykle vyžadují explicitní nebo implicitní přítomnost negace, záporový protiklad je však v některých
kontextech neutralizován.