Informacja

Drogi użytkowniku, aplikacja do prawidłowego działania wymaga obsługi JavaScript. Proszę włącz obsługę JavaScript w Twojej przeglądarce.

English (EN)·Polski (PL)·Yкраїнський (UK)
Przejdź do strony domowej biblioteki Centralna Biblioteka Wojskowa Link otwiera się w nowym oknie Logo biblioteki Prolib Integro - strona głównaCentralna Biblioteka Wojskowa

Wyszukujesz frazę "interlanguage" wg kryterium: Temat

  Lista filtrów
Wyrównaj
    Wyświetlanie 1-2 z 2
    Tytuł:
    Wielotomowa gramatyka konfrontatywna języka bułgarskiego i polskiego
    Autorzy:
    Koseska-Toszewa, Violetta
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/677715.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2010
    Wydawca:
    Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Slawistyki PAN
    Tematy:
    Bulgarian language
    Polish language
    confrontative grammar
    tertium comparationis
    semantics
    interlanguage
    Opis:
    Multi-volume Polish-Bulgarian Confrontative GrammarPolish-Bulgarian Confrontative Grammar (GKBP) is the first and so far the only expanded attempt to make the semantic confrontation with the gradually developed interlanguage. GKBP consists of 9 volumes which were published in 12 volumen. It was decided to arrange the description of Polish-Bulgarian confrontative grammar in the direction from the contents to the form. The semantic interlanguage enabled the emergence of two equivalent grammars: the grammar of the modern Bulgarian language and the grammar of the modern Polish language. The analysis of semantic categories, which was applied in GKBP, ensures the coherent confrontative description, irrespective of whether the described languages have grammatical exponent of meanings or not. GKBP falls into the stream of modern theoretical confrontative research based on the logical theory of quantification, on the modern theory of processes titled „Petri nets”, and on the theory of logical predicate-argument structures. Our research removes the exact division into grammatical and lexical levels, thanks to which our research has introduced a lot of new observations of the examined phenomena. Universal semantic linguistic categories such as the time, the modality, the definiteness / the indefiniteness and the semantic case – which are essential for the language description, but have not yet been examined and have not been sufficiently described in the academic grammars of the Polish and Bulgarian languages – have been selected. The sequence of description in this synthesis was established not on the basis of order of developed volumes of GKBP, but on the basis of the generally accepted order of elements of the semantic structure of the sentence. The most external in the semantic structure of the sentence is its modal characteristics. Thereafter, the time, quantifiers and their order in the semantic structure of the sentence as well as the predicate-argument items are placed. Therefore, it is not an abbreviated summary of the issues analyzed in GKBP volumes. It is the description of selected semantic categories organized in accordance with the semantic order of the semantic structure of the Polish and Bulgarian sentences.
    Źródło:
    Slavia Meridionalis; 2010, 10
    1233-6173
    2392-2400
    Pojawia się w:
    Slavia Meridionalis
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Form, its meaning, and dictionary entries
    Autorzy:
    Koseska-Toszewa, Violetta
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/677134.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2010
    Wydawca:
    Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Slawistyki PAN
    Tematy:
    language form
    meaning of a form aspect and tense
    semantic category of definiteness/indefiniteness
    contrastive studies
    semantic interlanguage
    terminological dictionary
    contrastive description leading from meaning to form
    Opis:
    Form, its meaning, and dictionary entriesAs we know, a language form is a unit which plays a specific form in the language, e.g. a semantic or syntactical one. We establish the function of a form based on its use (occurrence), i.e. its relation with the meanings of other forms in speech or in a text. The meaning of a form is the value of its function. In the traditional grammar, form is opposed to its meaning. However, various grammar schools have big problems with distinguishingbetween a form and its function. For example, the present tense form has a number of basic temporal meanings in Bulgarian as well as in Polish and Russian, and in none of those languages this is only the present time, (see past, future and habituality expressed using the present tense form). It is a big mistake not to distinguish between the meanings of article in article languages. For example, in Bulgarian the same form of article canexpress both uniqueness and universality (or, respectively: definiteness and indefiniteness). In the quoted book (Koseska-Toszewa 1982), I put forward a hypothesis on the development of the meaning of Bulgarian article. In my opinion, initially the article expressed uniqueness of an element (object), and then started to express also uniqueness of a set, which later, due to equalling two completely different semantically-logical structures, i.e. structures with universal and unique quantification, lead to a homonymy and to the article expressing also universality, i.e. indefiniteness. Similarly in English, French, Rumanian or Albanian, where the same form of article can express either uniqueness or universality. This proves that the above homonymy is of a general rather than typological (e.g. Balkan) character. Naturally, in the above languages the definite article form can also express uniqueness of an object or a set, so it also expresses definiteness. Ambiguity of the definite article form is a phenomenon exceeding the area of Balkan languages, and the only Balkanism is the position of the article - speaking more precisely,its postpositiveness (postpositive position). However, that position gives us no right to treat it differently than the English or French article. In Bulgarian, Rumanian and Albanian the postpositive article is written together with the name its concerns, but it is neither a unit belonging to the root of the word nor the ending of the word.The above observations, based first of all on the semantically-logical aspects of the definiteness category, have been confirmed by the language material from the Suprasl Code, where Bulgarian article does not occur in universally quantified nominal structures, but in uniquely quantified nominal expressions, denoting satisfaction of the predicate either by one element of the sentence or by the whole set treated as the only one.It is worth stressing that distinguishing between the form and its meaning in comparing the material 6 languages belonging to three different groups of Slavic languages (as is the case in the MONDILEX Project) will allow us to avoid numeorus substantiva mistakes and erroneous conclusions. Hence dictionary entries should be verified and made uniform in that respect before they are “digitalized”... Distinction between the form and its meaning in a dictionary entry is fully possible, as shown by works of Z. Saloni (2002) and A.Przepiórkowski (2008).
    Źródło:
    Cognitive Studies; 2010, 10
    2392-2397
    Pojawia się w:
    Cognitive Studies
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
      Wyświetlanie 1-2 z 2

      Ta witryna wykorzystuje pliki cookies do przechowywania informacji na Twoim komputerze. Pliki cookies stosujemy w celu świadczenia usług na najwyższym poziomie, w tym w sposób dostosowany do indywidualnych potrzeb. Korzystanie z witryny bez zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies oznacza, że będą one zamieszczane w Twoim komputerze. W każdym momencie możesz dokonać zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies