Úplné zobrazení záznamu

Toto je statický export z katalogu ze dne 09.01.2021. Zobrazit aktuální podobu v katalogu.

Bibliografická citace

.
0 (hodnocen0 x )
EB
EB
ONLINE
[1. elektronické vydání]
[Místo vydání není známé] : Karolinum, 2020
1 online zdroj (163 stran)
Externí odkaz    Plný text PDF (Bookport) 
   * Návod pro Bookport 


ISBN 978-80-246-4616-9 (online ; pdf)
ISBN 978-80-246-4554-4 (print)
Anglicky psaná monografie se zabývá některými typologickými rozdíly mezi čtyřmi hlavními románskými jazyky (francouzštinou, španělštinou italštinou a portugalštinou) a češtinou. Na základě dat z významného paralelního korpusu InterCorp analyzuje rozličné kategorie (např. iterativitu, modalitu, povahu slovesného děje aj.) a poukazuje na rozdíly či shody mezi románskými jazyky a češtinou. Díky obrovskému množství korpusových dat, jakož i počtu srovnávaných jazyků přináší monografie obecné i dílčí poznatky, jež mnohdy překračují běžně přijímané typologické charakteristiky románských jazyků ve srovnání s češtinou..
001638258
Contents // 1. EXPRESSIONS OF POTENTIAL PARTICIPATION, ITERATI VITY, CAUSATION, INGRESSIVITY AND ADVERBIAL SUBORDINATION IN THE LIGHT OF PARALLEL CORPORA // Petr Čermák, Dana Kratochvílová, Olga Nádvorníková, Pavel Štichauer 9 // 1.1 Investigation project and its history 10 // 1.2 Objectives and scope of the present monograph 11 // 1.3 Organisation of the monograph 12 // 1.4 Terminological remarks 13 // 1.4.1 Romance languages under scrutiny and use of the term Romance 13 // 1.4.2 Use of the terms counterpart and respondent 14 // 2. CORPUS DESIGN & CORPUS BASED CONTRASTIVE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY // Olga Nádvorníková 15 // 2.0 Introduction 16 // 2.1 Corpus based contrastive research methodology 16 // 2.2 Corpora used in this study 21 // 3. MORPHOLOGICALLY COMPLEX WORDS IN ROMANCE AND THEIR CZECH RESPONDENTS // Pavel Štichauer, Jan Hricsina, Jirí Jancík, Jaroslava Jindrová, Zuzana Krínková, Daniel Petrík 25 // 3.0 Introduction 26 // 3.1 Word formation: complex vs simple words 27 // 3.2 Romance and Czech: common and different word formation patterns 27 // 3.3 The typology of Czech respondents 29 // 3.3.1 Typology of Czech respondents of the adjectives with the suffix bile/ ble/ vel 29 // 3.3.2 Typology of Czech respondents for verbs with the prefix re /ri 31 // 3.4 The modal suffix ble/ bile/ vel 32 // 3.4.1 Data elaboration and analysis 33 // 3.4.2 Quantitative distribution of the types 35 // 3.4.3 Discussion of various examples 36 // 3.5 The iterative prefix re /ri 39 // 3.5.1 Data elaboration and analysis 39 // 3.5.2 Quantitative distribution of the types 40 // 3.5.3 Discussion of various examples 41 // 3.6 Concluding remarks 43 // 4. CAUSATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS IN ROMANCE AND THEIR CZECH RESPONDENTS // Petr Čermák, Dana Kratochvílová, Petra Laufková, Pavel Štichauer 43 // 4.0 Introduction 46 // 4.1 Definition of causati vity and its forms of expression 46 //
4.2 Causativity in Romance languages 48 // 4.2.1 Analytic type 48 // 4.2.2 Synthetic type 49 // 4.2.3 Characteristics of the Romance construction hacer! fare/faire Ifazer + infinitive 49 // 4.3 Causativity in Czech 50 // 4.3.1 Word formatting causativity 51 // 4.3.1.1 Verbs derived from another verb 52 // 4.3.1.2 Verbs derived from an adjective 53 // 4.3.1.3 No change in the lexical basis, expressing causativity through a prefix roz 53 // 4.3.2 Semantic causativity 54 // 4.3.2.1 Suppletive types 54 // 4.3.2.2 Causative interpretation resulting from syntax 55 // 4.3.3 Analytic causativity 55 // 4.3.3.1 Causative verbs followed by a subordinate clause 55 // 4.3.3.2 Causative verbs followed by a nominal syntagma 55 // 4.3.3.3 (Semi )causative verbs followed by an infinitive 56 // 4.4 Our typology of Czech respondents 57 // 4.5 Methodology 59 // 4.6 Causative constructions in Romance formal comparison 60 // 4.7 Analysis of Czech respondents 62 // 4.7.1 Primary Czech respondents 64 // 4.7.1.1 Type 3 shodit type (hacer caer / far cadere / faire tomber / fazer cair) 64 // 4.7.1.2 Type 8 what makes you think that > proc myslíte? (‘why do you think that?’) 66 // 4.7.1.3 Type 4 dát vypít type 68 // 4.7.2 Secondary Czech respondents 69 // 4.7.2.1 Type 5 dohnat k slzám type 69 // 4.7.2.2 Type 9 other translation 71 // 4.7.2.3 Type 7 zpusobit, že tál type 71 // 4.7.2.4 Type 1 rozplakat type 73 // 4.7.2.5 Type 2 posadit type and type 6 zpusobit tání type 73 // 4.7.2.6 Type 10 no translation 73 // 4.8 Conclusions 73 // 5. INGRESSIVE PERIPHRASES IN ROMANCE AND THEIR CZECH RESPONDENTS // Dana Kratochvílová, Jaroslava Jindrová, Pavel Štichauer, Eliška Trísková 79 // 5.0 Introduction 80 // 5.1 Verbal periphrases in Romance 80 // 5.1.1 Approaches to verbal periphrases and the goal of our study 81 // 5.2 Aspect and Aktionsart 82 //
5.2.1 Aspect and Aktionsart in Romance languages 82 // 5.2.2 Aspect and Aktionsart in Czech 83 // 5.2.3 Verbal periphrases and the relationship to aspect and Aktionsart 84 // 5.2.4 Ingressive MoA 83 // 5.2.4.1 Initial ingressivity in Romance languages 85 // 5.2.4.1.1 Derivative ingressive MoA in Romance 85 // 5.2.4.1.2 Analytical ingressive MoA in Romance 85 // 5.2.4.2 Initial ingressivity in Czech 88 // 5.2.4.2.1 Derivative ingressive MoA in Czech 88 // 5.2.4.2.2 Analytical ingressive MoA in Czech 91 // 5.3 Corpus analysis 93 // 5.3.1 Methodology 93 // 5.3.2 Results of the corpus analyses 95 // 5.3.2.1 Ingressive constructions expressing the mere beginning of a process 95 // 5.3.2.2 Ingressive constructions expressing the beginning of a process // and the notion of effort by part of the subject 96 // 5.3.2.3 Ingressive constructions expressing the beginning of a process and the notions // of suddenness and unexpectedness 99 // 5.3.2.4 Ingressive constructions expressing the beginning of a process and the notions // suddenness, abruptness and previous retention 101 // 5.3.2.5 Ingressive constructions expressing the beginning of a process and the notions // of suddenness, abruptness and vehemence 102 // 5.4 Concluding remarks 103 // 6. THE ROMANCE GERUND AND ITS CZECH RESPONDENTS // Olga Nádvorníková, Leontýna Bratánková, Štepánka Cemikovská, Jan Hricsina 107 // 6.0 Introduction 108 // 6.1 Morphology of the Romance gerund 108 // 6.2 Romance gerund as a converb 109 // 6.2.1 Syntactic functions of the Romance gerund 110 // 6.2.2 Semantic interpretation of the (adverbial) Romance gerund 112 // 6.3 Typology of Czech respondents of the Romance gerund 114’ // 6.4 Data elaboration and quantitative analysis of the Romance gerund 115 // 6.4.1 Factors influencing the frequency of the Romance gerund 117 // 6.4.2 Syntactic functions of the Romance non periphrastic gerund 118 //
6.5 The adverbial Romance gerund and its Czech respondents 121 // 6.5.1 Semantic types of the Romance adverbial gerund and the Czech transgressive 121 // 6.5.2 Czech respondents of the Romance gerund 129 // 6.5.2.1 Finite verbs as respondents of the Romance gerund 131 // 6.5.2.1.1 Coordinate finite clause as a respondent of the Romance gerund 131 // 6.5.2.1.2 The subordinate finite clause as a respondent of the Romance // gerund 132 // 6.5.2.2 Nominalisations as respondents of the Romance gerund 134 // 6.5.2.3 Non finite verb forms as respondents of the Romance gerund 136 // 6.6 Conclusion 144 // 7. FORMAL EXPRESSIONS VS ABSTRACT LINGUISTIC CATEGORIES: COMING TO TERMS WITH POTENTIAL (NGN VOLITIONAL) PARTICIPATION, ITERATIVITY, CAUSATION, INGRESSIVITY AND ADVERBIAL SUBORDINATION // Petr Čermák, Dana Kratochvílová, Olga Nádvorníková, Pavel Štichauer 147 // 7.0 Introduction 148 // 7.1 Correspondences of the analysed phenomena across Romance languages 149 // 7.2 Czech respondents of the analysed phenomena vs systemic counterparts 151 // 7.3 Exploiting the parallel corpus in search of language universals and abstract // categories 153 // Bibliography 154

Zvolte formát: Standardní formát Katalogizační záznam Zkrácený záznam S textovými návěštími S kódy polí MARC