2015 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 151-167
Author(s):  
Violetta Koseska-Toszewa

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.


2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (XXIII) ◽  
pp. 121-133
Author(s):  
Katarzyna Wojan

This article outlines the original research concept developed and applied by the Voronezh researchers, which brought both quantitative and qualitative results to the field of linguistic comparative research. Their monograph is devoted to the macrotypological unity of the lexical semantics of the languages in Europe. In addition, semantic stratification of Russian and Polish lexis has been analyzed. Their research concept is now known as the “lexical-semantic macrotypological school of Voronezh.” Representatives of this school have created a new research field in theoretical linguistics – a lexical-semantic language macrotypology as a branch of linguistic typology. The monograph has been widely discussed and reviewed in Russia.


Author(s):  
Michele Loporcaro

The book addresses grammatical gender in Romance, and its development from Latin. It works with the toolbox of current linguistic typology, and asks the fundamental question of how the Latin grammatical gender system gradually changed into those of the Romance languages. To answer this question, the book capitalizes on the pervasive dialect variation of which the better-known standard Romance languages only represent a fragment. Indeed, inspection of dialect variation across time and space forces one to dismiss the handbook account proclaiming that the neuter gender, contrasting with masculine and feminine in Latin, was eradicated from spoken Latin by late Empire times. Both Late Latin evidence and data from several modern dialects show that this never happened, and that the vulgate account proceeds from unwarranted back-projection of the data from modern languages like French and Italian. Rather, the neuter underwent transformations which are the main culprit for the differences in the gender system observed today between, say, Romanian, Sursilvan, Neapolitan, and Asturian, to cite just a few types of system which turn out to differ significantly. A precondition for establishing the database for diachronic investigation is a detailed description of many such systems, which reveals data whose interest transcends the diachronic issue under consideration: the book thus addresses systems where ‘husbands’ are feminine and others where ‘wives’ are masculine; discusses dialects where nouns overtly mark gender, but only in certain syntactic contexts; and proposes an analysis according to which one Romance language (Asturian) has split inherited grammatical gender into two concurrent systems.


Author(s):  
Jonathan Rosa ◽  
Nelson Flores

This chapter presents a raciolinguistic perspective, which theorizes the historical and contemporary co-naturalization of language and race. Rather than taking for granted existing categories for parsing and classifying race and language, the chapter explores how and why these categories have been co-naturalized and imagines their denaturalization as part of a broader structural project of contesting white supremacy. The chapter explores five key components of a raciolinguistic perspective: (1) historical and contemporary colonial co-naturalizations of race and language; (2) perceptions of racial and linguistic difference; (3) regimentations of racial and linguistic categories; (4) racial and linguistic intersections and assemblages; and (5) contestation of racial and linguistic power formations. These foci reflect an investment in developing a careful theorization of various forms of racial and linguistic inequality, on the one hand, and a commitment to the imagination and creation of more just societies on the other.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document