Atribut in contemporary Czech theoretical and scientifictexts
Martin Schacherl
Uniwersytet Południowoczeski w Czeskich BudziejowicachAbstract
One of the devices to enliven the stylisation of professional expression is the attributive adjective, which as a stylistically active means contains functional elements intentionally debilitating to the basic features of scientific style, namely an explicit endeavour to subjectivise the authorial assessment, or possibly to make the stylisation of professional discourse more distinct. The frequency analyses of the contemporary corpus of scientific communication written in Czech has evidenced an abundant occurrence of the attributive adjective, mainly in the humanities and social sciences. There the attributive adjective is a means of subjectivised authorial assessment, fulfilling the intention of indirect or even metaphorical appellation, most frequently through confrontation of two
components from different communicational spheres, or conveying vagueness, inaccuracy and relative values, itself being loaded with expressive marker. The fixedness of some profusely used collocations reduces the notionality of expression and, namely in monographs produced in humanities and social sciences where its occurrence is high, it may become a stereotype of cliché-ridden and trendy expression. Clichéd communication is typified by using hackneyed meaningless words, with the authorial scientific diction being permeated by clichés, hackneyed and empty phrases, and vogue expressions from various communicational spheres.
Keywords:
linguistic, the theoretical and scientific discourse, atribut, humanities and social sciences, styleReferences
Bartůňková J., Zachová A., 1995, Od textu k hypertextu, „Spisovná čeština a jazyková kultura 1993: sborník z olomoucké konference 22. – 27. 8. 1993“, Praha, s. 202–207.
Google Scholar
BurkhardtA., 1987, Wie die „wahre Welt“ endlich zur Metapher wurde. Zur Konstitution, Leistung und Typologie der Metapher, „Conceptus“ XXI, nr. 52, s. 40–44.
Google Scholar
Clyne M., 1987, Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts: English and German, „Journal of Pragmatics“, 11, s. 211–247.
Google Scholar
Clyne M., 1991, Zu kulturellen Unterschieden in der Produktion und Wahrnehmung englisher und deutscher wissenschaftlicher texte, „Info Daf“18, s. 376-383.
Google Scholar
Cvrček V., Kováříková D., Mácha J., Křen M., 2011, Korpus odborných lingvistických textů, http://www.korpus.cz.
Google Scholar
Čechová M., 2005, Proměny současných odborných komunikátů, „Stylistyka“, XIV, s. 287-294.
Google Scholar
Čermák F., 2011,Jazyk a jazykověda, Praha.
Google Scholar
Čmejrková S., Daneš F., Světlá J., Jak napsat odborný text, Praha.
Google Scholar
Čmejrková S., 2013, Vědecký styl, „Studie k moderní mluvnici češtiny 2. Komunikační situace a styl“, Olomouc, s. 70-94.
Google Scholar
Daneš F., 1997, Jazyk vědy, „Český jazyk na přelomu tisíciletí“,Praha, s. 68–83.
Google Scholar
Daneš F., 2000, Jakou řečí mluví věda. Modalizace vědeckého diskurzu, „Slovo a slovesnost“ 61, č. 2, s. 81–92.
Google Scholar
Filipec J., Čermák F. 1985, Česká lexikologie, Praha.
Google Scholar
Galtung J., 1981, Structure, culture, and intellectual style: An essay comparing saxonic, teutonic, gallic and nipponic approaches, „Sociale Science Information“, s. 817–856.
Google Scholar
Hoffmannová J., 1990, Pohled na funkční spektrum metafory z perspektivy funkce gnozeologické, „Úloha metafory ve vědeckém poznávání a vyjadřování“, Praha, s. 57–64.
Google Scholar
Ickler T., 1993, Zur Funktion der Metapher, besonders in Fachtexten, „Fachsprache, Internationale Zeitschrift für Fachsprachenforschung – Didaktik und Terminologie“, Heft 3–4.
Google Scholar
Jelínek M., 1955, Odborný styl, „Slovo a slovesnost“ 16, č. 1, s. 25-37.
Google Scholar
Karlík Petr, Nekula M., Pleskalová J. (eds.), 2002, Encyklopedický slovník češtiny, Brno.
Google Scholar
Kraus J., 1994, K současným vývojovým proměnám vědeckého a odborného vyjadřování, „Naše řeč“ 77, č. 1, s. 14-19.
Google Scholar
Krčmová M, 2008, Pojmovost jako konstituující faktor projevu. Funkční styl odborný, „Současná stylistika“, Praha, s. 208–229.
Google Scholar
Křen M., Bartoň T., Cvrček V., Hnátková M., Jelínek T., Kocek J., Novotná R., Petkevič V., Procházka P., Schmiedtová V., Skoumalová H., 2010, SYN2010: žánrově vyvážený korpus psané češtiny, http://www.korpus.cz.
Google Scholar
Křen M., Cvrček V., Čapka T., Čermáková A., Hnátková M., Chlumská L., Jelínek T., Kováříková D., Petkevič V., Procházka P., Skoumalová H., Škrabal M., Truneček P., Vondřička P., Zasina A. J., 2015, SYN2015: reprezentativní korpus psané češtiny, http://www.korpus.cz.
Google Scholar
Mareš P., 2013, Podoby českého vědeckého stylu, „Přednášky z 56. běhu Letní školy slovanských studií“, Praha, s. 37-47.
Google Scholar
Mistrík, J., 1997, Štylistika, Bratislava.
Google Scholar
Slančová D., 1998, K pragmatickej charakteristike slovnej zásoby, „Jazyk a kultura vyjadřování: Milanu Jelínkovi k pětasedmdesátinám“, Brno, s. 185-191.
Google Scholar
Tešitelová M. aj., 1983, Psaná a mluvená odborná čeština z kvantitativního hlediska (v rámci věcného stylu), Praha.
Google Scholar
Tešitelová M. aj., 1985, Kvantitativní charakteristiky současné češtiny, Praha.
Google Scholar
Authors
Martin SchacherlStatistics
Downloads
License
1. Copyrights to published works are held by the University of Opole (to the collective work) and the Authors (to individual parts of the collective work that have an independent meaning).
2. Only previously undistributed works can be published in the scientific journal "Stylistics".
3. The University of Opole does not restrict the possibility of the author's further dissemination of his work on condition that the scientific journal "Stylistics" is indicated as the original place of publication and the consent of the University Publishing House.
4. Consent to the publication of the work in the scientific journal "Stylistics" is tantamount to granting the author a non-exclusive license to the University of Opole, including the right to use the work without territorial restrictions and time limits in the following fields of exploitation:
a) within the scope of recording and multiplication of the work - production of any number of copies of the work in whole or in part using a specified technique, including printing, reprography, magnetic recording and digital technique, introduction of the work into computer memory and computer networks,
b) within the scope of circulation of the original or copies on which the work has been recorded - circulation, lending or hiring of the original or copies,
c) within the scope of dissemination of the work in a manner other than specified in item 2 - making the work or its abstract available on the Internet by enabling the recipients to access the work on-line or enabling them to download the work to their own device that makes it possible to read it, placing the work in electronic databases that disseminate scientific works, including in particular the CEEOL database (Central and Eastern Online Libray) and the abstract in English in the CEJSH database (The Central Europaen Journal of Social Scienes and Humanites).
d) within the scope of creating and distributing dependent works created using the work - using them in the fields of exploitation specified in points 1-3.
5. The author is not entitled to compensation for granting the license to the work.
6. The author agrees that the University may grant further permission to use the work (sublicense) in the fields of exploitation specified in par. 2 paragraph 4.
7. The author agrees that, in connection with the distribution of the work, his or her personal information, that is, name, affiliation, and e-mail address, may be made public.
Most read articles by the same author(s)
- Martin Schacherl, Subjective stylistic factors in contemporary Czech theoretical and scientific texts: the changing style of the present-day theoretical discourse written in Czech , Stylistyka: Vol. 30 (2021): Style and Emotions
- Michal Křístek, Martin Schacherl, The significant birth anniversary of Prof. Maria Krčmova (*24. 12. 1940) , Stylistyka: Vol. 29 (2020): Style and Religion
