English equivalents of the Czech preposition v/ve from the point of view of the 'open-choice principle' and the 'idiom principle'

Číslo v edici: 

Místo vydání:

Rok vydání:

978-80-7422-042-5 (vyhledej v knihovnách)



Kapitoly v mluvnici:


The paper is part of an on-going study of English equivalents of the 10 most frequent Czech prepositions. In this case it is limited to the most frequent of them v/ve (in). The general aim is to determine whether and to what extent the choice of translate equivalent is influenced by the fact that the sequence including v/ve is an, open grammatical structure or a prefabricated lexical string. The first task is to identify which of the sequences including v/ve are grammatical and which are lexical, to find their representation and compare them with their translation equivalents. The assumption was that SL prefabricated strings tend to be translated by means other than a grammatical sequence (i.e. a prepositional equivalent) and that accordingly Czech lexical sequences (prefabricated, formulaic, etc.) with v/ve will have a higher proportion of non-prepositional equivalents than found in the whole sample. The results show however that the concept of prefabricated lexical strings and consequently their identification by purely statistical methods is not without problems. Still, the tests of correlation (using T-score,between presumably grammatical sequences and lexical sequences, and their corresponding translations, give some support to the hypothesis.


Bennett, D.C., 1975, Spatial and Temporal Uses of English Prepositions. Longman.
Biber D., 2006, University Language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Biber D., S. Conrad, V. Cortes, 2004, If you look at... : Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25:3, 371-405.
Biber D., S. Johansson, C . Leech, S. Conrad, E. Finegan, 1999, Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Pearson, Harlow.
Church K. W., P. Hanks, 1990, Word association norms, mutual information & lexicography. Computational Linguistics, 16(1): 22-29.
Church K. W., P. Hanks, R. Moon, 1994, Lexical substitutability. In Computational Approaches to the Lexicon, eds. B. Atkins, A. Zampolli, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 153-177.
Cortes V., 2004, Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes 23, 397-423.
Čermák, F., 2007, Frazeologie a idiomatika česká a obecná [Czech and General Phraseology]. Karolinum, Praha.
Čermák, F., M. Křen et al., 2004, Frekvenční slovník češtiny [Czech Frequency List], Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, Praha.
Foster P., 2001, Rules & Routines: a consideration of their role in the task-based language production of native and non-native speakers. In Researching pedagogical tasks: second language learning, teaching and testing, eds. M. Bygate, P. Skehan, M. Swain, Longman, London, New York ,75-94.
Hyland K., 2008, As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes 27, 4-21.
Klimšová K., 1999, Zdroje chyb českých mluvčích v angličtině [Sources of Errors in Czech speakers of English], MA thesis, FF UK, Praha.
McEnery T., R. Xiao, Y. Tono, 2006, Corpus-based language studies. An advanced resourcebook. Routledge, London and New York.
Osborne G., 1993, Computer Based Analysis of Idioms and Idiom-like Phrases in English. M. Phil, thesis, University of Birmingham.
Saint-Dizier P. (ed.), 2006, Syntax and Semantics of Prepositions. Dordrecht: Springer.
Scott M., C. Tribble, 2006, Textual Patterns: Key words and corpus analysis in language education. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Sinclair J., 1991, Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tyler A., V. Evans, 2003, The Semantics of English Prepositions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Wray A., 2002, Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.