00539nas a2200121   4500008004100000245010200041210010100143300001000244490000700254520006800261100003900329856004900368       1991                        eng d00aОтрицание в английския, българския и малтийския език0 aОтрицание в английския българския и малтийския език  a5–90 v163 aOn the basis of material from typologically different languages1 aГрозданова, Лиляна  uhttp://www.scripta-bulgarica.eu/en/node/247901115nas a2200121   4500008004100000245013500041210012600176300001200302490000700314520058400321100003900905856004900944       1988                        eng d00aНаблюдения върху категорията равенство в английския и българския език0 aНаблюдения върху категорията равенство в английския и българския  a18–250 v133 aThe article attempts to provide a more comprehensive analysis of the category of equality in English and Bulgarian. It discusses the conditions of expressing equality within the broader category of comparison of respective entities and the presence of a quality marked as [+scale]. The analysis of the exponents in the two languages independently points to intralingual dependence between the exponents of equality, similarity and identity. The contrastive analysis shows their interrelationships and indicates the areas where native or foreign language interference might occur.1 aГрозданова, Лиляна  uhttp://www.scripta-bulgarica.eu/en/node/284401381nas a2200121   4500008004100000245014800041210012500189300001100314490000700325520083900332100003901171856004901210       1987                        eng d00aНякои семантични наблюдения върху сравнението в английския и българския език0 aНякои семантични наблюдения върху сравнението в английския и бъл  a5–110 v123 aSome semantic factors affecting the concrete realization in English and Bulgarian of the comparison operator are dwelt upon. The categorial meaning of this operator is defined and its direct dependence on the ‘GRADABLE’ feature of the compared items is thrown into relief. It is noteworthy that this feature may be either inherent in the lexical items or assigned secondarily. It is also argued that the direction of the comparison should follow that of meaning inclusion in the hierarchy. According to the proposition status a distinction is drawn between ‘general’ and ‘partial’ comparison. Cases in which the operator affects the modal characteristics of the sentence are considered as well. In conclusion the choice of an exponent has been found to be directly related to the items governed by the comparison operator.1 aГрозданова, Лиляна  uhttp://www.scripta-bulgarica.eu/en/node/298701169nas a2200121   4500008004100000245011600041210011600157300001100273490000700284520066800291100003900959856004900998       1986                        eng d00aИдентификация на сравнението в английския и българския език0 aИдентификация на сравнението в английския и българския език  a5–130 v113 aThis is an attempt to identify comparison in contrast with similar language phenomena. A set of sentences defined traditionally as ‘comparative’ have been analysed and reconsidered for this purpose. The syntactic and semantic procedures employed uncovered the fact that apparent resemblance conceals different semantic relations: graded comparison, similitude and quantitative specification. Some factors determining the occurrence of the comparative syntagm as a whole and of its various components have been discussed. In conclusion the analysis has shown that the term ‘comparison’ ought to be specified to avoid any inconsistent use in the literature.1 aГрозданова, Лиляна  uhttp://www.scripta-bulgarica.eu/en/node/307701381nas a2200121   4500008004100000245009200041210009200133300001200225490000600237520092800243100003901171856004901210       1980                        eng d00aСемантичен анализ на кванторните думи only и само0 aСемантичен анализ на кванторните думи only и само  a26–320 v53 aThis paper is an attempt to show that defining the meaning of the quantifiers only in English and само in Bulgarian involves three types of analysis: presuppositional, syntagmatic and paradigmatic. The application of these analyses has led to the following conclusions: a) a presuppositional contrastive set, the members of which are potentially related to the main proposition of the respective sentence, underlies these quantifiers; b) the words only and само indicate that any value different from the one dominated by them in the surface structure is inadmissible relative to the same sentence; c) the interpretation of these quantifiers depends on the paradigmatic value of the lexical unit in their semantic scope. The application of the same criteria to the independent study of оn1у and само shows that they have the same semantic content and that their interpretation follows the same semantic rules.1 aГрозданова, Лиляна  uhttp://www.scripta-bulgarica.eu/en/node/391701527nas a2200121   4500008004100000245010700041210010700148300001200255490000600267520104400273100003901317856004901356       1978                        eng d00aЛингвистичните пресупозиции и чуждоезиковото обучение0 aЛингвистичните пресупозиции и чуждоезиковото обучение  a55–610 v33 aOne of the problems of foreign-language teaching arises from the fact that producing wellformed sentences in the target language in class is not a sufficient condition for using it successfully outside the classroom. In the light of recent linguistic developments one can hypothesize that the solution of this problem involves explication of the presuppositions of the model sentences to be learned. The object of this paper is to substantiate the said hypothesis and bear out the necessity of its experimental testing. Arguments from the fields of theoretical linguistics, sociolinguistics and psycholinguistics are presented to this end. A complete teaching act is investigated (from the presentation of a model-sentence by the teacher, through its being processed into a sentence in the target language by the student, to its eventual approbation or correction by the teacher) with the conclusion that the introduction of model-sentences without explication of the respective presuppositions can bring about failure of the teaching act.1 aГрозданова, Лиляна  uhttp://www.scripta-bulgarica.eu/en/node/4138