00526nas a2200109   4500008004100000245014500041210012500186300001100311490000700322100003900329856004800368       2004                        eng d00aЕзиковата ситуация и езиковите норми днес – взаимозависимости и песпективи0 aЕзиковата ситуация и езиковите норми днес взаимозависимости и пе  a5–100 v101 aУхлиржова, Людмила  uhttp://www.scripta-bulgarica.eu/en/node/77700926nas a2200121   4500008004100000245018600041210012500227300001100352490000700363520034600370100003900716856004900755       1992                        eng d00aБългарското един като експонент на неопределена референтност (в съпоставка с руския и чешкия език)0 aБългарското един като експонент на неопределена референтност в с  a5–150 v173 aThe aim of the study is to show the main tendencies in the development of един as an exponent of referential indefiniteness in Bulgarian during the 20th century. The tendencies are illustrated on material taken from various Bulgarian translations of Dostoyevski as well as from two Bulgarian translations of the Czech writer A. Jirásek.1 aУхлиржова, Людмила  uhttp://www.scripta-bulgarica.eu/en/node/228601237nas a2200121   4500008004100000245010800041210010800149300001400257490000700271520074900278100003901027856004901066       1990                        eng d00aЗа анафората в българския език в сравнение с чешкия език0 aЗа анафората в българския език в сравнение с чешкия език  a278–2850 v153 aThe article presents a development of some ideas from S. Ivan{\v c}ev’s articles (re-issued in a volume in 1978) about the competition between the 3rd pers. Sing. pronoun in Czech and in Bulgarian and demonstrative pronouns and their zero equivalents in the expression of anaphoric relations in a text. Cases are investigated in which the Czech obligatorily expressed anaphoric to in a syntactically independent (non-attributive) position has a non-obligalory (i. e. alongside the possibility of use of a pronoun) zero exponent correspondence in Bulgarian; for example: Някой почука на вратата. Беше раздавачът. vs. Czech N{\v e}kto zaklepal на dve{\v r}e. Byl to listono{\v s}, but not *Byl listono{\v s}.1 aУхлиржова, Людмила  uhttp://www.scripta-bulgarica.eu/en/node/255001723nas a2200121   4500008004100000245025600041210012400297300001200421490000600433520107400439100003901513856004901552       1980                        eng d00aСтруктура на темата на изречението и начина за нейното изграждане в чешкия и българския език (към проблематиката на актуалното членение)0 aСтруктура на темата на изречението и начина за нейното изграждан  a23–310 v53 aThe relationship between semantics and context as principles of functional sentence perspec111 tive (1) is considered in the introductory part of the paper. The main factors which influence the structure of the thematic section of utterances are pointed out: the fact that the thematic elements belong to different contextual spheres; their position in the thematic progressions and their syntactic and semantic nature (2.2). The notions of foregrounding („aktualizace“), and of central and secondary („pr{\r u}vodn{í“) thematic components are explained in (2.1). When comparing the ways of building up the thematic section of utterances in Czech and Bulgarian special attention is paid to the position of the central (3.1) and secondary (3.2) thematic components, and to the hierarchization of the thematic components in complex sentences (3.3). In conclusion (3.4), the similarities and differences, established in (3.1)-(3.3), are viewed in respect of the nature of the two language systems and further possibilities for contrastive studies are pointed out.1 aУхлиржова, Людмила  uhttp://www.scripta-bulgarica.eu/en/node/3929