The author states that there are in our vocabulary three, and only three, classes of semantic units: a) predicates, i.e. generic concepts – the result of our conceptualization of the world; they represent more than 90% of the vocabulary; b) operators of reference – a small, almost closed set bounding predicates to their concrete denotates; c) proper names, which are by defi nition referentially bound and are object of research of a specialized linguistic discipline. Thus, the main tasks of our grammar are (1) to defi ne and to describe the scope of the grammaticalization in the language in question and (2) to present the semantic classification of predicates, the description of their – bound and/or free – functioning in the text included.
The author defends the thesis that language is an attribute of a nation and as such it is offi cially protected by the international legal system irrespective of the number of its speakers; thus, there is no such phenomenon as a “little language”. Linguistic minorities speak their mother languages or some dialectal variants of those languages
The author states that the grammatical description of a language should be conceived in the frame of the theory: “meaning > form”. As an example to prove the adequacy of that statement she presents an outline of the semantic analysis of the grammatical category of person. The traditional grammar presents ‘person’ as an infl ectional category of the verb, exponent of the formal congruency of the verbal predicate with its implied argument in the form of the nominative noun phrase. From the semantic point of view ‘person’ is the central category guaranteeing success full act of linguistic communication: it enables us to identify correctly active participants of the speech event, as also those active in the spoken of event.
In the frame of the grammatical description “from meaning to form” the author promotes the thesis that arguments implied by verbal predicates stand in the syntactic position primarily designed for noun phrases.
The author defends the thesis that the dative case relation in Indo-European languages represents the second man – participant of the act of the linguistic communication, i.e. the addressee of the information (and the factual consequences of the information) sent by the fi rst man – participant and initiator of the act. Arguments documenting her thesis derive from her analysis of the pronominal systems of Polish and Macedonian as represents of Slavic languages on the one hand and French and English as represents of West European languages.
The author presents the thesis that the referent of the dative noun phrase is ‘a second human participant’ of the event ‒ referent of the proposition in question. The same applies to the referent of the genitive noun phrase. The two constructions differ only in their syntactic distribution ‒ dative is an adverbal case, while genetive is adnominal, which is the result of their semantic roles ‒ ‘recipient’ for dative and ‘possessor’ for genetive.