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 article presents a comparative analysis of various classifi cations of both sciences’ and management sciences’ paradigms in terms of their pragmatism and adequacy regarding organization research. Furthermore, the aim of the article is also to justify the thesis about the high usefulness of research model proposed by Keneth D. Strang. Strang’s model, based on the concept of researcher’s socio-cultural philosophy, allows on the one hand to overcome the theoretical incommensurability and on the other hand makes it possible for representatives of various paradigms to cooperate with each other. The article contains also refl ections on the paradigm as a key factor affecting both the development of management sciences and the practice of management. The choice of a specifi c paradigm, i.e. research ideology, has a decisive impact on the results of research, as well as the generalization of practice. The paradigm defi nes the research strategy, selection of research methods and inference rules. Furthermore, it infl uences the education process, and thus has an impact on shaping the worldview of scientists, entrepreneurs as well as managers.

The article attempts to prove that Darwinism in popular culture plays a role of a theory of everything. Bestselling authors of popular science such as Edward O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins and Bill Bryson have acquainted general public with the theory of evolution, and its newest facet — the Modern Synthesis. Darwinian paradigms, as defined by Thomas Kuhn, are also used in popular books on cosmology, sociobiology, psychology, and religious studies. Moreover, the Darwinian grand narrative of evolutional history shapes the way in which contemporary mass culture presents the history of our planet in numerous educational TV series. Last but not least, Charles Darwin himself has recently become a popular icon and the story of his life is remade in a growing number of fiction and non-fiction books and movies.

Previous research showed that children can exhibit preferences for social categories already at preschool age. One of the crucial factors in the development of children’s attitudes toward others is children’s observation and imitation of adults’ nonverbal messages. The aim of our study is to examine whether children’s tendency to perceive and follow nonverbally expressed attitudes toward other people is related to ingroup bias, i.e. the tendency to favor one’s own group over other groups. We examined 175 preschool children (age in months: 61–87; M = 72.6, SD = 6.53) presenting them with a video of a conversation between a message sender and a message recipient. The study was conducted in a minimal group paradigm. We found that children accurately identified the message sender’s attitude toward the recipient and also generalized this attitude to other members of the new group. We also found explicit ingroup bias among children from the message sender’s group. However, no generalization of the sender’s attitude to other ingroup members was found. The results are discussed in reference to previous findings on the role of imitation of adult’s non-verbal behavior for the development of social attitudes among children.

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.

The aim of this paper is to discuss selected formal and pragmatic aspects of the Austro-Hungarian military name policy in the last quarter of the 19th and in the early 20th century. In the introductory section the proprial status of the names of military units (which constitute a part of military chrematonymy) is discussed. An attempt is made to outline the location of these names on the classificatory map of chrematonomastics as well. A brief discussion of the historical and terminological background of the Austro-Hungarian military unit names follows. The most important concepts of the theory of name and naming policy are outlined. The presentation of the analysed onymic material covers unit names included in the officer lists (Schematismen) of the Austro-Hungarian forces as well as names present in the paper seals (Verschlussmarken). On the basis of the material, polymorphism of the discussed names is shown in the sense that obligatory and facultative elements of the names may appear in different ways and within various syntactic name models, depending on the context (including continuous text within which a name is used). Two main syntactic models of the discussed names are proposed. The orthographic and syntactic rules of unit numbering and the ways of embedding geographical names and names of patrons and honorary regiment owners (Inhaber) into unit names are outlined. The meaning and spelling of the expressions imperial-royal (k.k. = kaiserlich-königlich) and imperial and royal (k.u.k. = kaiserlich und königlich) are explained.