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.
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.