The first part of the paper deals with the key question of the Searle-Derrida debate, namely, with the question of conceptual ''exactness'' and applicability of concepts to facts. I argue that Derrida makes a strict distinction between the exactness in the realm of concepts and the exactness in the realm of facts. Supposing that it is not correct to argue against him - as Searle does - that concepts cannot be exact because there are no strict boundaries between facts. The second part of the paper deals with a distinction used by John Searle: The distinction between linguistic meaning and speaker’s meaning. According to Searle linguistic meaning is constituted outside a particular context of use whereas speaker’s meaning is embedded in a particular situation. I argue this distinction is problematic as far as any meaning is constituted in a particular utterance and in a particular context of use., První část práce se zabývá klíčovou otázkou debaty Searle-Derrida, konkrétně otázkou konceptuální ,,přesnosti'' a aplikovatelnosti konceptů na fakta. Tvrdím, že Derrida rozlišuje mezi přesností v oblasti pojmů a přesností v oblasti faktů. Předpokládejme, že není správné argumentovat proti němu - jak to dělá Searle -, že pojmy nemohou být přesné, protože mezi fakty neexistují striktní hranice. Druhá část práce se zabývá rozlišením, které používá John Searle: Rozlišení mezi jazykovým významem a významem mluvčího. Podle Searle je lingvistický význam vytvořen mimo konkrétní kontext použití, zatímco význam mluvčího je zakotven v určité situaci., and Tomáš Koblížek
In the stylization of spontaneous, non-prepared spoken expression in contemporary literary texts (including prose, drama, and even comics), one of the most striking syntactic elements to emerge is the one-syllable word (se, si, sem, sme, ste, mě, mi, tě, ti, bych, by…) at the beginning of an utterance or turn. Sgall and Hronek (1992) call these words enclitics or proclitics, though according to J. Toman (2002) or A. Svoboda (2002) they are not clitics. However, all of these authors consider them to be the result of word-order inversion (Se mu to nepovedlo = ''Nepovedlo se mu to'') or of processes of ellipsis (Bych si taky myslel = ''To bych si taky myslel''). Yet there are likely also other motivations, e.g. phonetic ones related to the specific techniques of spoken expression. This type is common in our research, for example, in the communication of young people engaging in internet chat, i.e. in written texts strongly influenced by spoken expression. With the help of corpora of spoken Czech and literary texts from the Czech National Corpus (SYN2000, SYN2005, SYN2010), the authors found that these one-syllable beginnings of utterances or turns are a striking and non-detachable sign of contemporary colloquial Czech, of authentic Czech dialogues - and thus not merely a myth heavily sustained by Czech authors of literary texts, who make efforts to stylize casual expression.