The author tries to prove that in the historical Polish language nouns tend toward substantive derivations (deverbative and adjectival derivations being in decline). The main reason why substantive derivations are on the rise are contacts with other languages, mostly non-Slavic. We have been borrowing mostly nouns. One example is strengthening of the paradigmatic type ending in a consonant in the nominative (fi lozof, fi lolog, chemik), masculine – into -a (lingwista, banita, logopeda). Substantive derivations greatly strengthened prefi xoids bio-, auto-, porno-, -holizm, etc. Reasons for the spread of substantive derivations were also already present within the word-formation system. A certain weakness may be seen in substantive-derived adjectives. It has happened that a derivational chain lost an adjectival link, with motivation shifting onto the noun, cf. jedwabnik ← jedwabny (robak) [silkworm], today from jedwab [silk]. The effect of declining deverbative derivation also stems from the strength in early ages of written Polish (14th−16th centuries) since it was a time of much change in verbs after aspect appeared.
The goal of the paper is not so much to discuss Maria Honowska’s achievements in Slavonic derivatology – this has already been done by Ludwig Selimski – but rather to highlight the individuality of her thought in word-formational research of the sixties and seventies. The focus is on those fragments of her work which proved prognostic, such as underlining the importance of derivational chains in decoding word formations, indicating the value of generativist approach to word-formational analysis, or emphasizing the significance of non-serial phenomena which often have a pragmatic function (as Honowska wrote about ‘word-formational advertising’). Some of her postulates are still yet to be realized, as is e.g. the regarding of word formation as a part of morphology rather than as a separate level in the language system.
The lexeme park should be characterized as an international word. While examining its form and semantics, it is necessary to make references to other languages, primarily to Indo-European ones. A Latin source is pointed out by Jaqueline Picoche – the word parc is derived from Lat. parrĭcus, registered in the 8th century, which was a derivative of the pre-Latin *parra ‘pole, rod’. In this case it is worth asking the following question: what is the source of the root of the word park in the Indo-European Latin language? The form of the word makes us suspect that it is a borrowing from a Semitic language, most likely Arabic. In the Arabic language قرف FRQ carries the meaning ‘to separate, to set apart’, and further nominal formations which are derived from it include farq – ‘separation, division’ and firq ‘part, division; group, herd, set’. The development of the present meaning of the word park represents a broader array of issues associated with the semantic shift. The observation of the lexical material, not only of Polish material, demonstrates the following direction: ‘enclosure → ‘an enclosed (closed) area’ → ‘an area which is not necessarily enclosed’. Such a regularity is observed also in the Old French jardin, in the English garden, in the Slavic words gród (Ch. hrad, Russ. город, OCS гродъ etc.); ogród (ob-gród), kraj (‘end, limit’ → ‘an area within some boundaries’). Today the meaning park ‘garden’, which is a link in the semantic chain, occupies the first place; other meanings are secondary, and the original ‘enclosure’ has become obsolete.
The authors – participants of the seminar devoted to the “Comparative syntax of predicative expressions in Polish, French and Italian”, conducted by Stanisław Karolak in the 1970s – decided to suggest an extension of the PSPA concept of syntax (podstawowa struktura predykatowo-argumentowa – the basic predicativeargumentative structure). They selected the predicates of persuasion because they studied them during their work with Professor Karolak (consult the Bibliography). For this purpose, they developed the abstract predicative-argumentative structure for a greater class, thus nullifying the requirement of the identity of the root as well as the differences in the content of the particular predicates. Therefore we may say that it is a model of the concept of persuasion. The validity of linking the exponents of the abstract predicate which have dissimilar roots is accounted for by the semantic morphological-syntactic restrictions, therefore the model that is put forward may be referred to as the conceptual model which is supported by the paradigmatic syntax. The model covers powodować ‘to cause something’, which is a clear indication that the predicates of persuasion belong to a more general class of causatives. In order to reject the plethora of various types of causation, the authors applied a morphologicalsyntactic filter.In the further part of the text the authors put forward an internal division of the concept of persuasion on the basis of syntactic and morphological exponents. Therefore a separate class is constituted by the predicates of the benefit for x (prosić ‘to ask for something’, błagać ‘to beg’, the former modlić kogoś o coś); a different group is constituted by the predicative expressions such as the following radzić ‘to advise somebody to do something’, zalecać ‘to recommend somebody to do something’, podszeptywać ‘to suggest something to somebody’, in which the resultative event is beneficial to y; the class of predicates with the meaning ‘x acts intentionally so that y does not do Z2’ (odciągać ‘to dissuade from’, odwodzić ‘to discourage from’, ostrzegać ‘to warn against’, wyperswadować ‘to reason somebody out of something’, zabraniać ‘to forbid’, powstrzymywać ‘to keep somebody from doing something’). The focus of the authors is on the class of predicates which takes into account evaluation, especially negative evaluation: podpuszczać ‘to lead somebody on’, judzić ‘to incite’, podżegać ‘to instigate’ etc.The model that is presented in the article enables us to establish and interpret the area of language in question not only in the modern Polish language, but also in the historical Polish language. Moreover, the model may be applied to comparative studies.
PL
Autorki, uczestniczki konwersatorium nt. „Składnia konfrontatywna wyrażeń predykatywnych w języku polskim, francuskim i włoskim”, prowadzonym przez Stanisława Karolaka w latach siedemdziesiątych, postanowiły zaproponować rozszerzenia koncepcji składni PSPA (podstawowej struktury predykatowo-argumentowej). Wybrały predykaty nakłaniania, bo takimi zajmowały się w czasie prac z Profesorem Karolakiem (zob. bibliografia). W tym celu zbudowały abstrakcyjną strukturę predykatowo-argumentową dla większej klasy, uchylając wymóg identyczności rdzenia, także różnice w treści poszczególnych predykatów, powiedzieć zatem można, że to model pojęcia nakłaniania. Zasadność wiązania różnordzennych wykładników abstrakcyjnego predykatu tłumaczą semantyczne restrykcje morfologiczno-składniowe, zatem zaproponowany model można nazwać schematem myślowym podpartym składnią paradygmatyczną. W modelu mieści się powodować, co jest wyraźnym sygnałem, że predykaty nakłaniania należą do ogólniejszej klasy kauzatywów. Żeby odrzucić bogactwo różnych typów kauzacji, stosują filtr morfologiczno-składniowy.W dalszej części tekstu autorki proponują wewnętrzny podział pojęcia nakłaniania na podstawie wykładników składniowych i morfologicznych. Tak więc osobną klasę tworzą predykaty korzyści dla x-a (prosić, błagać, dawne modlić kogoś o coś); inną grupę tworzą wyrażenia predykatywne typu radzić, zalecać, podszeptywać, w których zdarzenie skutkowe jest korzystne dla y-a; wyraźnie kształtuje się klasa predykatów znaczeniu ‘x działa intencjonalnie, aby y nie robił Z2’ (odciągać, odwodzić, ostrzegać, wyperswadować, zabraniać, powstrzymywać). Najwięcej uwagi poświęcają klasie predykatów uwzględniających wartościowanie, zwłaszcza wartościowanie negatywne: podpuszczać, judzić, podżegać itd. Zaproponowany w artykule model pozwala zakreślić i zinterpretować interesujący nas obszar języka nie tylko we współczesnej polszczyźnie, ale również w polszczyźnie historycznej, co więcej - daje się stosować do studiów konfrontatywnych.
Deminutivity in Slavic word formation studies. Report from the conference of the Word-Formation Committee of the International Committee of Slavists (Slovenia, Maribor, 25–29 May 2015)The article is a report from the 16th International Scientific Conference of the Word-Formation Committee of the International Committee of Slavists, held in Maribor, Slovenia, on 25–29 May 2015. The authors offer a short discussion of each of the presentations, which in this edition of the Conference were devoted to the form and role of diminutives in Slavic languages. Deminutywność w słowiańskich badaniach słowotwórczych. Sprawozdanie z konferencji Komisji Słowotwórczej przy Międzynarodowym Komitecie Slawistów (Słowenia, Maribor, 25–29 maja 2015)Artykuł stanowi sprawozdanie z odbywającej się w dniach 25–29 maja 2015 roku w Mariborze (Słowenia) XVI. Konferencji Komisji Słowotwórczej przy Międzynarodowym Komitecie Slawistów. Autorki omawiają kolejno wystąpienia uczestników, poświęcone w tej edycji formie i roli deminutywów w językach słowiańskich.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.