Jadwiga Linde-Usiekniewicz
Studies in Polish Linguistics, Vol. 11, Issue 2, Volume 11 (2016), pp. 57-84
https://doi.org/10.4467/23005920SPL.16.004.4819This work is sequel to my paper on the controversy concerning the appropriate syntactic and semantic account of the distinction between classificatory and qualifying adjectives in Polish (Linde-Usiekniewicz 2013). It develops the lines of inquiry suggested therein, mainly the claim that differences between the pre-nominal and post-nominal attributive syntax can only be adequately explained when the lexical meaning of the head noun and the attribute are taken into account – specifically, in the case of relational adjectives, the actual semantic relation between the head noun and the adjective. The interplay between the lexical meanings and the meanings imposed by syntactic order is presented within Encoding Grammar, a multi-layered framework devised in Linde-Usiekniewicz (2012). In particular, postposing of lexically qualitative adjectives and preposing of relational adjectives is presented as a type of coercion, in which the meaning imposed by syntax overrides the lexical meaning of the adjective. The possibilities for and restrictions on the order of multiple adjectives occurring within a noun phrase is explained by proposing a distinction between adjectives that saturate argument positions of the head noun, as in produkcja samochodowa ‘car production’, and adjectives that correspond to adjuncts, as in wycieczka samochodowa ‘car trip’ (cf. Bosque and Picallo 1996). A more fine-grained hierarchy within each class is proposed to account for possible noun—adjective(s) permutations.
Jadwiga Linde-Usiekniewicz
Studies in Polish Linguistics, Vol. 8, Issue 3, Volume 8 (2013), pp. 103-126
https://doi.org/10.4467/23005920SPL.13.006.1541The paper is constructed as a response to Cetnarowska, Pysz and Trugman’s (2011a) paper on classificatory adjectives in Polish. Cetnarowska, Pysz and Trugman (CPT) argue in it against Rutkowski and Progovac’s (2005) and Rutkowski’s (2007) account of classificatory adjectives in Polish and instead propose an alternative analysis, based on Bouchard’s (2002) representational model. In the present paper it is claimed that the controversy between those two approaches actually stems from differences in the understanding of the term ‘classificatory adjective’: Cetnarowska, Pysz and Trugman (2011b) seem to deem as ‘classificatory’ adjectives “restricting the denotation of the noun they modify,” while Rutkowski (2007) seems to consider ‘classificatory’ only those adjectives that establish at least two contrasting classes of possible referents. Crucially, for Rutkowski and Progovac only post-nominal adjectives are deemed classificatory, while Cetnarowska, Pysz and Trugman postulate a class of ‘migrating classificatory adjectives’ that can appear both pre- and postnominally. Th is paper presents some arguments that CPT’s view is better suited to Polish phenomena, but also suggests that neither the derivational model proposed by Rutkowski and Progovac nor the representational model is capable of fully accounting for syntacticsemantic phenomena involved in Polish nominal phrases with post-nominal adjectives.
Jadwiga Linde-Usiekniewicz
Studies in Polish Linguistics, Vol. 10, Issue 3, Volume 10 (2015), pp. 105-124
https://doi.org/10.4467/23005920SPL.15.005.4313Polish verb forms occurring with (what was originally) the pronominal clitic się constitute a notoriously heterogeneous group of constructions ranging from reflexive proper (widzi się ‘sees herself/himself ’) to impersonal (mówi się ‘they say’). This article deals with middle-voice reflexives, which cover the semantic domain extending between reflexives proper and passives. The Polish types of middle-voice reflexives are first situated on a semantic map reflecting a cross-linguistic analysis based mainly on Slavonic, Baltic and Germanic data. Then an analysis of the different types is given in terms of argument structure. We argue that most of the Polish middle-voice reflexives do not differ from the non-reflexive forms in argument structure but only in the assignment of grammatical relations. They are also characterized by construction-specific semantic modifications (more marked than in the case of the passive). As they are arguably not in the lexicon, a good case can be made for their treatment in terms of grammatical voice. At the same time these constructions are distinct from the passive: both middle-voice and passive constructions are agent-back-grounding devices, but they represent different types of backgrounding.
Jadwiga Linde-Usiekniewicz
Studies in Polish Linguistics, Vol. 14, Issue 2, Volume 14 (2019), pp. 81-99
https://doi.org/10.4467/23005920SPL.19.015.11080This paper presents a comparison between to-bearing relative clauses, adverbials and interrogatives on the one hand, vs. their to-less variants on the other, and discusses the functions associated with the presence of to. It is argued that at least three different instances of to should be distinguished. One converts relative clauses into appositive ones, which are necessarily semantically connected to the matrix clause and it makes the semantic connection override even apparent lack of appropriate syntactic connection. It attaches to relativizers, including gdzie ‘where’ and kiedy ‘when’ relative clauses. It is argued that the same segment is present in adverbials, triggering a factitive presupposition, as is the case of appositive relatives generally. The second to links the content of a kind relative, an adverbial or a wh-interrogative to previous contexts, possibly triggering a pragmatic presupposition. The third converts standard wh-interrogatives into either rhetorical or thetic questions. It is argued that while in the third instance we are dealing with a separate word and in the second with a clitic, the first to, hitherto unidentified or possibly falsely identified in relevant literature, appears to have both some characteristics of a clitic and of an affix.
Jadwiga Linde-Usiekniewicz
Studies in Polish Linguistics, Vol. 14, Issue 3, Volume 14 (2019), pp. 125-147
https://doi.org/10.4467/23005920SPL.19.017.11082This paper presents a comparison between to-bearing relative clauses, adverbials and interrogatives on the one hand, vs. their to-less variants on the other, and discusses the functions associated with the presence of to. It is argued that at least three different instances of to should be distinguished. One converts relative clauses into appositive ones, which are necessarily semantically connected to the matrix clause and it makes the semantic connection override even apparent lack of appropriate syntactic connection. It attaches to relativizers, including gdzie ‘where’ and kiedy ‘when’ relative clauses. It is argued that the same segment is present in adverbials, triggering a factitive presupposition, as is the case of appositive relatives generally. The second to links the content of a kind relative, an adverbial or a wh-interrogative to previous contexts, possibly triggering a pragmatic presupposition. The third converts standard wh-interrogatives into either rhetorical or thetic questions. It is argued that while in the third instance we are dealing with a separate word and in the second with a clitic, the first to, hitherto unidentified or possibly falsely identified in relevant literature, appears to have both some characteristics of a clitic and of an affix.