1 Introduction
The recent debate among Poles concerning the problem of self-identity has been emotionally charged and polarizing. Undoubtedly, no single socio-political factor could have triggered the polarization and the debate surrounding it; rather, a sequence of in-country and out-country socio-political events and transformations have generated heated discussion and tensions around how Poles currently perceive themselves.
The literature concerning the problem of the self-image of Poles emphasizes that Polesâ opinion of themselves has been worsening significantly over the last 30â35 years (Rogaczewska and GoÅdys 2009, 7â9).1 In 1998, BartmiÅski observed that:
Recent years saw a significant intensification of self-critical attitudes among Poles, whichâin some circlesâtook on exaggerated forms, close to losing faith in ourselves.
BartmiÅski 1998, 15; translation ours2
A few years later, BokszaÅski pointed out that, at the same time, a positive self-image of Poles as romantic, rebellious, and tolerant patriots is recessive or even anachronistic since it is
[â¦] built with the use of means alluding to relatively archaic, traditional ideas thatâto a certain degreeâconstituted a part of the broader European culture of the 19th century. According to these ideas, Poles are rebellious souls, unhappy and noble; dreamers, whose defiance and disobedience is accompanied by the awareness that Europe appreciates their willingness to fight for survival.
BokszaÅski 2003, 51
Difficult years of political and economic transformation in Poland, starting in the 1980s, and the gradual opening to the West culminating in Poland joining the European Union in 2004, have had a significant impact on Polish self-perception. These changes resulted in increased emigration and a lack of barriers prohibiting contact with the so-called âWestern mentalityâ and âWestern living standardsâ. As observed by Rogaczewska and GoÅdys (2009, 9), these factors could have influenced the development or deepening of the Polish inferiority complex relative to the Western countries of the European Union, which Poles stereotypically perceive as generally wealthy, modern, and âcivilizedâ, with well-mannered citizens.
As self-stereotypes often draw from heterostereotypes, it is also possible that as Poland opened to the West, some negative heterostereotypes of Polish people started to infiltrate the Polish self-image. Such a possibility is indicated by BartmiÅski:
Foreignersâ opinions of our nation have always been negative. Weâve been perceived negatively not only by our closest neighbors: Ukrainians and Lithuanians (who viewed us from the position of weaker nations), as well as Germans and Russians (who observed us from the perspective of the stronger ones), but also by others, e.g., Swedes and, recently, by Czechs andâsurprisinglyâby Hungarians. These criticisms, often based on very particular sets of presumptions [â¦] have also played their role in informing our self-stereotype [â¦].
BartmiÅski 1998, 15
External influences and West-East tensions are not the only sources of the changes observable in the self-perception of Poles. The high degree of polarization in Polish politics and society is visible in the debates around almost all political and social issues in Polish public discourse (e.g., the 2010 Smolensk catastrophe, reproductive rights, and the crisis around the constitutional tribunal of Poland).3 This makes social dialogue difficult and leads to the construction of various in-groups and out-groups that are mobilized by politicians and the media to display contempt towards each other (an issue tackled previously from the linguistic perspective, e.g., by Chlebda 2017a, 2017b).
The socio-political context, outlined here only briefly due to the limited scope of the article, generates new linguistic labels through which we try to capture and describe communication processes accompanying the current debate on Polish identity. Many of these neological labels directly refer to the division into two groups of âusââbetter, ârealâ Poles, and âthemââinferior, ânot authenticâ ones. The main aim of our article is to investigate how the selected neologisms are involved in creating and upholding that dichotomy and, as a consequence, constructing in-groups and out-groups in the current public discourse on Polish identity.
The lexical material, through the prism of which we try to analyze the dynamics of this process, includes two groups of discursively antagonistic descriptors used as self-stereotype-motivated labels of âthemâ. The first group consists of a lexical field driven by the neological metaphor polishness is onion-like (e.g., cebulak âonionerâ, cebulactwo âonionismâ); the second is formed by the central compound noun fajnopolak âcool-o-Poleâ and its derivatives. The structural, semantic, and pragmatic analysis of these lexical units constitutes an intermediate stage in our attempt to understand the reasons for constructing discursive and social boundaries between âusâ and âthemâ. A more specific goal of our analysis is to examine the potential of the notion of othering in investigating the social divide, which is mirrored by the new lexis communicating the problem of the self-perception of Poles.
2 Research Material
Our corpus consists of two groups of the most active linguistic exponents of the antagonistic debate concerning the problem of the self-perception of Poles, described in the previous section. Both groups consist of relatively new, negatively charged entities that appeared in Polish in the last fifteen years.4
The first group comprises an extensive derivational nest driven by metaphoric extensions motivated by negative connotations and associations with the Polish noun cebula âonionâ. It includes new derivatives based on the noun cebula, such as cebulak âonionerâ, i.e., a stereotypical Pole who is perceived as envious, mean, or primitive, and cebulactwo âonionismâ, i.e., behaviors and attitudes stereotypically attributed to Poles, such as being envious, cheap, or primitive.
The second group of neologisms in our corpus consists of new compound nouns (and their derivatives) with the segment fajnâ, which is the root of the Polish adjective fajny âcoolâ. It includes one of the central entities in our study, fajnopolak âcool-o-Poleâ, as well as neologisms like fajnopolskoÅÄ âcool-o-Polishnessâ, fajnopolski âcool-o-Polishâ, and fajnopolaczek âcool-o-Polackâ. It also includes rarely used entities like fajnoprawak âcool-o-right-wingerâ or fajnokremlak âcool-o-Kremlinerâ, and other nouns used more frequently but referring to another semantic field like fajnokatolik âcool-o-Catholicâ, fajnoksiÄ dz âcool-o-priestâ, fajnoteolog âcool-o-theologianâ, or most recently, fajnonauka âcool-o-scienceâ and fajnonaukowiec âcool-o-scientistâ. In this chapter, the listed words in the series are used mostly for a semantic structure analysis of the noun fajnopolak, which we decided to focus on.
The material illustrating the functioning of these lexemes is Internet-sourced; this type of source does not remain indifferent to the specificity of the semantics and the confrontational, inflammatory pragmatic force of our neologisms, as cyberspace has semiotic potential for using destructive lexis (as demonstrated by KarliÅska and KoÅos, this volume). The samples were excerpted manually from social media (mainly
It should be noted that the semantic and pragmatic specificity of the two analyzed lexical series resulted in some visible differences in the selection of the linguistic material and its description. The entities involving the onion metaphor appeared in Polish earlier that the neologisms funded on the root fajnâ âcoolâ, which is why the latter seem to be less entrenched discursively (at least, such was their status while this text was being written). This characteristics is notable particularly in a number of contexts where the users either attempt to define the term fajnopolak or engage in trying to capture its range of denotations. Several examples illustrating this process were incorporated into our analysis in order to capture the moment of emerging, negotiating, and stabilizing the meaning of the noun fajnopolak âcool-o-Poleâ.
The spelling of the samples quoted in our analysis has been corrected in order to increase their comprehensibility. Unless otherwise stated, the emphasis in the quoted excerpts is ours.
The next section will demonstrate the methodological framework used in the analysis of these neologisms.
3 Theoretical and Methodological Framework
The neologisms included in our corpus can be considered an exemplification of neological key concepts, discursively charged in the sense of representing and identifying Polish discourse on Polishness. Through the semantic analysis of these terms, we try to capture the topics and themes that are most salient in the current discourse on Polishness. Also, modeling the semantics of the analyzed neologisms enables an insight into the argumentation lines in the axiological conflict concerning the current image of Polishness. Theoretical concepts referenced throughout the chapter include the notion of othering, the cognitive metaphor theory (applied in section 4), ethnolinguistic studies on stereotypes, as well as selected assumptions of cognitive discourse analysis.
In the confrontational debate concerning the contemporary self-perception of Poles, neologisms founded on the onion imagery and the series of compound words with the segment fajnâ âcoolâ play important pragmatic roles that we try to capture. Among others, they function as callsigns in a discussion on Polishness, but they are also frequently inflammatory signs, triggering antagonistic disputes. In the current public discourse on Polish identity, they are lexical manifestations of the speakerâs values and norms related to desirableâor more accuratelyânon-desirable aspects of Polishness and, at the same time, signals of distancing oneself from those who do not share this vision. This contextualized relationship between the discourse participants can be analyzed using the notion of othering.
3.1 Notion of Othering
Poul Rohleder, in his primarily psychological approach, defines othering in a way that foregrounds three aspects important to our analysis:
âOtheringâ refers to the process whereby an individual or group of people attribute negative characteristics to other individuals or groups of people that set them apart as representing that which is opposite to them. It refers to more than just stereotyping, as this can involve making generalizations about groups of people which may be positive or negative. Othering includes an affect component, where those who are othered are irrationally feared, even hated.
Rohleder 2014, 1306â1308; emphasis ours
The three highlighted elements are mirrored in our linguistic material and correspond to the key mechanisms involved in using the words we analyze, i.e., establishing a group of âothersâ, ascribing negative characteristics to âthemâ, accompanied by the emotional involvement of the speaker (often in the form of anxiety or hatred). It should be noted that the presence of âirrational fearâ can only be partially confirmed using linguistic data.
From the various approaches to othering, we chose to follow the asymmetric division proposed by Lajos Brons, who notices the differences between sophisticated and crude othering (Brons 2015, 70â73). We classify the two analyzed neologisms as examples of the latter type of self-other distancing as they require an easily presented distribution of undesirable characteristics in which the self-other identification does not play a decisive role. Conversely, sophisticated othering, as posited by Brons, requires a potentially neutral dissimilarity demonstrated and elaborated in order to draw a conclusion based on self-other identifying that some trait is undesirable. A broader, context-based explanation of this statement will be explored in sections 4 and 5, emphasizing that crude othering frequently serves to display contempt.
Our material also reveals a strong link between the process of othering and the specific emotional and cognitive state of the person who performs it. As previously stated, Rohleder defines othering as a negative social categorization based on fearâone of the most primal and basic emotions entailing, among other things, a distance from other people (Rohleder 2014, 1308).6 This mechanism is particularly visible in crude othering, exemplified by the words we study. The speaker sets apart a subgroup of âthemâ within the community of âusâ (i.e., Poles) based on a perceived unacceptable property. At the same time, the speaker posits themselves outside of this subgroup for fear of becoming âthemâ. In this sense, the process of othering mirrors the in-group norms, values, and attitudes that its members affiliate themselves with.
Bronsâs distinction between sophisticated and crude othering is by no means clear-cut. Since both analyzed nominal structuresâcebulak âonionerâ and fajnopolak âcool-o-Poleââare used by Poles to describe the other members of their own community, the neologisms can also be considered othering that is crude but was originally sophisticated, or othering that seems crude but is actually sophisticated (Brons 2015, 72).
3.2 Stereotypes and Self-Stereotypes as Point of View Exponents
Our methodological framework is informed by the linguistic theory of stereotypes as shaped primarily by Jerzy BartmiÅski, the founder of the Ethnolinguistic School of Lublin and one of the key researchers behind the notion of linguistic worldview (see Zinken 2009). As stated by BartmiÅski and Panasiuk, stereotypes are subjective images connecting descriptive characteristics of an entity with emotional assessments and evaluation through cognitive patterns based on a point of view (BartmiÅski and Panasiuk 2001, 393â394). In his later work, BartmiÅski described stereotypes as âsocially entrenched images of people, things and eventsâ (2013, 162), located in the so-called âstereotyped textsâ (2013, 169). Stereotypes, self-stereotypes, and point of view are therefore interconnected in communication and discourse on the level of implied meaning.
In our study, which views neologisms as exponents of stereotypization, we refer to three aspects of the linguistic codification of stereotypes proposed by Chlebda (1998, 38): (i) formal, which translates to our retracing the structure of both analyzed neologisms, (ii) pragmatic, which here consists of presenting possible pragmatic functions of the neologisms at play, and (iii) cognitive, which consists of listing the selected foregrounded characteristics of the referents of the neologisms. Our research design also corresponds partly to the selected structural and linguistic aspects listed by BartmiÅski (e.g., 2001, 381â382) among the exponents of the stereotypes: (i) analyzing a default feature or characteristic expressed literally, (ii) exploring metaphorical, non-literal meaning acquired in context, and (iii) depicting the so-called âinternal formâ of a word; its formal structure and motivation behind it.
In other methodological perspectives, stereotypes and self-stereotypes (seen as linguistic phenomena rather than psychological and sociological processes) have been linked with semantic prototypes (an observation made e.g., by Grzegorczykowa 1998, 111â113; BartmiÅski and Panasiuk 2001, 372). They have also been examined in a more traditional way as variants and invariants of the lexical system. An expanded description of the two neologisms may also suggest the possible metonymic nature of stereotypes7 at the conceptual and linguistic level. However, we chose not to follow this promising path in this study.
3.3 Significance of the Neologisms in the Discourse on Identity
In psychology, the link between individual and collective identity or their linguistic and discursive exponents was investigated e.g., within the integrative model of social identification proposed by Ruth van Veelen and associated researchers (van Veelen et al. 2016). Two cognitive processes highlighted in this construct are self-stereotyping and self-anchoring. The former is based on defining, describing, and evaluating the group prototype, and applying the in-group norms and values to the self (van Veelen et al. 2016, 5). The latter consists of the projection of personal characteristics on the in-group and distinguishing it from the relevant out-groups (van Veelen et al. 2016, 6). Discourse strategies used for othering, and in particular, words that trigger it, can be thus analyzed as tools of social identification.
It has already been argued that linguistically oriented discourse analysis could provide ample evidence for key components of collective identity (Czachur 2020, 216). Throughout different discourse practices and formation levels: topic, modality of expression, concept, and strategy,8 a neologism can be used innovatively to fulfill the pragmatic function intended by the speaker due to their semantic potential and its lack of semantic stability.
Despite this instability, it is possible to treat these neologisms as topic words that occur with outstanding frequency in a text or collection of texts compared with the reference corpus (Scott 2001) and, as a consequence, concepts (or keywords) that constitute an output discourse (Czachur 2020, 241).9 In this article, we focused on the qualitative analysis (i.e., tracing the importance of the words in the Polish identity discourse) rather than the quantitative one (i.e., calculating the frequency of the neologisms). We assume that the neologisms related to the Polish identity discourse are significant pragmatic exponents of the tendencies and aspirations within the community.
4 Depersonificating Metaphor as a Tool of Crude Othering: The Case of cebulak âOnionerâ
In this section we present quotes that illustrate the use of the onion metaphor to express disdain held by the authors for some manifestations of traditional Polish character. Both the use of onion-related neologisms and the traits discussed fall within the scope of crude othering: âtheyâ, i.e., people who exhibit the feature in question, are inferior to âusâ who do not. Although some of the features presented correspond to self-stereotypes or heterostereotypes about Poles in general, the authors of the posts should be understood as distancing themselves, implicitly, yet strongly, from such mindsets. Therefore all references to Polish people and Polishness in our subsection titles and analyses should be understood as a kind of shorthand for âtheir kind of Poles/Polishnessâ (see 4.2. for a more detailed analysis).
4.1 The onion Metaphor: Lexical Exponents and Their Conceptual and Lexical Function
The collection of metaphor-driven neologisms, all based on the extension of the metaphor polishness is onion-like, includes such terms as: the neosemanticism cebula âonionâ referring to some mindsets, attitudes, behaviors, perceived traits, and their manifestations, as well as its derivatives: cebulak/cebularz âlit. onionerâ, cebulaczek âlit onioner-N.DIMâ, cebulactwo âlit. onionismâ, cebulaczyÄ/cebuliÄ âlit. to onion; to act like an onionerâ, cebulacki âlit. onion-likeâ, cebulandia âlit. onionlandâ. The onion-related metaphor presents some idiomatic potency as well; it results in the derivation of such expressions as: Polak cebulak âPole the onionerâ, Polaczek cebulaczek âPolack the onioner-N.DIMâ, kraj kwitnÄ cej cebuli âland of the onion blossom (used with respect to Poland)â. According to the data excerpted using Google Trends, the first appearance of one of the most active terms in the collection, cebulactwo âonionismâ, dates back to 2010.
A short lexicographical query shows that occasional metaphorical expressions based on negative connotations of the noun cebula âonionâ had been in operation in Polish long before 2010, when the extensive field of study related to Poles and Polishness started developing. For instance, the noun cebula âonionâ itself occurred in a metaphorical sense as a âderiding nickname for someone who is perceived as a foolâ presumably in the 19th century (KarÅowicz, KryÅski, and Niedźwiedzki 1900, 256â257). Also, its derivative cebularz10 âonionerâ occurred in Polish in a similar sense and with the same negative axiology in some regional registers of Polish.11 The Polish language dictionary published in 1807 notes this noun with another metaphorical meaning: âsomeone who is cheap, stingyâ (Linde 1807, 219).12 These observations could substantiate the claim that the metaphorization of the concept of âonionâ has been present in the Polish lexicon for, at least, two centuries.13 Also, the Polish SÅownik stereotypów i symboli ludowych (Dictionary of Stereotypes and Folk Symbols; BartmiÅski 2022, 295â310) extensively documents the great significance of the onion in Polish language and culture, together with its negative connotations.
The group of new terms listed at the beginning of this section is noteworthy not only because of their new form (e.g., new derivatives cebulacki âonion-likeâ, cebulaczyÄ/cebuliÄ/cebulowaÄ âto onionâ) and the neosemantic extensions of two of them (cebula âonionâ, and cebularz âonionerâ). Most importantly, the utterances where these words are being used have a specific new reference. These lexical items refer to a specific concept of Polishness, as perceived by those who use the term and attributed to those Poles to whom the term refers. Their meaning is general and underspecified, though they all share a semantic invariant. This invariant communicates various negative character traits, attitudes, and behaviors stereotypically attributed to Poles by other Poles, or refers, in a broader sense, to features of Poles and the concept of Polishness that the writers condemn or at least criticize. We should note that as these are both neological units and metaphorically motivated lexemes, their meaning is not stabilized yet (or will not fully be, as they are strongly discursive-dependent lexemes); it is dependent on contextual activation of a particular metaphorized feature or scenario, therefore rather dynamic. Some neologisms (such as cebula âonionâ and cebulactwo âonionismâ) are also polysemous; their polysemy is motivated by the regular model of metonymic extension person for their behavior, attitude, or feature of character. The metonymic shift enables a personal reference, which plays an important role in construing direct and more explicit distance from a specific group of âthemâ, not only from the abstract features and behaviors projected on âthemâ.14
The terms listed at the beginning of this section, driven by the metaphor polishness is onion-like, despite their different lexical status and level of stabilization in language, refer to certain sets of qualities which form a number of semantic variants. In the subsequent sections, we synthetically present those that are the most active and stabilized in our research material.
4.1.1 Polish People are Envious
In our data, one of the most common characteristics of Polishness evoked by the onion metaphor is the stereotypical perception of Poles as people who tend to be envious, not empathic:
(1) Typowe polskie cebulactwo. Patrz, patrz, jakÄ ma furÄ. Na pewno bogaty albo ukradÅ.15
âTypical Polish onionism: âWill you take a look at his posh car! Iâm sure heâs either filthy rich or a thief!ââ¯â
(2) Typowy polaczek cebulaczek, boli dupsko, że ktoÅ z Ukrainy ma lepszy samochód?? SkÄ d wiesz, cebulaczku, czy ci ludzie nie przeznaczyli wiÄkszoÅci swojego majÄ tku na pomoc UkraiÅcom? PrzestaÅ cebulaczyÄ [â¦], bo tylko wstyd robisz.16
âTypical Polack onioner. Feeling butthurt that someone from Ukraine has a better car?? How do you know that those people didnât use most of their wealth to help the Ukrainians, you little onioner? Stop onioning [â¦]; youâre only shaming yourself!â
(3) Najgorsza w Polakach jest ta ukryta cebulaâja nie mam, inni też nie powinni mieÄ. Nie latam samolotemâzlikwidujmy, nie jeżdÅ¼Ä roweremâzakażmy, nie mam autaâopodatkujmy, nie korzystam z komunikacji miejskiejâograniczmy. Byleby druga osoba miaÅa gorzej niż ja.17
âThe worst thing about Polish people is that onion they hide inside themselves: âIf I canât have something, others shouldnât have it either. I donât fly, so airlines should be shut down; I donât ride a bicycle, so bicycles should be banned; I donât own a car, so cars should be taxed; I donât use public transport, so the use of public transport should be minimized. Itâs okay, as long as others have it worse than me.ââ¯â
According to the study by Rogaczewska and GoÅdys on Polish self-stereotypes, envy is considered to be one of the main Polish national vices (Rogaczewska and GoÅdys 2009, 15). From a psychological perspective, it is one of the emotions that is the most devastating for its experiencer and for their relationships (much more than jealousy) because it is entangled with anger and hatred. Envy also involves schadenfreude understood as satisfaction over somebody elseâs harm or misfortune.
The literature on Polish self-stereotypes suggests that there is a specifically Polish depiction of that trait, which is directly expressed in the quoted material, especially in (3) (the reasoning ascribed to a typical Pole: âIf I canât have something, others shouldnât have it eitherâ) and (1), where the Polish trait of envy is stereotypically related to a belief that somethingâan object of envyâhas been obtained by another person either illegally, or in an immoral way.18
Importantly, in contrast to other stereotypical traits communicated through the onion metaphor presented in the following sections, envy did not appear on the list of the most common heterostereotypes of Polishness twenty or so years ago (based on the comparative studies included in Kolarska-BobiÅska 2003). However, the study from 2013 conducted by the MANDS Agency provides different results, namely that being intolerant and envious are two major self-stereotypical Polish traits.19
4.1.2 Polish People are Cheap; Polish Grift
Another characteristic of Poles frequently represented in our corpus through the neologisms motivated by the metaphor polishness is onion-like can be presented as a complex of features referring to the stereotype of Poles as cunning penny-pinchers.
(4) Lidl wymyÅliÅ sobie promocjÄ, w której niezadowolony z towaru klient mógÅ odzyskaÄ swoje pieniÄ dze, nawet jeÅli produkt zostaÅ caÅkowicie zużyty. Nie przewidzieli jednegoânarodowego cebulactwa. Ludzie zaczÄli masowo oddawaÄ wszystko, co zakupili. Trzeba byÅo pokazaÄ puste opakowanie, to wypakowywali towar już na sklepowym parkingu i hura po zwrot pieniÄdzy.20
âSo, Lidl came up with this promotional gimmick that allows every customer whoâs unhappy with the product theyâd bought to get their money back, even if said product was already spent or consumed. But the company didnât take our national onionism into account. One of the conditions was that you had to show them the empty package, so people would simply take the product out of its package in the parking lot and off they went to get their money back!â
(5) Cebulandia na każdym kroku. MieszkaÅem kiedyÅ przy Parku Chorzowskim. PodjeżdżaÅ koleÅ. Portfel wypchany nominaÅami, by zaliczyÄ wszystkie atrakcje: [â¦] zoo i parÄ knajp, a auto zostawiaÅ na trawniku, bo 5 zeta na parking to fortuna.21
âEverywhere you look, you see traces of Onionland. I used to live near Park Chorzowski. There was this guy who used to drive over every once in a while. He carried with him a wallet stacked with cash, so that he could spend it at the local points of interest: [â¦] the zoo and a couple of bars, but he always parked on a nearby lawn because apparently paying 5 zlotys for the parking lot would have been too much.â
Those utterances relate to one of the main heterostereotypes of Poles represented by the expression polskie cwaniactwo âPolish griftâ. It means achieving oneâs goals, often at someone elseâs expense, by scheming, omitting the law, etc. The association of Polishness with grift is particularly strong in the negative German stereotype of Polaken, Polakke (BokszaÅski 2003, 57â61). It is possible that this heterosterotype has become a part of Polish self-stereotype, seen currently through the prism of the onion metaphor.
4.1.3 Polish People are Primitive, Mannerless
The onion metaphor tends to be a productive way of associating Polishness with low standards of personal culture and crudeness:
(6) Jak zwykle cebulactwo dookoÅa. Czekam na dworcu na pociÄ g, a jakaÅ baba na caÅÄ halÄ drze siÄ przez telefon i wszyscy wiedzÄ , że czeka na wizytÄ u lekarza, a ksiÄgowa pomyliÅa siÄ w papierach. Czekam jeszcze na kanapki z kieÅbasÄ w wagonie i bÄdzie komplet.22
âAs usual, onionism all around. Iâm at the station, waiting for a train, while some stupid cow is on the phone, shouting at the top of her lungs so that everyone knows that sheâs waiting for a doctorâs appointment and that her bookkeeper has made a mistake in the documents. I canât wait for someone to start eating sausage sandwiches as soon as we board the train.â
(7) Można nie spróbowaÄ sushi, ale byÄ ÅwiÄcie przekonanym, że to obrzydlistwo. Typowe cebulactwo. Tak samo jak klaskanie w samolocie, rÄkoczyny w Lidlu, kolejki przed otwarciem hipermarketu [â¦].23
âSomeone whoâs never tasted sushi in their life, but they are absolutely sure that it must taste awful. Typical onionism. Just like clapping on an airplane, starting fights in Lidl, queuing for an opening of a supermarket [â¦].â
This trait is strongly connected with perceiving Poles as uncivilized people, which is discussed in the next section. That negative, overgeneralized evaluation of some behaviors (talking too loudly on the phone) and habits (clapping on an airplane after landing) can be motivated by a stereotypically positive image of an average Western citizen who is commonly depicted as well-mannered and âcoolâ (see also section 5.2).
4.1.4 Polish People are Backward, Uncivilized, and Too Conservative
The onion metaphor can also be an exponent of a self-stereotypical belief that Poles are too conservative and therefore backward and uncivilized. These traits are often ascribed in contrast to a more progressive and liberal approach to certain social and political problems, e.g., reproductive rights. In the background of these issues, there are references to the belief that the Polish conservative approach to these problems is motivated by a relatively strong religious (Catholic) faith (however, this is not expressed explicitly in the samples quoted below). There might be some correlations between these references and a decline in public trust in the Catholic Church currently observable in Poland.24
(8) â Mamy 2024 rok i radoÅÄ z przyjÄcia tabletki dzieÅ po. [â¦] mi to tylko uÅwiadamia, jaki ten kraj to jest Åredniowiecze. Robimy sukces z oczywistoÅci.
â To jest Polska, Polandia, a nawet Cebulandia, nie zapominajmy.25
ââ The year is 2024 and everyoneâs cheering the legalization of the morning-after pill. [â¦] it reminds me how medieval this country is. Weâre treating something that should be taken as a given as if it were some great success. â Letâs not forget that this is Poland, Polandia, or even Onionland if you will.â
(9) [â¦] chodzenie w koszulkach z kotwicÄ to wciÄ Å¼ jest cebulactwo i siara, czy już elegancja i europejski salonowy szyk?26
âIs walking around in t-shirts with anchors27 printed on them still seen as an example of onionism and cringe, or has it already become a sign of elegance and European haute couture?â
The neologisms used in both of these utterances depict Polish people in a negative way, in contrast to generally positive stereotypical associations with Western countries, prevailing in the consciousness of many Poles.28 This is made explicit in (9), while example (8) presents the Polish attitude to birth control as more suitable for the Middle Ages. âOnionersâ, therefore, are those Poles who do not have the âWesternâ or âEuropean mentalityâ because they are not politically progressive enough, and they are too attached to religion.
4.2 onion as a Shaming Symbol and a Tool of Othering
Which connotations and associations of the Polish noun cebula âonionâ have become the source of metaphorical conceptualization and a negative evaluation of Polishness through that metaphor? The metaphorical extension may be activated by the perception of the onion as one of the cheapest vegetables and ingredients. Its cheapness may evoke associations with the so-called polska bieda âPolish povertyâ,29 as well as an excessive tendency to save attributed to Poles who are, hyperbolically speaking, willing to eat onions just to save money. The smell of onion, sharp and pungent, long-lasting, and difficult to neutralize, is perceived as unpleasant and persistent. Besides, the smell of stewed or fried onions is commonly associated in many cultures with peasant food (e.g., stewed onion with cracklings was and still is popular in many Polish regions). All this can activate an olfactory stereotype: someone who smells of onion is rustic, backward, uncivilized, and therefore uncool. Furthermore, the onion is a very common and easily accessible vegetable that can be preserved from one harvest to another. That could also be one of the reasons why onion is perceived as not a very âsophisticatedâ vegetable. It can summon stereotypical associations with Polish people, who are thought to be primitive, crude, and ignorant.
These connotations and associations form the basis for synesthetic metaphorical transformation. Its effect is not only linguistic: a new meaning emerges. The case of the metaphorical depiction of Polishness through the onion metaphor can be considered an example of the emergence of supralinguistic structure, since, following Ricoeurâs study, the metaphor â[may] bring to language the implicit semantics of the symbolâ (Ricoeur 1976, 69). One of the signs of this process taking place can be the popularity of a visual representation of the metaphor polishness is onion-like in memes which depict onions as an attribute of Polish people. The symbolic representation of Poles and Polishness is, presumably, a new discursive case. It may also turn out to be an ephemeral depiction, as stereotypical representations are not completely resistant to change.
Importantly, both the metaphor polishness is onion-like and its discursive symbol are semiotic carriers of a negative evaluation of Polishness and Poles. As already mentioned, in the contemporary Polish discourse on Polish identity, they play the role of exponents of certain pragmatic and discursive strategies of othering understood in this case as identifying âthemâ, meaning those who are onioners, and âusâ, non-onionersâthose who define ourselves in relation to who we are not. There are certain strategies for constructing such borders in the discourse through the onion metaphor. We list and discuss them separately below, even though in reality these are overlapping processes:30
-
stereotyping, which manifests in presenting an overgeneralized, therefore simplified portrayal of âthemâ, reduced to a set of negative traits;
-
hyperbolizing, being a consequence of constructing a stereotypical depiction of âthemâ, in which minor faults are magnified;
-
labeling, which leads to constructing new, substitute ânamesâ that intend to categorize âthemâ in the collective consciousness as inferior, untrustworthy, suspicious people, therefore not belonging to the labelerâs community;
-
ridiculing, understood as attributing negative features (in particular: funny, pathetic) to a person from a position of superiority, which in turn brings the satisfaction of a ruler to the ridiculer. The mocking effect results from the surprising, incongruent, and mechanical reduction of a human being, unique, free, and irreducible, to a vegetable, something not fully alive, very common, and easy to reproduce.31 It also arises from evoking associations with the embarrassing bad smell of onions. Activating these associations may lead to the effect of âshaming through ridiculingâ (Bergson 1977, 228). Such ridicule has strong pragmatic force and discursive effectiveness because humor is always an attractive and effective way of negating;
-
depersonification, manifesting in two aspects: in the deprivation of subjectivity through stereotyping and labelingâthinking and talking about âthemâ in a categorical, rather than a personalized way, and in ridiculing, discussed above.
All these strategies, discursively interwoven, are used to articulate distance from âthemâ who belong to an out-group. âTheyâ are relegated to that position because they do not fit âourâ vision of desirable modern Polishness. âTheyâ are uncool, cringe-worthy, too conservative. âTheyâ do not have a âWestern mentalityâ. âTheyâ represent all those traits which âweâ either do not accept in ourselves or which we fear. Constituting âthemâ, who are at the same time perceived as âotherâ and inferior, is necessary for creating a favorable image of âusââthose who are aware of the main Polish vices and those who perhaps have overcome them.
5 Othering through Evoking Seemingly Positive Traits: The Case of fajnopolak âcool-o-Poleâ
5.1 Structure, First Appearances, and Discursive Underpinnings
The second of the analyzed neologisms, fajnopolak, with the stems fajnâ âcool, greatâ and âPolak âPole, a Polish personâ connected with an infix, is related to a more progressive approach to national identity and could be rendered in English as the hyphenated compound cool-o-Pole. The proposed English translation preserves the structure of the Polish compound and will be used consistently in the following sections.
The first element of the compound is semantically related in Polish with adjectives similar to the English cool, nice, great, okay, and right. It was originally used as part of the name for the promotional campaign Fajna Polska âCool Polandâ organized by journalists from the Polish edition of Newsweek magazine led by Tomasz Lis (at that time the editor-in-chief) in May and June 2012, several days before the opening of the UEFA European Championship in Poland and Ukraine. The campaign was announced as âa sign of positive thinking about Polandâ32 and a way to work through âthat damned inferiority complex in our heads.â33 Press releases related to the campaign were âpresenting Poland as a beautiful, dynamically developing country and Poles as hard-working, resourceful and creative people.â34 The idea behind the campaign and the use of the adjective fajny (whose conventional lexical meaning is intrinsically linked with positive evaluation) may imply that Poland and the members of the Polish national community have so far had mostly negative associations, which should be re-evaluated in order to notice and appreciate the positive side of Polishness. Since this image, promulgated as positive and modern, had a clear political background and elaborated important aspects of Polish national identity, the entire idea was considered naïve by the opponents of the campaign, which probably triggered the new nominal coinage fajnopolak âcool-o-Poleâ.
The neologism first appeared as a reaction to Newsweekâs campaign and was used primarily within the political discourse to depict a specific group of Poles. As seen below in an excerpt from an essay entitled âFajnopolacyâ ââ¯âCool-o-Polesââ¯â, written by Polish conservative publicist RafaÅ Ziemkiewicz, the typical referent of the noun fajnopolak is utterly individualistic, devoid of community spirit bordering on selfishness, and focused on their own success:
(10) Pojawia siÄ też element, którego wczeÅniej nie byÅo: wyraźna niechÄÄ do wspólnoty. Fajnopolak Lisa âniczego nie oczekuje od paÅstwaâ, âliczy sam na siebieâ, i wie, że jego sukces jest jego indywidualnÄ sprawÄ .35
âThere is also an element that was not there before: a clear aversion to the community. [Tomasz] Lisâs cool-o-Pole âdoes not expect anything from the stateâ, âcounts on himselfâ, and knows that his success is his individual matter.â
Even in this early usage,36 the referent of the neologism is being discursively othered by a juxtaposition with the name of Tomasz Lisâa journalist with an opposing, more progressive ideological attitude than the one declared by Ziemkiewicz. Thus, the original meaning of the phrase Fajna Polska âCool Polandâ was semantically reversed by Ziemkiewicz in order to create an ironic re-evaluation. This connection between the semantic structure and pragmatic function of the neologism in question was initially well preserved and reproduced in its later occurrences. The noun with its ironic tenor was characterized as âa kind of sweet revenge of the right-wing counterculture and their journalistic Blitzkriegâ.37
A noteworthy period of the analyzed termâs semantic development could be traced back to 2019, when Piotr Stankiewicz, a Polish philosopher and essayist, published the book My fajnopolacy âWe, the cool-o-Polesâ, whose title was borrowed from the authorâs polemical column written in 2017 for Polish weekly magazine Tygodnik Powszechny. Stankiewicz did not seek to provide any particular definition of the word used in the title, which resulted in the readers, reviewers, and commentators attempting to provide one. His intention (Stankiewicz 2019, 13) was to expand the portrait of people who can be classified as fajnopolacy âcool-o-Polesâ in order to enable a better understanding of this group. In the final chapter of the book, he appeals to the readers (including himself among them) for a more friendly attitude towards others and a more critical attitude towards themselves:
(11) TÄ ksiÄ Å¼kÄ przeczytajÄ âmam nadziejÄ!âci, do których ona jest faktycznie adresowana. A wiÄc my, fajnopolacy. I używam pierwszej osoby, bo przecież sam też jestem fajnopolakiem. Sam popeÅniam te wszystkie bÅÄdy i wÅaÅnie dlatego o nich piszÄ, bo znam je dobrze z autopsji (Stankiewicz 2019, 160)
âThis book will be readâI hope!âby those to whom it is actually addressed. That is, us, the cool-o-Poles. And I use the first person, because I am also a cool-o-Pole. I make all these mistakes myself and that is why I am writing about them, because I know them well from my own experience.â
The excerpt demonstrates that Stankiewicz used the label fajnopolak âcool-o-Poleâ with a clear focus on the flaws and mistakes typical of the members of this category. Additionally, in his view, this category is broad enough to include almost anyone who identifies with Polishness. Accordingly, some of the definitions of fajnopolak âcool-o-Poleâ proposed by the publisher and the readers of the book (as illustrated by (12)â(13) below) retained the ambiguity expressed by the author and stated that specific elements of the stereotypically interpreted fajnopolak âcool-o-Poleâ can potentially be relatable to every member of the Polish community:
(12) Kim sÄ tytuÅowi fajnopolacy? Po trochu jesteÅmy nimi my wszyscy, a po trochuânikt. Bycie fajnopolakiem wcale nie jest takie fajne, jak siÄ z pozoru może wydawaÄ.38
âWho are the titular cool-o-Poles? All of us are partly them, and partlyânone of us is. Being a cool-o-Pole is not as cool as it may seem at first glance.â
(13) Fajnopolacy to my wszyscy i nikt z nas, bo nikt z nas nie zachowuje siÄ tak, aby pokryÄ swojÄ osobowoÅciÄ wszystkich omawianych w ksiÄ Å¼ce sytuacji, ale z drugiej stronyâniemal każdy z nas choÄ raz zachowaÅ siÄ tak, że mógÅby nosiÄ na piersi medal âfajnopolakaâ. Czy z dumÄ ?39
âThe cool-o-Poles are all of us and none of us, because none of us behave in such a way as to cover all the situations discussed in the book with our personality, but on the other handâalmost every one of us has behaved at least once in a way that would allow us to wear the medal of a âcool-o-Poleâ. But would we wear it proudly?â
The observations quoted above prove that the whole concept of a fajnopolak âcool-o-Poleâ is strongly related to broader abstract categories such as identity, self, and value hierarchy. All of them are being modified in discourse and consequently used to create oppositions, reinforce the emotional component, or, in particular, highlight the antagonisms within the discourse community. These functions were mentioned before as factors of othering and are visible in any act of usage that includes the investigated lexeme.
The increasing number of occurrences of the compound is a tendency that may be related to internal tensions within the Polish national community, as illustrated by the definition proposed in the year 2019 in The Language Observatory of the University of Warsaw:
(14) Polak budujÄ cy poczucie wÅasnej wartoÅci w kontrze do polskoÅci postrzeganej stereotypowo jako cechy prowincjonalnej, zaÅciankowej.40
âA Pole who builds their self-esteem in opposition to Polishness stereotypically perceived as a provincial, parochial feature.â
In The Language Observatory of the University of Warsaw, the word is marked by the style label lekcewaÅ¼Ä co âwith disapproval, depreciatingâ, which means that a person referred to as a fajnopolak is somebody who is discursively or rhetorically excluded. Somewhat ironically, the exclusion of the referents of this noun stems partly from the fact that they themselves are perceived as a group who deems themselves superior and acts with disdain towards the not-so-modern members of the community (a feature that we elaborate on in section 5.1.3). Furthermore, there is a clear distinction between supporters and opponents of the attitude in question. There is a considerable difference between the semantic components foregrounded by speakers who do not identify with the concept of âfajnopolakâ, and those highlighted by speakers who might define themselves this way. Since our analysis is centered around fajnopolak as a lexical means of othering, we concentrate on the former perspective, i.e., on the way this word is used to construe an out-group within the group of people identifying as Poles.
The concept of âfajnopolakâ is used predominantly in selected types of discourse to describe people who attempt to marginalize whole communities and who display their superiority over them. At the same time, this lexical entity highlights the wrongness of such an attitude (as seen from the perspective of a person who does not condone a certain notion of Polishness) and enables criticism of it. The fact that the lexeme fajnopolak âcool-o-Poleâ is used prototypically as an insult, as well as a vehicle of othering, is what makes the analysis more multidimensional. In this article, we examine utterances that expose negative attitudes towards people called fajnopolacy âcool-o-Polesâ or that attribute faults and defects to this group. In this way, fajnopolak âcool-o-Poleâ is a label for the out-group treated as inferior, and it can play a part in the process of othering.
The increase in the number of occurrences of the lexical unit over the last five years is a testimony to the importance of this lexeme in evoking stereotypical views of a modern Pole. Selected contexts extracted from the Internet and press sources, as well as from The Corpus of Contemporary Polish Language, suggest three main components of this concept: exaggerated displays of affiliation to the middle or upper class (section 5.1.1), imitating the citizens of developed Western European countries, especially their political beliefs (section 5.1.2), and a contempt displayed towards âothersâ (section 5.1.3). Interestingly, the group despised by the referents of the noun fajnopolak roughly coincides with those depreciated by the users of the metaphor polishness is onion-like.
5.1.1 Fajnopolak âcool-o-Poleâ as a Pretender Displaying Their Social Status
The first and most frequently mentioned trait of a person called fajnopolak âcool-o-Poleâ is their continuous hankering for a higher status (of the middle or upper class) and struggle to obtain as many status symbols as possible. As the linguistic evidence below demonstrates, the list of such symbols is not rigidly defined, but they are usually associated with social media self-images of being ambitious and successful, traveling to foreign countries and knowing their cultures, as well as having a skeptical approach to Polish traditions or possibly the whole national identity.
Another trait that can be found in some instances of the wordâs use is a tendency for the fajnopolak âcool-o-Poleâ to acquire attributes confirming their status. The difference between the first and second defining features is the difference between showing aspirations and presenting achievements, which might be self-contradictory, as it requires a person to be fulfilled and goal-oriented at the same time. Moreover, as seen in the utterances below, the expressive display of wealth provokes concern or compassion (15), accusations of affectation and flaunting caused by shame about their rural and potentially peasant origin (16), and mockery (17) from those using the noun fajnopolak âcool-o-Poleâ as a discursive tag:
(15) Fajnopolak zawsze nie jest wystarczajÄ co fajny. To jest takie aspiracyjne. To jest aspiracja, która nie jest fajna. To aspiracja, aby sprostaÄ wymiarom fajnoÅci, które nie sÄ do koÅca zdrowe. Fajnopolak to ktoÅ, kto jest fajny przeciwko komuÅ. Przeciwko tym, którzy nie sÄ doÅÄ fajnopolscy.41
âA cool-o-Pole is never cool enough. Itâs so pushy. Itâs an aspiration that isnât cool. Itâs an aspiration to live up to dimensions of coolness that arenât entirely wholesome. A cool-o-Pole is someone whoâs cool against someone. Against those who arenât like that cool-o-Polish enough.â
(16) Fajnopolak to najczÄÅciej osoba [â¦], która mieszka w dużym mieÅcie i chce pokazaÄ swojÄ nowoczesnoÅÄ, fajnoÅÄ i dobry styl, odrzucajÄ c tradycjÄ, a przede wszystkim wstydzi siÄ swoich przodków. W linii pokoleniowejârodzice fajnopolaka (pokolenie z lat 50/60) przeprowadzili [siÄ] do miasta ze wsi, a ich dziadkowie grzebali goÅymi rÄkami w ziemi i byli gÅÄboko wierzÄ cymi katolikami.42
âA cool-o-Pole is most often a person [â¦] who lives in a big city and wants to show off his modernity, coolness and good style, rejecting tradition, and above all, is ashamed of his ancestors. In the generational lineâthe parents of the cool-o-Pole (generation from the 50s and 60s) moved to the city from the countryside, and their grandparents dug in the ground with their bare hands and were deeply religious catholics.â
(17) Niedawny Orlen Warsawâ¯Marathonâ¯(âWarszawski Maraton Orlenuâ brzmiaÅoby dla zakompleksionych fajnopolaków za maÅo reprezentacyjnie) w niedzielÄ 26 kwietnia tradycyjnie zablokowaÅ póŠstolicy.43
âThe recent Orlen Warsaw Marathon (its Polish name would sound too unprepossessing for those insecure cool-o-Poles) on Sunday, April 26, traditionally blocked half of the capital.â
These examples discuss the reasons for specific attitudes of the people being called fajnopolacy âcool-o-Polesâ. Users of this discursive tag, while trying to reconstruct the motivations of this group, pointed to constant dissatisfaction and disappointment (15), being ashamed of lowly social origin (16), and hankering after things that are foreign because of a deep-set inferiority complex (17). Authors of the utterances are construing the referent of fajnopolak âcool-o-Poleâ as a person with weaknesses that are being desperately masked.
At the same time, the presented examples also show the consequences of the weaknesses: the confrontational attitude towards those more âinadequateâ (15),44 the efforts to conceal any roots or traces of the past (16), and the preference for foreign names (and practices) combined with reluctance towards Polish ones (17).
Displaying social, economic, political, symbolic, or material upper-class aspirations and achievements is treated as an extralinguistic trigger for attributing further negative characteristics to the portion of Polish society called fajnopolacy âcool-o-Polesâ.
5.1.2 Fajnopolak âcool-o-Poleâ as an Uncritical Follower
A majority of the utterances representing the political discourse suggest that fajnopolacy âcool-o-Polesâ are people who have neither personal opinions nor their own political views. As a result, their beliefs are probably copied, imitated, or dependent in another way. This makes them vulnerable to manipulation. They choose to uncritically follow specific political parties that lure them with some promises (e.g., legalizing the morning-after pill) even if apparently more significant economic issues (like increasing tax-free income) have not been tackled (as illustrated by (18)). Additionally, they are unable to provide any real details concerning their socio-political views other than platitudes (a trait that is being mocked in (19)):
(18) I tak to siÄ Å¼yje fajnopolakom. wiecie piguÅka dzieÅ po, aborcja. a kwota wolna od podatku? no wiecie gÅupio wyszÅo, ale najważniejsze że daliÅcie siÄ nabraÄ.45
âAnd thatâs how cool-o-Poles live. You know, the morning-after pill, abortion. But the tax-free income? Well, you know, it came out stupid, but the most important thing is that you fell for it.â
(19) Prawica za tych âoszoÅomówâ odkuÅa siÄ wiÄc âfajnopolakamiâ. Czyli zbiorczym okreÅleniem ludzi nieposiadajÄ cych wÅasnego zdania, idÄ cych za tym, co modne i bezkrytycznie ufajÄ cym mediom gÅównego nurtu. Fajnopolak na pytanie âJaka Polska?â odpowie âNo taka fajna i uÅmiechniÄtaâ. Zapytany o poglÄ dy, odrzeknie âTakie normalne, zdroworozsÄ dkoweâ.46
âThe right wing has repaid these âmadcapsâ with âcool-o-Polesâ. That is, a collective term for people who do not have their own opinions, who follow what is fashionable, and who uncritically trust the mainstream media. When asked âWhat kind of Poland?â, a cool-o-Pole will answer âWell, so cool and smilingâ. When asked about his views, he will answer âSimply normal, commonsensicalâ.â
Example (18) can be analyzed as equating being a âcool-o-Poleâ with slacktivism, a label that refers to the Internet users who âeffortlessly support an issue or social cause that have little or no practical effect other than to make the person doing it feel satisfactionâ (Leonard 2009). Supporting womenâs reproductive rights in utterance (18) is presented as adhering to fashionable shibboleths and not thinking about real issues, such as taxation. âCool-o-Polesâ are naïve, and it is claimed that they allow themselves to be duped by politicians.
Example (19) alludes to the emergence of the neologism and links it with the revenge of the right-wing participants of the political discourse on their political opponents. It also contains a short description of opinions considered typical for people defined as fajnopolacy âcool-o-Polesâ. All of them are presented as clichéd, unfounded, and repetitive, taken uncritically straight from media narratives, possibly similar to those created for the campaign Fajna Polska âCool Polandâ described earlier (see section 5.1).
Both utterances are representative of a frequent line of criticism directed at fajnopolacy, i.e., that they display permissiveness and conformity, and (from the perspective of their ideological opponents) appear to be imitating committed liberals. However, as illustrated by (19), their political beliefs stem from their herd mentality.
5.1.3 Fajnopolak âcool-o-Poleâ as a Person who Displays Contempt
The analyzed neologism should be considered pragmatically bidirectional. This is especially salient in contexts evoking contempt. Labeling someone as a fajnopolak âcool-o-Poleâ allows the speaker to judge them with disdain because of the assumed contempt that they show to others. Examples (20) and (21) demonstrate that a referent of the word fajnopolak âcool-o-Poleâ displays such an attitude towards those who are more conservative, less adaptable, and different from them (i.e., not adhering to their standards):
(20) Fajnopolak rzuca Åmiesznymi żartami o Polakach i razem z innymi fajnopolakami uważa, że dobrze siÄ ÅmiaÄ z ludzi, którzy majÄ konserwatywne poglÄ dy. Jest to typowe myÅlenie stadne, ponieważ fajnopolak boi siÄ odrzucenia przez grupÄ innych fajnopolaków.47
âThe cool-o-Pole makes funny jokes about Poles and, along with other cool-o-Poles, thinks itâs good to laugh at people who have conservative views. This is typical herd thinking, because the cool-o-Pole is afraid of being rejected by the group of other cool-o-Poles.â
(21) Tacy ludzie uważajÄ siÄ za wyższych moralnie i intelektualnie, każdy dla fajnopolaczka jest gÅupi, poza innymi fajnopolakami i âautorytetamiâ moralnymi. Bardzo lubiÄ pluÄ na PolskÄ i wyÅmiewaÄ siÄ z Polaków, nie potrafiÄ Å¼yÄ bez pogardy.48
âSuch people consider themselves morally and intellectually superior, everyone is stupid for a cool-o-Polack, except for other cool-o-Poles and moral âauthoritiesâ. They like to spit on Poland and make fun of Poles, they cannot live without contempt.â
In many of the above-mentioned utterances, including the definition proposed by The Language Observatory of the University of Warsaw (see (14)), the use of the neologism in question with reference to a specific person or group could be interpreted as an expression of contempt towards them. It seems as though language users postulate that fajnopolacy feel superior, deem others as less deserving, and treat them with contempt, in order to justify their own negative attitude with the argument that it is merely a fitting response to the contempt that fajnopolacy have shown.
5.2 Fajnopolak âcool-o-Poleâ as a Tool of Crude Othering
As stated in section 1.3, the examples presented in this paper prove the negativity of the term fajnopolak âcool-o-Poleâ and suggest that its meaning can be primarily stereotypical and mostly contextual. As a consequence, the vast majority of the definitional approaches created by the users of Internet forums are, in fact, semantic profiles contributing to the stereotype. According to observations made by van Veelen et al., presented in section 3.3, fajnopolak âcool-o-Poleâ can therefore be considered as an exponent of self-anchoringânominalization that is desirable specifically for those who would not wish to be defined this way, those who do not perceive themselves as representing the negative stereotype implied by the neologism.
From the pragmatic perspective, in most of the collected contexts, the neologism is a tool used frequently within discursive communication practices related to the abstract categories mentioned in section 3.1. As noticed by Wójcicka and Czachur (2023, 31â32), lexical entities in the function of nominalization or polarization based on the âself-likeâââotherâ opposition are an important resource for establishing the collective identity of a group.
Based on the examples presented above and previous observations, some basic assumptions about stereotypical traits of a referent of fajnopolak (ascribed from the speakerâs perspective) can be made:
-
it is a person who treats tradition and ancestorsâ legacy with contempt, perceiving them as worthless and preferring to replace them with modern achievements (section 5.1.1);
-
it is a person constantly unsatisfied with their social status and dominance scale over âothersâ, i.e., people representing the negative stereotype of a Pole embodied by the neologism cebulak âonionerâ (section 5.1.1);
-
it is a person who imitates those considered âcoolâ, mainly the residents of Western Europe and the United States of America, and their perceived traits, such as ease, wealth, and a relaxed attitude, rejecting both national and individual characteristics connected with Polishness (section 5.1.2);
-
it is a person who demonstrates superiority towards all members of their community categorized as not smart enough, less progressive, and not influential (section 5.1.3).
The collected examples reflect the experience-based and linguistic sequence proposed by BartmiÅski (2007, 87) for unfolding a stereotypeâan indication of the type of experience, cognitive model, evaluation, and the pattern of reception and interpretation. Othering can be treated, therefore, as a form of valuation of perspectives and a subjective reflection of reality. It is possible to list some major assumptions behind the stereotype of a fajnopolak âcool-o-Poleâ, as derived from the collected contexts: (a) Poles ape other nations, (b) Poles act like a herd, (c) Poles tend to flaunt their prosperity. All of these negative stereotypes bring contempt upon people called fajnopolacy âcool-o-Polesâ and, in effect, cause them to be othered by means of this label and the underlying stereotypical features.
The main communication strategies used alongside the described neologism include: irony resulting from the semantic-structural contradiction indicated at the beginning of section 5.1, the suggestion of weaknesses as mentioned above (aâc), and the creation of a negative stereotype with a presupposed hierarchy of values of the out-group (components of âcoolnessâ). What makes these strategies more likely to be classified as examples of crude othering is the inherent meaning reversal of âcoolnessââthere are no attested usages of this word that would imply pride derived from being called a fajnopolak âcool-o-Poleâ. Even Piotr Stankiewicz, while commenting on his newly published book in 2019, admitted that he also considered himself a âcool-o-Poleâ, which makes his criticism towards this attitude more honest and justified.
6 Concluding Remarks
All the presented neologisms are engaged in construing the ongoing discussion on Polish identity, which is by definition an intragroup one, but it also emerges as an intergroup one with two models of Polishness in competition. Neologisms connected to the notion of âcebulaâ âonionâ seem to refer more strongly to the cultural aspect of Polishness. New entities structured around the notion of âbeing coolâ tend to refer to the political and ideological aspects of our identity. Both of them influence our collective imagination of Polishness and testify to the tensions present in our collective identity.
The polarizing tendencies in Polish identity discourse and self-stereotype, leading up to defining someone as a cebulak âonionerâ or a fajnopolak âcool-o-Poleâ, can be classified as affirmation and contrast procedures in the establishment of identity (see BartmiÅski 2007, 22). They can also be associated with an apologetic and critical approach towards Polish cultural traditions (see Górny 2014).
The neologisms discussed in this chapter might be treated as linguistic stance-taking signals, i.e., indicators of the speakersâ take on Polishness. Through the mechanism of othering observed within a single national community, we see the social, political, and cultural values and attitudes that have been negotiated between members of the group. Fajnopolak âcool-o-Poleâ could potentially become a discursive keyword (the recent frequency of its usage does not allow for such a designation at present) referring to members of the national community too loosely connected to the stereotypical image of a Polish citizen created by the other side of the Polish identity discourse. A sharp division between âusâ and âthemâ, based on attitudes toward Polish and Western culture and values, is amplified due to the process of creating and distributing particular discursive keywords among members of the community.
The significantly higher array of the metaphoric extensions involving âonionsâ, their more complex origin, and the larger variety of language registers in which they appear are some of the differences between the two analyzed nouns. The mechanism of othering enabled by the strategies mentioned in section 4.2 is targeted at marginalization and preventing equal communication through conventional hyperboles, connotations, and negative or overgeneralized evaluations. These are motivated mostly by a stereotypically positive image of an average Western citizen who is âcoolâ and well-mannered.
Fajnopolak âcool-o-Poleâ is used as a nominalization predominantly for delegitimizing rather than marginalizing an out-group or its members. In most of the collected utterances, the neologism is a part of a broader discursive strategy of showing the pointlessness of somebody elseâs reasoning and attitude. Its pragmatic function should be classified as othering but applied less strictly than in the case of expressions derived from the noun cebula âonionâ. Inherent irony, which springs from the contradiction between the lexical meaning of the first component the whole compound, is an important tool for this strategy.
It should be stressed that the two groups of neologisms described in this chapter do not mirror each other, and their pragmatic and discursive relation is not symmetrical. Nevertheless, they introduce a distancing mechanism of othering into the discourse, and by the same token constitute a framework for Polish debate on identity. They function as labels (discursive tags or keywords) inducting context-dependent sets of previously entrenched features. The analyzed nouns are, therefore, legible linguistic exponents of stereotypization, which clarify the speakerâs point of view. Both neologisms are commonly known and generate new sets of conceptual components of the Polish self-stereotype. Thus, a discourse-oriented lexicological study of word meaning, backed by the theory of othering, is a promising way to extract the most important semantic and pragmatic components of national identity and Polish self-stereotypes, as well as to track the dynamic changes within these abstract and linguistically constituted spaces.
Contributorship Statement
The authors have contributed equally to the chapter.
Some studies go so far as to interpret the increase of self-criticism among Poles in terms of auto-racism (Stankiewicz 2018).
Unless otherwise stated, all the translations in this chapter are ours. We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of MichaÅ Antosiuk in providing English translations for this chapter.
In the journalistic discourse, the idiomatic expression wojna polsko-polska âthe Poland-Poland warâ has been coined to refer to that problem;
Most of them have been registered in the online dictionary of Polish neologisms The Language Observatory of the University of Warsaw (
A claim that comes in the form of an aphoristic sentence, âthe others come to represent that which we fear in ourselvesâ (Rohleder 2014, 1308).
The established path of lexical selection enables the speaker to foreground traits conventional for the stereotype and assign them in the act of nominalization even if they are not exposed in the context. Simultaneously, the act of usage referring to the stereotype can be read out in terms of generalization with a âtypicalâ target being stretched out onto all representatives of the category (see BartmiÅski and Panasiuk 2001, 377â378; BartmiÅski 2007, 91). Such reasoning can be considered metonymic only based on the recent cognitive linguistic theories foregrounding the âconceptual contiguityâ roots of metonymy (see Bierwiaczonek 2013; Kowalewski 2023) and its prototypical structure (see Peirsman and Geeraerts 2006; Barcelona 2011).
Within the meaning presented by Foucault (1977) and linguistically adapted by Czachur (2020, 118â121).
Czachur refers to those specific expressions in various ways: e.g., as topic words, keywords, or flagship words. He assumes that the most relevant way to indicate them are survey questionnaires, but at the same time, he equates topic words with collective symbols and metaphors, despite the prominent differences in their semantic description.
This noun has the phonetic variants cybularz and cybulorz.
It is registered in Jan KarÅowiczâs Dictionary of Polish Dialects published in 1900 (KarÅowicz 1900, 162). Additionally, Marciniak-Firadza shows the high productivity of the noun cebula âonionâ in dialectal registers of Polish (Marciniak-Firadza 2017, 16â19).
The lexicographical data collected from this source indicate that the noun cebularz âonionerâ literally referred to a person who sold onions. The chain of associations between the relative cheapness of onions as the object of trading and meanness as a stereotypical feature of their dealers became a cognitive basis of metaphorization which motivates the meaning of the noun cebularz âsomeone whose job is to sell onionsâ.
Moreover, the negative associations between onions and stereotypical perceptions of people and their physical appearance, character, behaviors, and attitudes is not limited to Polish but is also observable in other languages. For instance, according to a study by Larrivée and Longhi, the British associate onions with the French in a mocking way because the latter use onion in many of their dishes (Larrivée and Longhi 2012, 8â10). As per the Oxford English Dictionary, American and British slang include the noun onion, which metaphorically denotes âa foolish or contemptible personâ (
The polysemy is not only motivated by a regular metonymic shift but also by a chain of other metaphorical extensions, e.g., a pair of semantic doublets cebulaczyÄ/cebuliÄ/cebulowaÄ âto onionâ developed a meaning not related directly to the concept of Polishness: âto save money excessivelyâ (e.g., Wydaj 5 zÅotych wiÄcej na normalnego kuriera zamiast cebulaczyÄ. âWhy donât you spend 5 more zlotys on a normal courier service instead of acting like an onioner!â;
There are numerous historical and political factors behind such suspicious convictions about others; discussing them is beyond the scope of this study.
This fact is proven by the poll conducted in 2020 by Instytut BadaÅ Rynkowych i SpoÅecznych:
The anchor was a symbol of hope for regaining independence for Poland occupied by Nazi Germany. It was widely used as a symbol of resistance during World War II. Today it is still regarded by some as a distinct patriotic symbol.
This aspect of Polish stereotypes of the West is presented by Warchala (Warchala 2003, 80â83).
This is a phrase referring to a Polish cultureme functioning as a vehicle for the specifically Polish experience of poverty which has grown in the collective Polish consciousness. Polish poverty is associated, from a historical perspective, with the peasant origin of the majority of Poles and years of war and occupation. From the more contemporary perspective of the 1990s, it is also associated with the difficult time of political transformation.
The list of strategies is based on the typology of Karwat (2007) and van Leeuwen (1996).
This explanation refers to Bergsonâs so-called mechanistic theory of humor (Bergson 1977), superiority theories on laughter, represented by Hobbes (1954), and the theories of incongruence (Schopenhauer 1995).
In later posts published on the portal X, Ziemkiewicz credited himself as the author of the noun; however, this trail was not investigated in our study because it falls beyond its scope.
This remark will be elaborated further in the chapter, when the alleged tendency of fajnopolacy âcool-o-Polesâ to demonstrate contempt towards others will be exemplified.
References
Barcelona, Antonio. 2011. âReviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymyâ. In Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Toward a consensus view, edited by Réka Benczes, Antonio Barcelona, and Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, 51â88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
BartmiÅski, Jerzy, and Jolanta Panasiuk. 2001. âStereotypy jÄzykowe.â In WspóÅczesny jÄzyk polski, edited by Jerzy BartmiÅski, 371â395. Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS.
BartmiÅski, Jerzy, and StanisÅawa Niebrzegowska-BartmiÅska (eds.). 2022. SÅownik stereotypów i symboli ludowych. vol. 2: RoÅliny, iss. 7: Krzewy i krzewinki. Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS.
BartmiÅski, Jerzy. 1998. âPodstawy lingwistycznych badaÅ nad stereotypemâna przykÅadzie matki.â In Stereotyp jako przedmiot lingwistyki, edited by Janusz Anusiewicz and Jerzy BartmiÅski, 63â83. WrocÅaw: Towarzystwo PrzyjacióŠPolonistyki WrocÅawskiej.
BartmiÅski, Jerzy. 1998. âStereotypy mieszkajÄ w jÄzyku: Rozmowa z prof. Jerzym BartmiÅskim.â Scriptores Scholarum. Fobie i resentymenty: 11â17. https://biblioteka.teatrnn.pl/dlibra/publication/9015/edition/8894 (last accessed: May 31, 2024).
BartmiÅski, Jerzy. 2007. Stereotypy mieszkajÄ w jÄzyku. Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS.
BartmiÅski, Jerzy. 2013. âThe cognitive definition as a text of culture.â In The linguistic worldview: Ethnolinguistics, cognition and culture, edited by Adam GÅaz, David S. Danaher, and PrzemysÅaw Åozowski, 161â180. London: Versita.
Bergson, Henri. 1997. Åmiech. Esej o komizmie. Translated by StanisÅaw Cichowicz. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie.
Bierwiaczonek, BogusÅaw. 2013. Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield: Equinox.
BokszaÅski, Zbigniew. 2003. âMÅodzież krajów czÅonkowskich Unii Europejskiej o Polakach: Opinie studentów fiÅskich, francuskich i niemieckich.â In Obraz Polski i Polaków w Europie, edited by Lena Kolarska-BobiÅska, 46â63. Warsaw: Instytut Spraw Publicznych.
Brons, Lajos. 2015. âOthering: An analysisâ. Transcience: A Journal of Global Studies 6, no. 1: 69â90.
Chlebda, Wojciech. 1998. âStereotyp jako jednoÅÄ jÄzyka, myÅlenia i dziaÅania.â In Stereotyp jako przedmiot lingwistyki, edited by Janusz Anusiewicz and Jerzy BartmiÅski, 31â41. WrocÅaw: Towarzystwo PrzyjacióŠPolonistyki WrocÅawskiej.
Chlebda, Wojciech. 2017a. âJak (w Polsce) zostaÄ innym.â In Obcy/inny: Analiza przypadków, edited by MaÅgorzata Karwatowska, Robert LitwiÅski, and Adam Siwiec, 13â26. Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS.
Chlebda, Wojciech. 2017b. âCzy polskoÅÄ jest (sÅownikowo) definiowalna?â. Sprawy narodowoÅciowe 49: 1â12.
Czachur, Waldemar. 2020. Lingwistyka dyskursu jako integrujÄ cy program badawczy. WrocÅaw: ATUT.
Foucault, Michel. 1977. Archeologia wiedzy. Translated by Andrzej Siemek. Warsaw: PaÅstwowy Instytut Wydawniczy.
Górny, Maciej. 2014. âPolskie autostereotypy.â In Interakcje: Leksykon komunikowania polsko-niemieckiego, edited by Jacek GrÄbowiec, Alfred Gall, Justyna KaliciÅska, Kornelia KoÅczal, Izabela Surynt, and Christian Pletzing. Online resource. www.polska-niemcy-interakcje.pl/articles/show/54. (last accessed: May 31, 2024).
Grzegorczykowa, Renata. 1998. âO rozumieniu prototypu i stereotypu we wspóÅczesnych teoriach semantycznych.â In Stereotyp jako przedmiot lingwistyki, edited by Janusz Anusiewicz and Jerzy BartmiÅski, 109â115. WrocÅaw: Towarzystwo PrzyjacióŠPolonistyki WrocÅawskiej.
KarÅowicz, Jan, Adam KryÅski, and WÅadysÅaw Niedźwiedzki (eds.). 1900. SÅownik jÄzyka polskiego. vol. 1. Warsaw: Drukarnia Lubowski i SpóÅka. https://crispa.uw.edu.pl/object/files/416370/display/Default (last accessed: May 31, 2024).
KarÅowicz, Jan. 1900. SÅownik gwar polskich. vol. 1. Cracow: Akademia UmiejÄtnoÅci. https://polona.pl/ (last accessed: May 31, 2024).
Karwat, MirosÅaw. 2007. O zÅoÅliwej dyskredytacji: Manipulowanie wizerunkiem przeciwnika. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
KÅosiÅska, Katarzyna, Agata HÄ cia, Barbara PÄdzich, and JarosÅaw Åachnik. 2020â2024. SÅownik neologizmów polskich âObserwatorium JÄzykowe Uniwersytetu Warszawskiegoâ. https://obserwatoriumjezykowe.uw.edu.pl/ (last accessed: May 31, 2024).
Kolarska-BobiÅska, Lena (ed.). 2003. Obraz Polski i Polaków w Europie. Warsaw: Instytut Spraw Publicznych.
Kowalewski, Hubert. 2023. The puzzle of vehicle selection in conceptual metonymies. Leiden: Brill.
Larrivée, Pierre, and Julien Longhi. 2012. âThe foundations of discourse: The case of British stereotypes of the French.â Corela: Cognition, représentation, langage 10, no. 1: 1â18.
van Leeuwen, Theo. 1996. âThe representation of social actors.â In Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis, edited by Carmen Rosa Caldas-Coulthard and Malcolm Coulthard, 32â70. London: Routledge.
Leonard, Cindy. 2009. âIn defense of Slacktivismâ. bayercenter.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/in-defense-of-slacktivism/ (last accessed: May 31, 2024).
Linde, Samuel BogumiÅ. 1807. SÅownik jÄzyka polskiego. vol. 1. Warsaw: Drukarnia XX Pilarów. https://kpbc.umk.pl/dlibra/publication/8176/edition/12850/content (last accessed: May 31, 2024).
Marciniak, MaÅgorzata, Witold KieraÅ, Krystyna BojaÅkowska, Piotr Borkowski, Monika Borys, Wiktor Eźlakowski, Wojciech Guz, Åukasz KobyliÅski, Dorota KomosiÅska, Katarzyna Krasnowska-KieraÅ, Marek ÅaziÅski, Martyna Miernecka, BartÅomiej NitoÅ, Maciej Ogrodniczuk, MichaÅ Rudolf, Aleksandra Tomaszewska, Marcin WoliÅski, Joanna WoÅoszyn, Beata Wójtowicz, Alina Wróblewska, and Natalia Zawadzka-Paluektau. 2023. Korpus WspóÅczesnego JÄzyka Polskiego. Warsaw: Instytut Podstaw Informatyki PAN. https://kwjp.pl (last accessed: May 31, 2024).
Marciniak-Firadza, Renata. 2017. âCebula, Cybulin, Cybulski, czyli co wspólnego ma nazwisko Cybulski z cebulÄ .â Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Linguistica 51 no. 2: 11â25.
Marczewska, Marzena. 2018. âStereotypy etniczne we wspóÅczesnym polskim dyskursie publicznym.â Res Historica 46: 287â300.
Peirsman, Yves, and Dirk Geeraerts. 2006. âMetonymy as a prototypical category.â Cognitive Linguistics 17, no. 3: 269â316.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1976. Interpretation theory: Discourse and the surplus of meaning. Texas: The Texas Christian University Press.
Rogaczewska, Maria, and Aleksandra GoÅdys. 2009. Polacyâw puÅapce autostereotypów?. GdaÅsk: Instytut BadaÅ nad GospodarkÄ RynkowÄ .
Rohleder, Paul. 2014. âOtheringâ. In Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology, edited by Thomas Teo, 1306â1308. New York: Springer.
Schopenhauer, Arthur. 1995. âPrzyczynek do teorii ÅmiesznoÅciâ. In Åwiat jako wola i przedstawienie. vol. 2. Translated by Jan Garewicz. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Stankiewicz, Piotr. 2018. 21 polskich grzechów gÅównych. Warsaw: Bellona.
van Veelen, Ruth, Sabine Otten, Mara Cadinu, and Nina Hansen. 2016. âAn integrative model of social identification: Self-stereotyping and self-anchoring as two cognitive pathways.â Personality and Social Psychology Review 20, no. 1: 3â26.
Warchala, MichaÅ. 2003. âPolska i Unia Europejska: Wiedza, stereotypy, sympatie i antypatie.â In Obraz Polski i Polaków w Europie, edited by Lena Kolarska-BobiÅska, 67â84. Warsaw: Instytut Spraw Publicznych.
Wójcicka, Marta, and Waldemar Czachur. 2023. âTożsamoÅÄ zbiorowa jako zjawisko komunikacyjno-jÄzykowe: Refleksje z perspektywy lingwistycznej.â In TożsamoÅÄ jako proces: Od Johannesa Bobrowskiego do dyskursu o âponiemieckim,â edited by Anna DamiÄcka-Wójcik and Anna Matysiak, 19â38. Warsaw: LiteraturaâHistoriaâKrajobraz.
Zinken, Jörg. 2009. âThe ethnolinguistic school of Lublin and Anglo-American cognitive linguistics.â In Aspects of cognitive ethnolinguistics by Jerzy BartmiÅski, 1â5. Sheffield: Equinox.