How Many Moods Are There in Polish? The Case of the Polish Subjunctive
äºCognitive SemanticsSearch for other papers by Agnieszka Kaleta in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
The present paper is concerned with the Polish construction introduced with the subordinating complementizer żeby. The construction is interesting for its mood properties, which have been subject of a long-standing debate in Polish linguistics. The paper explores the semantic range of the construction and illuminates its mood properties. More specifically, it argues that żeby clauses represent a subjunctive mood and as such should be distinguished from indicative and conditional constructions. This distinction is described in terms of Langackerâs model of control and Givónâs theory of semantic binding. It is argued that the żeby construction constitutes an intermediate category between indicative mood, which grants the speaker a high degree of control over a proposition described in the complement clause, on the one hand, and conditional mood, which situates a proposition outside the conceptualizerâs dominion of control, on the other. The paper also highlights the iconic and metonymic motivation behind the distribution of żeby clauses in present-day Polish.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
BaÅko, MirosÅaw. 2012. Å»eby i iż. Retrieved July 11, 2020from https://sjp.pwn.pl/poradnia/haslo/zeby-i-iz;13517.html.
-
Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. Meaning and form. London: Longman.
-
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins and William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
-
Croft, William. 2006. Evolutionary models and functional-typological theories of language change. In A. van Kemenadeand B. Los (eds.), The Handbook of the History of English, 68â91. Oxford: Blackwell.
-
DeLancey, Scott. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 369â382.
-
Evans, Nicholas. 2007. Insubordination and its issues. In I. Nikolaeva (ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, 366â431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Givón, Talmy. 1980. The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements. Studies in Languages 4(3): 333â377.
-
Givón, Talmy. 1994. Irrealis and the subjunctive. Studies in Language 18(2): 265â337.
-
Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: An introduction, vol.1. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
-
Goldberg, Adele, 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
-
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Haspelmath, Martin. 1989. From purposive to infinitive â A universal path of grammaticalization. Folia Linguistica Historica 10: 287â310.
-
Huddlestone, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Jackson, Howard. 1995. Grammar and Meaning: A Semantic Approach to English Grammar. London: Longman.
-
JÄdrzejowski, Åukasz.2018. On adverbial mirative clauses in Polish. In V. Gribanova et al. (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. The Stanford Meeting 2018, 128â147. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.
-
Karttunen, Lauri. 1971. Implicative verbs. Language 47: 340â358.
-
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
-
Langacker, Ronald. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 2. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
-
Langacker, Ronald. 2010. Control and the mind/ body duality: Knowing vs. effecting. In E. Tabakowska, M. ChoiÅskiand Å. Wiraszka (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics in Action: From Theory to Application and Back, 165â207. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
-
Langacker, Ronald. 2013. Modals: Striving for control. In J. I. MarÃn-Arrese, M. Carretero, J. Arús Hita, and J. van der Auwera (eds.), English Modality: Core, Periphery and Evidentiality, 3â55. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
-
Laskowski, Roman. 1984. Kategorie morfologiczne jÄzyka polskiego â charakterystyka funkcjonalna. In R. Grzegorczykowa, R. Laskowskiand H. Wróbel (eds.), Gramatyka WspóÅczesnego JÄzyka Polskiego. Morfologia, 121â169. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
-
Nagórko, Alicja. 2007. Zarys Gramatyki Polskiej. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
-
Nordström, Jackie. 2010. Modality and Subordinators. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
-
Palmer, Frank, R. 2001. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Puzynina, Jadwiga. 1971. Jeden tryb czy dwa tryby? Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa JÄzykoznawczego 29: 131â139.
-
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum and Geoffrey Leech. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
-
Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten. 2009. A Typology of Purpose Clauses. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
-
Taylor, John. 1989. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
-
Tokarski, Jan. 2001. Fleksja Polska. Warszawa: PWN.
-
Tomaszewicz, Barbara. 2009. Subjunctive mood in Polish. In G. Zybatow, U. Junghaus, D. Lenertovaand P. Biskup (eds.), Studies in Formal Slavic Phonology, Morphology, Syntax, Semantics and Information Structure. Proceedings of FDSL 7, 221â233. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
-
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
-
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1998. Anchoring linguistic typology in universal semantic primes. Linguistic Typology 2(2): 141â194.
| å ¨é¨æé´ | è¿å»ä¸å¹´ | è¿å»30天 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| æè¦æµè§æ¬¡æ° | 747 | 123 | 5 |
| å ¨ææµè§æ¬¡æ° | 25 | 5 | 0 |
| PDFä¸è½½æ¬¡æ° | 49 | 10 | 0 |
How Many Moods Are There in Polish? The Case of the Polish Subjunctive
äºCognitive SemanticsSearch for other papers by Agnieszka Kaleta in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
The present paper is concerned with the Polish construction introduced with the subordinating complementizer żeby. The construction is interesting for its mood properties, which have been subject of a long-standing debate in Polish linguistics. The paper explores the semantic range of the construction and illuminates its mood properties. More specifically, it argues that żeby clauses represent a subjunctive mood and as such should be distinguished from indicative and conditional constructions. This distinction is described in terms of Langackerâs model of control and Givónâs theory of semantic binding. It is argued that the żeby construction constitutes an intermediate category between indicative mood, which grants the speaker a high degree of control over a proposition described in the complement clause, on the one hand, and conditional mood, which situates a proposition outside the conceptualizerâs dominion of control, on the other. The paper also highlights the iconic and metonymic motivation behind the distribution of żeby clauses in present-day Polish.
| å ¨é¨æé´ | è¿å»ä¸å¹´ | è¿å»30天 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| æè¦æµè§æ¬¡æ° | 747 | 123 | 5 |
| å ¨ææµè§æ¬¡æ° | 25 | 5 | 0 |
| PDFä¸è½½æ¬¡æ° | 49 | 10 | 0 |
