On scalarity in the verbal domain : the case of Polish psych verbs : part 1 : Polish perfective psych verbs and their prefixes

Dokonane czasowniki stanów emocjonalnych analizowane są zwykle jako czasowniki wyróżniające fazę początkową danego stanu. Te same predykaty mogą w pewnych kontekstach składniowych wyrażać znaczenia ewolutywne. W artykule przedstawiona jest hipoteza, że w kontekstach inicjalnych, czasownik wyraża moment zaistnienia stanu w nosicielu. W kontekstach ewolutywnych, predykat wyraża stopniową zmianę na skali intensywności stanu lub stopniowe nabycie stanu przez wszystkie części podzielnego argumentu czasownika. Zależność interpretacji wewnętrznej struktury temporalnej zdarzeń opisywanych przez dokonane czasowniki stanów psychologicznych od kontekstu składniowego pokazuje, wbrew tezie w pracy Rothstein (2020), że interpretacja rodzaju zdarzenia ustalana jest w języku polskim na poziomie struktury zdaniowej (VoiceP/vP).Polish perfective psych verbs are generally analyzed as inceptive predicates focusing the beginning of an emotional state holding of an experiencer. However, a perfective psych verb can also denote an event of gradual scalar change. In this paper, I argue that on the inceptive reading a perfective psych predicate denotes a transition from a state in which p does not hold to a state in which p holds of an experiencer. In events of gradual change, there is an increase in the degree on the scale of intensity of a given psych state or on the (abstract) extent scale contributed by a verb’s argument. As the internal temporal structure of the events denoted by perfective psych predicates can depend on elements of syntactic context outside the verb, the domain of aspectual composition in Polish is not the verb, pace Rothstein (2020), but VoiceP/vP

On the form-function dichotomy in linguistic theory

This paper focuses on an important divide in theoretical linguistics between two broad perspectives on the structural properties of human languages, generative and functionalist. In the former, linguistic structure is explained in terms of discrete categories and highly abstract principles, which may be language-independent or language-specific and purely formal or functional in nature. In the latter, explanation for why languages have the structure that they do is found ‘outside’ language, in the general principles of human cognition and the communicative functions of language. The aim of this paper is to highlight the need for abstractness, explicitness, simplicity and theoretical economy in linguistic description and explanation. The question is not whether principles of grammar are formal or functional. The question is whether the principles that are postulated to explain linguistic structure express true generalizations

O sporach wokół formy i funkcji we współczesnym językoznawstwie. Formalizm kontra funkcjonalizm?

This paper focuses on the divide in current theorizing about language and the empirical, methodological, and philosophical domain of linguistics in two dominant theoretical perspectives: functionalist and formalist. The former takes communication to be the main function of language and it is impressed by the cultural, conventional nature of language. In the latter, the proper object of study is the human language faculty, the core of which is to be explained in terms of human biology, i.e. innate principles of grammar formation. It is shown here that the controversy between today’s functionalists and formalists can be traced back to the earliest days of human thinking about language. The conceptual turns that have occurred in the main formalist paradigm, Chomsky’s generative grammar, have resulted in changes in the aims and methods of formal linguistic analysis. The recent developments shifting attention away from the innate grammatical principles to the interactions between the grammar and two external interface systems (of sound and meaning) and highlighting the need of economy and simplicity as conditions inherent to a computational system that is to be an ‘optimal’ solution to the task of relating sound and meaning have brought formalists closer to functionalists than ever before. Nevertheless, the philosophical and methodological foundations of the two broad research programs, seeking an explanation of grammatical principles either in terms of the communicative needs of the speakers and principles of communicative efficiency or in terms of computational efficiency (minimum parameters and mathematical complexity), remain distinct. This paper focuses on the divide in current theorizing about language and the empirical, methodological, and philosophical domain of linguistics in two dominant theoretical perspectives: functionalist and formalist. The former takes communication to be the main function of language and it is impressed by the cultural, conventional nature of language. In the latter, the proper object of study is the human language faculty, the core of which is to be explained in terms of human biology, i.e. innate principles of grammar formation. It is shown here that the controversy between today’s functionalists and formalists can be traced back to the earliest days of human thinking about language. The conceptual turns that have occurred in the main formalist paradigm, Chomsky’s generative grammar, have resulted in changes in the aims and methods of formal linguistic analysis. The recent developments shifting attention away from the innate grammatical principles to the interactions between the grammar and two external interface systems (of sound and meaning) and highlighting the need of economy and simplicity as conditions inherent to a computational system that is to be an ‘optimal’ solution to the task of relating sound and meaning have brought formalists closer to functionalists than ever before. Nevertheless, the philosophical and methodological foundations of the two broad research programs, seeking an explanation of grammatical principles either in terms of the communicative needs of the speakers and principles of communicative efficiency or in terms of computational efficiency (minimum parameters and mathematical complexity), remain distinct

Continuity in language: styles and registers in literary and non-literary discourse

Praca recenzowana / peer-reviewed paperIntroduction: "Linguistic diversity captured with the terms style and register is of interest to literary theory and to linguistic theory, as both are concerned with how individuals and the multiple social groups and networks that they can simultaneously be members of articulate themselves and how they distinguish themselves from others, the reasons that speakers/writers may have for their choice of linguistic forms, the ways in which these linguistic forms can be creatively exploited in particular contexts as well as with the effects that the choices and departures from norms or conventions of use may have on the hearers/readers. Among the issues of common interest to literary and linguistic theory are the formal, cultural, historical, axiological, moral, ideological, social, psychological, hermeneutic, and other aspects of the structure, production and perception of language. These aspects are traditionally studied in relation to general concepts of convention and creativity, literalness and fictionality, objectivity and subjectivity, politeness and power, consensus and conflict, class and stigma, affect, personal identity and allegiance, and many others."(...