Towards a History of Linguistics in Poland: From the Early Beginnings to the End of the Twentieth Century 9789027245915, 9027245916

1,309 39 21MB

English Pages 335 [356] Year 2001

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

Towards a History of Linguistics in Poland: From the Early Beginnings to the End of the Twentieth Century
 9789027245915, 9027245916

Table of contents :
1. Foreword & Acknowledgements
2. Editors' Introduction
3. Part I: Polish Linguistics: Origins and Trends
4. Chapter 1 General Linguistics in the History of the Languages Sciences in Poland: Late 1860s - late 1960s (by Wasik, Zdzislaw)
5. Chapter 2 Origins and Developments of Applied Linguistics in Poland (by Grucza, Franciszek)
6. Chapter 3 Lexicography in Poland: From the early beginnings to the present (by Piotrowski, Tadeusz)
7. Chapter 4 Dialectology in Poland, 1873-1997 (by Gogolewski, Stanislaw)
8. Chapter 5 Onomastics in Poland: From 19th-century beginnings to the present (by Gala, Slawomir)
9. Part II: Portraits of Major Polish Linguists
10. Chapter 6 Jan Baudouin de Courtenay's Contribution to General Linguistics (by Adamska-Salaciak, Arleta)
11. Chapter 7 Mikolaj Kruszewksi and 20th-Century Linguistics (by Berezin, Fedor Mixajlovic)
12. Chapter 8 Mikolaj Rudnicki's General Linguistic Conceptions (by Banczerowski, Jerzy)
13. Chapter 9 Jerzy Kurylowicz as Indo-Europeanist and Theorist of Languages (by Smoczynski, Wojciech)
14. Chapter 10 Aspects of Ludwik Zabrocki's Linguistic World (by Banczerowski, Jerzy)
15. Polish Summaries (Streszczenia polskie)
16. Index of Authors
17. Index of Subjects

Citation preview

TOWARDS A HISTORY OF LINGUISTICS IN POLAND

AMSTERDAM STUDIES IN THE THEORY AND HISTORY OF LINGUISTIC SCIENCE General Editor E.F. KONRAD KOERNER (University of Ottawa) Series III - STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF THE LANGUAGE SCIENCES

Advisory Editorial Board Cristina Altman (Saõ Paulo); Ranko Bugarski (Belgrade) Lia Formigari (Rome); John E. Joseph (Edinburgh) Hans-Josef Niederehe (Trier); Emilio Ridruejo (Valladolid) Rosane Rocher (Philadelphia); Vivian Salmon (London) Kees Versteegh (Nijmegen)

Volume 102

Edited by Konrad Koerner and Aleksander Szwedek Towards a History of Linguistics in Poland From the early beginnings to the end of the twentieth century

TOWARDS A HISTORY OF LINGUISTICS IN POLAND FROM THE EARLY BEGINNINGS TO THE END OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

EDITED BY E.F.K. KOERNER University of Ottawa ALEKSANDER SZWEDEK Nicholas Copernicus University, Torun

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY AMSTERDAM/PHILADELPHIA

To the memory of Mikolaj Kruszewski on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of his birth on  December 1851

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences — Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.

CIP-data for this book is available from the Library of Congress

ISBN 90 272 4591 6 (Eur.) / 1 58811 177 6 (US) (Hb; alk. paper) © 2001 - John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. • P.O.Box 63224 • 1020 ME Amsterdam • The Netherlands John Benjamins North America • P.O.Box 27519 • Philadelphia PA 19118-0519 • USA

FOREWORD & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS On the occasion of a visit to Torun in April 1993 by the first editor, the idea was broached to consider undertaking a special (double) issue of Historiographie Linguistica devoted to the History of Linguistics in Poland. As the record shows, it took several years to eventually realize such a project. At the time it appeared to us that there was little interest in the history of linguistics in Poland. Since the Fall of the Berlin Wall people were interested in more 'useful' activities (cf. this volume, pp. 117-118, as an example), and the his­ tory of such a subject as the study of language was, understandably, at the bottom of priorities. Still, we remained undaunted, persevered against many odds, 1 and the result of our joint efforts was, we believe, quite respectable (see HL 25:1/2 [1998]). On 220 printed pages we had managed to bring together articles dealing with the history, development, and present state of such subjects as lexicography, dialectology, onomastics, historical-compara­ tive linguistics, and the philosophy of language, including logic. As well, there were articles devoted to three of the most distinguished Polish linguists: Jan Baudouin de Courtenay, Mikolaj Kruszewski, and Jerzy Kurylowicz. However, we felt that one major subject, albeit discussed in some detail in conjunction with the work of Baudouin and Kruszewski, had been missing, and so we invited Zdzislaw Wasik to write a survey article on the history of general linguistics in Poland which was duly published in Historiographia Linguistica 26.149-198 (1999), and which added treatments of the work of Jan Rozwadowski (1867-1935), Wiktor Porzezinski (1870-1929), Stanislaw Szober (1879-1939), Andrzej Gawronski (1885-1927), Witold Doroszewski (1899-1976), Tadeusz Milewski (1906-1966), and others, including linguists whose work had been the subject of the previously mentioned articles. Soon after publication of the special HL issue, the editors, realizing that their efforts had been well received by the scholarly community, conceived of the idea not to have those scholarly papers remain buried in a specialist journal but to retake and rework the bulk of these articles, invite Professors Franciszek Grucza of Warsaw and Jerzy Bañczerowski of Poznan to con­ tribute studies from their fields of expertise, Applied Linguistics and Theo­ retical Linguistics, respectively. Bañczerowski, in particular, provided in1

Some of these technical and other difficulties were recorded in the "Chief Editor's Fore­ word" in HL 25:l/2.iii-iv (1998), and need not be reiterated here.

vi

EDITORS' FOREWORD

depth analyses of the scientific contributions of two further Polish scholars of distinction, Mikołaj Rudnicki (1881-1978) and Ludwik Zabrocki (19071977). Finally, we decided to replace the short evaluations of the work by Kurylowicz (1895-1878) in the areas of Theoretical and Indo-European Lin­ guistics written by three separate authors (see HL 25.141-162) by a single account produced by Professor Wojciech Smoczyhski of Krakow. As in the original project, there was considerable work left for the editors, not all of which could be related here. It involved, again, translations into English, revisions of texts written in English, ensuring that they conformed to our expectations, both in content and form. In a number of instances, we received help from translators Dr Ariadna Strugielska (Drozdowicz), Dr Waldemar Skrzypczak, Mr Tomasz Fojt and Mr Przemyslaw Zywiczyński, all from the English Department in Toruh, and Dr Danuta Kierzkowska from the Warsaw Institute of Applied Linguistics. Consultations with Prof. Barbara Kielar from the aforementioned Warsaw Institute and Prof. Stefan Grzybowski of the Toruh Institute of Slavic Lan­ guages contributed to the quality of the final texts. Their names may not al­ ways appear at the bottom of the first page of each chapter that has been translated, but they all deserve a public "Thank you!" here. One person in particular deserves special mention as his name does not always appear where it rightfully should: John Kearns, Lecturer in Toruh University's En­ glish Department, who not only meticulously proofread several of the trans­ lations before they were sent on to Ottawa for the production of camera-ready copy, but very substantially contributed to the style and consistency of many texts. His professionalism and generosity have been truly exemplary. We would also like to thank all those who helped us with all kinds of bioand bibliographical data. Apart from various kind librarians, the following showed particularengagement:Prof. Teresa Dobrzyńiska and Prof. Ewa Wolnicz-Pawłowska of Warsaw, Prof. Kazimierz Polahski of Krakow, and Dr Wladyslaw Zabrocki of Poznań. Thanks are also due to a number of institutions for their kind help, includ­ ing permission to reissue materials copyrighted by them: to the personnel de­ partments of various universities for providing dates of individuals; to the publishers of Adam Mickiewicz University of Poznah and the Jagiellonian University of Krakow for permission to reprint papers; to Ksiaznica Miejska in Toruh for the picture of Samuel Linde's monument, and the University Li­ brary in Toruh for the reproduction of the title-page of his famous dictionary. Konrad Koerner Hull, Quebec

August 2001

Aleksander Szwedek Bydgoszcz

CONTENTS Foreword & Acknowledgements Editors' Introduction

v ix

PART I: Polish Linguistics: Origins and Trends CHAPTER 1

General Linguistics in the History of the Language Sciences in Poland: Late 1860s - late 1960s (Zdzisław Wasik)

3

CHAPTER 2

Origins and Development of Applied Linguistics in Poland (Franciszek Grucza)

53

CHAPTER 3

Lexicography in Poland: From the early beginnings to the present (Tadeusz Piotrowski)

101

CHAPTER 4

Dialectology in Poland, 1873-1997 (Stanislaw Gogolewski)

123

CHAPTER 5

Onomastics in Poland: From 19th-century beginnings to the present (Slawomir Gala)

147

PART II: Portraits of Major Polish Linguists CHAPTER 6

Jan Baudouin de Courtenay's Contribution to General Linguistics (Arleta Adamska-Salaciak)

175

CHAPTER 7

Mikolaj Kruszewski and 20th-century Linguistics (Fedor M. Berezin) . . 209 CHAPTER 8

Mikolaj Rudnicki's General Linguistic Conceptions (Jerzy Bańczerowski)

232

CHAPTER 9

Jerzy Kuryłowicz as Indo-Europeanist and Theorist of Language (Wojciech Smoczynski)

255

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

C H A P T E R 10

Aspects of Ludwik Zabrocki's Linguistic World (Jerzy Bańczerowski) . 273 Polish Summaries (Streszczenia polskie)

313

Index of Authors Index of Subjects

319 329

LOCATION OF PHOTOGRAPHS AND ILLUSTRATIONS Photograph of statue of Samuel Bogumił Linde (1771-1841) in Toruń . Title-page of Volume I (1807) of Linde's monolingual Polish dictionary Map 1: Schematic distribution of Polish dialects Map 2: The loss of voicing of v v following voiceless consonants (after Dejna 1994[1981], Map 10) Picture of the young Baudouin de Courtenay (1845-1929) Photograph of Mikolaj Kruszewski (1851-1887) Title-page of Kruszewski's Uber die Lautabwechslung (Kazan, 1881) . Photograph of Mikolaj Rudnicki (1881-1978) Photograph of Jerzy Kurylowicz (1895-1978) Photograph of Ludwik Zabrocki (1907-1977) Fig.l: The degrees of susceptibility to nasal resonance

107 109 133 152 177 211 216 233 262 274 292

EDITORS' INTRODUCTION Looking at previous Polish scholarship devoted to the History of Lin­ guistics during the 20th century in general, not to mention the historiography of linguistic scholarship in Poland specifically, one comes up with a rather meagre crop. Having left hardly any stone unturned to dig up whatever may have been written that touches upon or is in fact devoted to the history of lin­ guistic work in Poland during the past two or more centuries (see the bibliog­ raphy appended to this introduction), we believe it is not unfair to say that most of it is essentially textbook history written for the general reader in lin­ guistics, more often than not addressed to neophytes and, quite typically, derivative and unoriginal. Still, it would be unfair not to acknowledge the particular political situa­ tions Poland has had to endure in its at times rather tormented history and, on the other hand, not to take notice of the fact that at least in recent years good progress has been made in linguistic historiography, if we scan the publica­ tions in this area of interest between 1901 (an essay by Baudouin de Courtenay, followed by a much larger account in 1909) and 1999 (the volume edited by Andrzej Srodka, which was conceived as part of an overall stock-taking of the sciences in Poland). However, if we look at this volume more closely, we realize that we should have been forewarned that the subject reads "Nauki filologiczne [Philological sciences]", not linguistics. As a result, the bulk of the contributions is devoted to literature, not the science of language. It's true that the chapters on "Classical philology" (by Marian Plezia), "Oriental stu­ dies" (by Jan Reychman), "Polish studies in linguistics" (by Irena Bajerowa), or "Slavistic linguistics" (by Janusz Rieger) are of distinct interest to the historian of linguistics insofar as they deal with language study, though main­ ly Zdzislaw Wasik on "General Linguistics" remains central to the subject of our present undertaking. It appears that only the late Adam Heinz's (1914-1984) 518-page Dzieje językoznawstwa w zarysie [A history of linguistics in outline] of 1978 pro­ vided a broad survey of the methodology of linguistic thought and practice from antiquity to the mid-20th century which would compare to accounts un­ dertaken in the West (cf. Koerner 1978 for a 'tour d'horizon' of the scholar­ ship between 1822 and 1976). As it is, Heinz's work remained in the conven­ tional format; it reminds us, also in the addition of pictures of scholars and

x

EDITORS' INTRODUCTION

other illustrations, of Holger Pedersen's popular book (Pedersen 1931), though it is true that the scope of the Danish Indo-Europeanist's book was less broad. However, the various scholarly efforts in this direction by others, notably Stanislaw Urbańczyk (e.g., 1993 and 1994[1978]), should not be overlooked. But by the 1990s, the situation generally appears to have im­ proved from fairly superficial listings of names, works and problems to more in-depth, truly historiographic studies, for instance when we take note of Joanna Williams Radwańska's 1993 monograph on Kruszewski and Arleta Adamska-Sałaciak's study on the historical work of the latter as well as Baudouin de Courtenay, and Rozwadowski. Yet, with all due respect to our colleagues and predecessors, we believe that the present volume attempts to go a bit farther and start to lay the ground work for a History of Polish Linguistics still to be written. In 1998, we pub­ lished, in a double issue of Historiographia Linguistica a series of articles covering such fields as dialectology, lexicography, general and — if we take Jan Safarewicz's piece on Kurylowicz as an Indo-Europeanist (HL 25.147152) also into account — historical linguistics, and so we were in a position to retake a larger number of them here and mould them, together with several additional articles (by Franciszek Grucza, Jerzy Bańczerowski, and Wojciech Smoczyhski) plus the survey of general linguistics by Zdzisław Wasik, which had previously been published in Historiographia Linguistica 26.149-198 (1999) into a fairly coherent volume of altogether ten chapters of almost equal length. Given the focus of the present volume on matters related to Linguistics, both theoretical and applied, we have decided not to reprint Jerzy Pelc's "Logic of Language and Philosophy of Language in 20th-century Poland" (which previously appeared in Historiographia Linguistica 25:1/2.163-220 [1998]), although we certainly would want to draw attention to this almost monograph-length piece of work that has no rival in this area of interest. In­ deed, the contribution of Polish logicians to modern language philosophy is immense, and so at least a summary of this article is offered in the next para­ graph. According to Pelc's study, the logic of language and the philosophy of language in 20th-century Poland ran in two mainstreams, the so-called LvovWarsaw school and that of phenomenological thought. The former was dominant, the latter was represented mainly by the work of Roman Ingarden (1903-1970). Among works of the Lvov-Warsaw school, this essay considers the most important achievements of its founder, Kazimierz Twardowski (1866-1938), and the oldest generation of his disciples: Stanislaw Leśniewski

HISTORY OF LINGUISTICS IN POLAND

xi

(1886-1939), Tadeusz Kotarbiński (1886-1981), Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz (1890-1963), and Izydora Dambska (1904-1983), as well as Alfred Tarski (1902-1983) who, in philosophy, was a disciple of Jan Lukasiewicz (1878— 1956), Lesniewski and Kotarbiński. The paper is limited to the discussion of the most important of their reflections on natural language, in particular to what is most characteristic of them: elaborated and deep analyses of semantic sections connected with epistemological ones, and pragmatic sections con­ nected with psychological ones, all presented with great attention to clarity, precision and comprehensibility of formulations. Major semantic conceptions of Ingarden were also mentioned: the theory of meaning as a relation between an intending object and an intentional object, as well as semantic differences between a name, verb and sentence. (The article also carries photographs of Twardowski, Lesniewski, Ajdukiewicz, Tarski, and Ingarden.) The present volume has been organized under two major headings. The first five chapters deal with historical accounts of the development of the various linguistic subfields whereas the following five chapters focus on the legacy of one major linguistic thinker. Chapter One, authored by Zdzislaw Wasik, 'The Development of General Linguistics within the History of the Language Sciences in Poland: Late 1860s - late 1960s", is about the longest of them all, covering more or less exactly the one hundred years between 1868 and 1968. It offers an overview of the contribution of Polish linguists to the development of general linguis­ tics during the period between Baudouin de Courtenay's celebrated doctoral work on analogy conducted under the guidance of Schleicher at the Univer­ sity of Jena and Leon Zawadowski's departure for North America. It ana­ lyzes, within an epistemological perspective, the heritage of academic teach­ ers of the period who developed their own proposals to the theory of lan­ guage against the scientific legacy which characterized European linguistics of the time. The division into periods of development considers not only his­ torical-political circumstances contributing to the formation of linguistic centers, but also professional turning points in the careers of individual lin­ guists illustrated by the nature and dates of particular publications as well as at times by changes in university appointments. Chapter Two, drafted by Franciszek Grucza, "Origins and Development of Applied Linguistics in Poland", argues that, although applied aspects of language science have been pursued for many centuries, the history of any conscious separation of applied linguistics from supposedly pure linguistics and its objects is barely two hundred years old. This division was first intro­ duced by a German scholar August Friedrich Bernhardi (1769-1820) in 1801,

xii

EDITORS' INTRODUCTION

and made much later again by the Pole Baudouin de Courtenay (1870). In the second half of the 20th century Applied Linguistics has become a rather complex — and important — part of the language sciences. First, it divided into such subdisciplines as glottodidactics, translation studies, and contrastive analyses of various kinds; secondly, within each of these research dimensions there have developed basic (pure) and applied strands. The chapter presents the main developments in Poland in many of those areas. Chapter Three, written by Tadeusz Piotrowski, "Lexicography in Poland: From the early beginnings to the present", sketches the history of research in Polish lexicography and of the most important dictionaries of Polish from the beginnings in the late Middle Ages until the end of the 20th century. Its focus is on monolingual dictionaries, while bi- and multilingual publications are touched upon only insofar as they constitute significant contributions to the development of monolingual dictionaries. This chapter stresses the continuity of some solutions which relate above all to what may be called the opposition between prescriptivism and liberalism. Individual dictionaries are discussed against a wide cultural background, and the evolution of lexicographic meth­ ods and techniques is treated at some length as well. Ample space has been given to the discussion of the situation after 1990, the year when Poland re­ gained its full sovereignty, and when dictionary publishers, like other en­ trepreneurs, endeavoured to adjust to new market conditions. Chapter Four, by Stanisław Gogolewski, "Dialectology in Poland, 1873— 1997", is devoted to the development of dialectology in Poland. Its author sees the first stage of development dialect geography in connection with what he terms 'the neogrammarian trend', but which in fact goes back to work of the teachers of the Junggrammatiker, specifically August Schleicher (1821— 1868). In 1873, Lucjan Malinowski (1839-1898), a student of Schleicher, published in Leipzig the first scientific description of a Polish dialect. In turn, his student, Kazimierz Nitsch (1874-1958), included in his research the en­ tire territory of the Polish language, and in 1915 published the first synthesis Dialekty języka polskiego [Dialects of the Polish language]. In the inter-war period and later, there appeared a number of descriptions of dialects of indi­ vidual villages and larger regions. A new, synthesizing discussion of the sub­ ject, in Karol Dejna's (b.1911) Dialekty polskie [Polish dialects], was pub­ lished in 1973. Geolinguistic atlases of particular dialects were produced, as well as Mały atlas gwar polskich (Little atlas of Polish dialects) comprising the whole country. A number of dialectal dictionaries were issued; work on the voluminous Slownik gwar polskich [A dictionary of Polish dialects] is in progress. Gogolewski concludes his account by stating that a new area of re-

HISTORY OF LINGUISTICS IN POLAND

xiii

search is developing: historical dialectology, concerned with the issues of the participation of particular dialects in the formation of literary Polish. Chapter Five, penned by Slawomir Gala, "Onomastics in Poland: From 19th-century beginnings to the present", deals with the particular area of lin­ guistic investigation called onomastics "the study of names". It discusses its scope of research, methodology, and relation to other branches of linguistics, such as language history, dialectology, as well as other fields outside of lin­ guistics such as history. The central part of the chapter presents particular periods of onomastic research. A systematic development of the discipline is shown through a discussion of the relevant literature and mention of the most important scientific organizations and institutions. According to the author, the essence of the qualitative development of Polish onomastics consists in undertaking ever new problems which attest to the broadening of the scope of research to include new classes of speech signs recognized as nomina pro­ pria. Gala also regards it as essential to grapple with theoretical issues, such as defining the place and function of proper names within the system of lan­ guage. The second part of the volume is devoted to the life and work of arguably the most prominent Polish linguists of the 19th and 20th centuries, but the work of others, some may say of equal importance, is treated in various places in the present book as well, notably in Chapter One, We are thinking of person­ ages like Jan Rozwadowski, Witold Doroszewski, Adam Heinz, Tadeusz Milewski, and others. Chapter Six, written by Arleta Adamska-Salaciak, "Jan Baudouin de Courtenay's Contribution to General Linguistics", is devoted to the 60-year career of the internationally best known Polish scholar who spanned the last third of the 19th and almost the entire first third of the 20th century. The ex­ tent of Jan Baudouin de Courtenay's (1845-1929) contribution to general linguistic theory, she argues, is still hard to assess. He never wrote a major synthetic work, nor has the bulk of his production ever been translated into English. Thanks primarily to Roman Jakobson (1896-1982), at least his for­ mative influence on modern phonology is generally acknowledged. Fewer linguists, the author holds, are aware of the relevance of Baudouin's teach­ ings devoted to the study of language change. His conceptualisation of the nature of change, its causes and goals, and the role played in it by the language system, all seem of more than merely historical interest to the theoretically-minded diachronic linguist. Chapter Seven, "Mikolaj Rruszewski and 20th-century Linguistics", has been authored by the only non-Polish contributor and the most distinguished

xiv

EDITORS' INTRODUCTION

Russian historian of linguistics during the last third of the 20th century, Fedor M. Berezin of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow. The chapter deals with important issues in general linguistic theory discussed by Mikołaj Habdank Kruszewski (1851-1887), who, in the author's view, is an unjustly forgotten linguist of genius of the late 19th century. Berezin argues that Kruszewski could be seen as standing at the roots of the 20th-century struc­ turalism, long before the appearance of Ferdinand de Saussure's lectures on general linguistics. In his major book Ocerk nauki o jazyke [An outline of the science of language] of 1883, l Kruszewski conceived of language as a system of signs, laying stress on the semiotic function of language. His under­ standing of sound alternation is in many ways close to modern principles of phonology and morphonology. His hypothesis of the universal character of the sound laws too, Berezin holds, anticipated the discovery of language uni­ versals in the 20th century. As a result, the author agrees with Radwanska Williams' (1993) characterization of Kruszewski's theory as 'a lost para­ digm' in the history of linguistics. Well-known linguists of the 20th century such as Jakobson, Kuryiowicz, and others rightly have argued that Kruszew­ ski was one of the founders of modern linguistic theory. In Chapter Eight, by Jerzy Banczerowski, "Mikołaj Rudnicki's General Linguistic Conceptions", the author interprets Rudnicki's (1881-1978) views in terms of current linguistic knowledge, without necessarily being presentist. Language, in Rudnicki's view, is a form of consciousness, understood as lan­ guage knowledge — essentially a form of cognition. This language con­ sciousness is a consciousness of a given language community which is re­ flected in the language consciousness of the individual. Fundamental in such a conception are reproduced and reproductive images. The reproduced im­ ages are individual, concrete language objects in articulatory and acoustic forms. The reproductive images are the entities which exist within language consciousness. Language performance is a set of countless acts of language reproduction characterized by a certain psycho-physiological parallelism — a chain of images makes its way through the consciousness, and correspond­ ingly there is a chain of movements of the speech organs. Language is sus­ ceptible to historical change comprehended as a mutability of the language consciousness. Rudnicki formulated a series of general laws of such phenom­ ena as assimilation, dissimilation, metathesis, and palatalization which are merely various manifestations of the identification-differentiation forces op1 Cf. Koerner (1995), which contains the first English translation of Kruszewski's major work, which until then had only been available in German (and barely accessible, one may add).

HISTORY OF LINGUISTICS IN POLAND

xv

erating as causa movens in the space of language images. Rudnicki devel­ oped two types of structural phonetics: articulatory and auditory, as well as a theory of diacrisis and phonology in quite an advanced form. Chapter Nine, by Wojciech Smoczyński, "Jerzy Kurylowicz as Indo-Europeanist and Theorist of Language", affirms, quite rightly we believe, that Kurylowicz (1895-1978) was one of the greatest Polish linguists ever. A polyglot (speaking English, German, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Arabic, Persian, and a few other languages), he was primarily inter­ ested in language structure and its mechanisms. Having studied with re­ nowned linguists in Paris early in the 20th century, notably with Antoine Meillet (1866-1936), by also with Joseph Vendryes (1875-1960), Marcel Cohen (1884-1974), among others, he worked out his own methodology and theories. His main achievements were in Indo-European and the theory of language, and, moreover, in all areas of language structure — phonology, morphology, and syntax. One of his major work according to Smoczyński, Etudes indo-européennes of 1935, once described by a contemporary as 'a theoretical outline of the structural basis of Indo-European grammar', con­ tains in nuce his main ideas about language and linguistics. Still, it is true that his theory of laryngeals brought him the most enduring recognition and last­ ing fame. Finally, in the concluding Chapter Ten, "Aspects of Ludwik Zabrocki's Linguistic World", Jerzy Bańczerowski tries to give full justice to Zabrocki's (1907-1977) wide scholarly interests which included general linguistics, comparative (historical, typological, contrastive, confrontative) linguistics, psycho- and sociolinguistics, cybernetic linguistics, Indo-European linguis­ tics, and applied linguistics (glottodidactics). His original contributions were in linguistic codematics, synchronic and diachronic structural phonetics, diacritology, communicative and language communities, aspects of language comparison, cybernetic systems of language communication. The concept of code allowed Zabrocki to capture the dynamic aspect of language and lan­ guage communication. He viewed sound processes as purely phonetic (uni­ versal) or initiated and controlled by a particular phonological system. It de­ serves to be pointed out that Zabrocki was the first to work out a comprehen­ sive theory of communicative and language communities. As Bańczerowski puts it, a language community is a communicative community, which makes use of a fairly uniform means of communication, that is, a shared, common language. Hence, each language community is a communicative community, but not conversely. Cybernetics was defined by Zabrocki as the science of abstract optimal information systems. In linguistics his work is still relevant

xvi

EDITORS' INTRODUCTION

to general linguistics, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, and indeed to glottodidactics and language teaching methodology as well. It remains true that the present volume constitutes little else than a dedicated attempt at a stock-taking of Polish scholarship in various areas of linguistic science as well as of the contribution of Poland to world linguistics. The em­ phasis of our endeavours has been on accounting for the development of these subfields and the theoretical advances made over the past two hundred and more years rather than on explaining them within their respective histori­ cal, political, and intellectual settings. However, at least for the moment we will be satisfied if we have succeeded in reaching what has since Noam Chomsky's work of the 1960s (actually building on ideas developed by Louis Hjelmslev during the 1940s) been called the level of 'descriptive adequacy'. It would then be the next step to develop the kind of methodological and epistemological bases for a true historiography of the sciences of language in Poland, and this we could call the stage of 'explanatory adequacy', a level which even within linguistics tout court has thus far not yet been reached to everyone's satisfaction. BIBLIOGRAPHY Adamska-Salaciak, Arleta. 1996. Language Change in the Works of Kruszewski, Baudouin de Courtenay and Rozwadowski. Poznań: Motivex. Bajerowa, Irena. 1987. "J^zykoznawstwo polonistyczne [Studies in Polish linguis­ tics]". Historia nauki polskiej [A history of Polish science] ed. by Bogdan Suchodolski, vol.IV: 1883-1918, part III, 802-819. Wroclaw-Warszawa, [etc.]: Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich. [See also Srodka 1999:203-228.] Basaj, Mieczyslaw & Stanislaw Urbańczyk, eds. 1989. Slowianoznawstwo w okresie międzywojennym (1918-1939). Częsc I [Slavic studies in the interwar period (1918-1939). Part I]. Wroclaw: Zaklad imienia Ossoliiiskich (Komitet Slowianoznawstwa PAN), 223 pp. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1901. "Językoznawstwo czyli lingwistyka w wieku XIX [Linguistic trends in 19th-century science of language]". Prawda No.l (Warsaw, January 1901), (Expanded version in Baudouin, Szkice językoznawcze [Linguistic sketches], 1-23. Warsaw: Piotr Laskauer, 1904. — A slightly shortened English transl., entitled "Linguistics of the Nineteenth Century", appeared in A Baudouin de Courtenay Anthology ed. by Edward Stankiewicz, 237-254. Bloomington & London: Indiana University Press, 1972.) Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1909. "Zarys historii językoznawstwa czyli lingwistyki (glottologi) [On outline of history of the science of language, that is linguistics (glottology)]". Poradnik dla samouków wskazówki metodyczne dla studjujqcych poszczegolne nauki [A guide for self-instructions ...], Series III, vol.11, fasc.2.35-

HISTORY OF LINGUISTICS IN POLAND

xvii

302. Warszawa: A. Heflich & S. Michalski. [Also published separately as a text­ book.] Fisiak, Jacek. 1972. Wklad Polski do językoznawswa światowego [The Polish con­ tribution to world linguistics]. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniw. im. Adama Mickiewicza. [Inaugural lecture.] Handel, Jakob. 1935. Dzieje językoznawstwa [The evolution of linguistics]. Lwów: Nakladem Filomaty, Lwow Universytet, xxvi, 266 pp. [See Koerner 1978:95, for a brief summary.] Handtke, Kwiryna & Ewa Rzetelska-Feleszko. 1977. Przewodnik po językoznawstwie polskim [A guide to Polish linguistics]. Wroclaw-Warszawa, [etc.]: Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich. Heinz, Adam. 1966. "Językoznawstwo ogolne i indoeuropejskie w 20-leciu PRL [General and Indo-European linguistics in the 20 years of the Polish People's Republic]". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 24.17-33. Heinz, Adam. 1978. Dzieje językoznawstwa w zarysie [A history of linguistics in outline]. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 518 pp., illustr., por­ traits. Heinz, Adam. 1979. Historia językoznawstwa [History of Linguistics]. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich, 91 pp. Heinz, Adam, Jan Safarewicz, Franciszek Sławski & Stanislaw Urbańczyk. 1970. ""Aktualny stan polskiego językoznawstwa (ogolnego, indoeuropejskiego, slawistyki i polonistyki) w 25-leciu PRL i postulaty dotycz^ce jego dlaszego rozwoju [The current state of Polish linguistics (general, Indo-European, Slavic, Polish) in the 25 years of the Polish People's Republic and postulates concerning its further development]". Sprawozdania z prac naukowych wydzialu I PAN [Reports on works of the first department of PAN] 3/4 (58/59).69-135. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. [Heinz's paper, "Dorobek językoznawstw ogolnego w ostatnim 25-leciu [Output of general linguistics in the last 25 years]", takes up pp.69-94.] Klemensiewicz, Zenon. 1955. "Dorobek językoznawstwa polonistycznego wdziesiecioleciu Polski Ludowej [Achievements of linguistics in Polish language studies in the decade of the People's Poland]". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Ję-zykoznawczego 14.35-72. Klemensiewicz, Zenon. 1966. "Polonistyczne językoznawstwo ostatniego dwudziestolecia [Polish language studies in the last two decades]". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 24.41-58. Koerner, E. F. K. 1978. Western Histories of Linguistics, 1822-1976: An annotated, chronological bibliography. (= Studies in the History of Linguistics, 11.) Amster­ dam: John Benjamins, ix, 113 pp. Koerner, [E. F.] Konrad, ed. 1995. Mikolaj Kruszewski, Writings in General Lin­ guistics: On Vocalic Alternations; An Outline of Linguistic Science. (= Amsterdam Classics in Linguistics, 1800-1925, 11.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Ben­ jamins, 1995, xxxix, 188 pp.; 1 portr., illustr. ["Editor's Introduction" (xi-xxxix).] Kryński, Adam Antoni. 1911. Szkic językoznawstwa polskiego odpoczqtku w. XIX [Sketch of Polish linguistics until the end of the 19th century]. Krakow: Drukarnia

xviii

EDITORS' INTRODUCTION

Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego, 16 pp. [Lecture given on the occassion of the 250th anniversary of the founding of Cracow University in 1761.] Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1955. "J^zykoznawstwo og61ne w dziesięcioleciu 1945-1954 [Gener-al linguistics in the decade 1945-1954]". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczeg o 14.1-10. Lewicki, Andrzej Maria. 1993. "Językoznawstwo polskie w XX wieku [Polish lin­ guistics in the XXth century]". Wspólczesny ję?zyk polski by Jerzy Bartmiński (= Encyklopedia kultury polskiej, 2), 589-624. Wroclaw: Wiedza o Kulturze. Milewski, Tadeusz. 1947. Zaiys językoznawswa ogólnego [Outline of general lin­ guistics]. Part I: Teoria językoznawstwa [Linguistic theory]. Preface by Tadeusz Lehr-Spławinski. Lublin & Krakow: Nałiad i Wydawnictwo Towarzystwa Ludoznawczego, viii, 208 pp. [Brief summary in Koerner 1978:96-97.] Milewski, Tadeusz. 1965. Językoznawstwo. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 272 pp. [English translation by Marsha Brochwicz as Introduction to the Study of Language, The Hague: Mouton; Warsaw: Polish Scientific Publishers, 1973.] Milewski, Tadeusz. 1966. "Dzialalnosc naukowa Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego w 20-leciu PRL [The scientific activity of the Polish Linguistic Society on the 20th anniversary of the Polish People's Republic]". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 24.9-16. Pedersen, Holger. 1931[1924]. Linguistic Science in the Nineteenth Centwy. Transl. from the Danish by John Webster Spargo. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. (Repr., with the new title The Discovery of Language, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1962.) Polański, Kazimierz. 1975. "Jezykoznawstwo polskie w powojennym 30-leciu [Polish linguistics in the 30 year post-war period]". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzyst­ wa Językoznawczego 33.15-22. Porzeziński, Wiktor. 1910[1907]. "Hauptmomente der Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft". Einleitung in die Sprachwissenschaft authorized transl. from the Russian by Erich Boehme, revised by the author, 8-39. Leipzig & Berlin: B. G. Teubner. [Brief summary in Koerner 1978:12.] Porzeziński, Wiktor. 1927. "Die allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft in Polen seit 1868". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 1.44-79. Radwańska Williams, Joanna. 1993. A Paradigm Lost: The linguistic theory of Mikoł aj Kruszewski. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Rieger, Janusz, Mieczyslaw Szymczak & Stanislaw Urbańczyk, eds. 1989. Jan Niecislaw Baudouin de Courtenay a lingwistyka swiatowa: Materialy z konferencji międzynarodowef Warszawa 4-7IX1979 [Jan Niecislaw Baudouin de Courtenay and world linguistics: Materials from the international conference, Warsaw 4-7 IX 1979]. Wrocław-Warszawa-Krakow-Gdańsk-Lodz: Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich. Rozwadowski, Jan. 1918. "Udzial Polakow w językoznawstwie [The participation of Poles in linguistics]. Polska w kulturze powszechnej [Poland in world culture] ed. by Feliks Konieczny, vol.11, 130-136. Krakow: Ekspozytura Biura Patronatu dla Spolek Oszczęd. i Pozyczek [Bureau of Auspices for Loan & Saving Companies].

HISTORY OF LINGUISTICS IN POLAND

xix

Rudnicki, Mikolaj. 1956. Językoznawstwo polskie w dobie oswiecenia [Polish lin­ guistics during the Enlightenment (1741-1839)]. Poznań: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 33 pp. Rudnicki, Mikoiaj. 1971. "J^zykoznawstwo polskie w dobie uzyskiwania niepodleglosci [Polish linguistics in the period of regaining independence]". Slavia Occidentalis 28/29.205-221. Safarewicz, Jan. 1955. "J§zykoznawstwo indoeuropejskie w Polsce w latach 19451954 [Indo-European Linguistics in Poland in the years 1945-1954]". Biuletyn Polskie go Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 14.11-23. Safarewicz, Jan. 1982. "Polskie towarzystwa językoznawcze i polskie czasopisma językoznawcze [Polish linguistic societies and Polish linguistic journals]". Język i językoznawswo polskie w szescdziesięciolecie niepodleglosci (1918-1978): Materiały konferencji naukowej y Warszawa, 25 pazdziernika 1978 [Language and Pol­ ish linguistics on the sixtieth anniversary of independence (1918-1978): Materials of the scientific conference, Warsaw, 25 October 1978] ed. by Janusz Rieger & Mieczyslaw Szymczak, 209-212. Wroclaw-Warszawa-Krakow: Zakiad Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich. Srodka, Andrzej, ed. 1999. Historia nauki polskiej: Wiek XX [A history of Polish science: The 20th century], vol.Ill: Nauki filologiczne [Philological sciences]. Warszawa: Instytut Historii Nauki, Polska Akademia Nauk. Szlifersztejnowa, Salomea. 1969. Kategoria strony: Z historii mysli lingwistycznej [The category of voice: On the history of linguistics]. Wroclaw-Warszawa, [etc.]: Zakiad Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich, 119 pp. [Brief summary in Koerner 1978: 101.] Urbańczyk, Stanisław. 1955. Jezykoznawsw polskie 1-szej polowy XIX wieku [Pol­ ish linguistics in the first half of the 19th century]. Warszawa: . Urbańczyk, Stanislaw. 1977. "J^zykoznawstwo [Linguistics]". Historia nauki pol­ skie] [A history of Polish science] ed. by Bogdan Suchodolski, vol.111:1795-1862, 762-769. Wroclaw-Warszawa, [etc.]: Zakiad Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich. LTrbańczyk, Stanislaw, ed. 1978. Encyklopedia wiedzy o języku polskim [Ency­ clopedia of the knowledge of the Polish language]. Wroclaw-Warszawa, [etc.]: Zakiad Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich. (2nd revised and extended edition ap­ peared as Encyklopedia języka polskiego [Encyclopedia of the Polish language], 1994.) Urbańczyk, Stanislaw. 1993. Dwiescie lat polskiego językoznawstwa (1751-1950) [Two hundred years of Polish linguistics (1751-1950)]. Krakow: Wydawnictwo i drukarnia "Secesja", 269 pp. Wcasik, Zdzislaw. 1999. "Językoznawstwo ogolne [General linguistics]". Srodka 1999.37-63. Weinsberg, Adam. 1983. Językoznawstwo ogolne [General linguistics]. Warszawa: Paiistwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 291 pp. Wierzchowski, Jozef. 1993. "On the History of Word Formation Analysis in Poland". Trends in Semantics I, 74-86. Bialystok: Katedra Językoznawstwa Ogolnego i Stosowanego Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego - Filii w Bialymstoku. Zagorski, Zygmunt. 1973. "Zarys Rozwoju językoznawstwa polskiego w Wielkopolsce (d. r. 1918) [The development of Polish linguistics in Great Poland (until

xx

EDITORS' INTRODUCTION

1918)]". Nauka w Wielkopolsce, 473-498. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie. [Brief summary in Koerner 1978:69.] Zaleski, Jan. 1975. "50 lat dzialalnosci Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego [50 years of activities of the Polish Linguistic Association]". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Jçzykoznawczego 33.23-28.

PART I POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

CHAPTER 1 GENERAL LINGUISTICS IN THE HISTORY OF THE LANGUAGE SCIENCES IN POLAND LATE 1860S - LATE 1960S*

ZDZISŁAW WĄSIK University of Poznań 0. Introductory remarks Before reviewing the contribution of Polish philologists to the develop­ ment of general linguistics as a scientific discipline practiced in the 19th and 20th century over a one hundred year period of Poland's history, we have to specify the borderlines between the subject-matter of general linguistics and that of particular linguistics, making a distinction between 'language as a theoretical construct' and 'languages as empirical data'. From such a view­ point, general linguistics is approached as a discipline which deals with lan­ guage as a definitional model formulated in theoretical, i.e., non-observa­ tional statements. Thus, the choice of historiographical materials is limited here to such works which search for the genus proximum and differentia specifica of lan­ guage as a whole, its elements and structures, while separating extrasystemic facts, belonging to the investigative field of the neighboring disciplines of linguistics, from the systemic facts of language constituting the investigative domain of linguistics proper studied in relation to or in the abstraction from its environment. 1. Landmarks in the Polish panorama of general linguistics 1.1 Attitudes towards comparative linguistics in the period of Romanticism The theoretical view of language arose in the context of comparative studies of languages. At the beginning of the 19th century, when the concep­ tions of Franz Bopp (1791-1867), Rasmus Kristian Rask (1787-1832), and Jacob Grimm (1785-1863) were prevailing in Europe, the author of Polish grammars for national schools, Onufry Kopczyński (1735-1817), still ad­ hered to a belief that there must be a universal grammar of human speech * This chapter first appeared as an article in Historiographia Linguistica 25.149-198 (1999).

4

POLISH LINGUISTICS : ORIGINS AND TRENDS

which reflects the grammars of particular languages of the world (cf. Urbañczyk [1977:762]; for details, see Florczak [1978:147]). More advanced was Walenty Skorochód-Majewski (1764-1835) as far the knowledge about the discoveries of the first comparatists is concerned. In his papers on Sanskrit delivered from 1815, he informed Warszawskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciól Nauk [Warsaw Society of the Friends of Sciences], on such subjects as "Badania o pochodzeniu Slowian i ich języku tudziez obyczajów i zwyczajów Indostanów ... [The search for the origin of Slavs and their language as well as the customs and ways of life of Hindustans ...]". He also organized the first printing-house in Warsaw equipped with Sanskrit fonts and edited some booklets popularizing the knowledge of Sanskrit in Polish translations (nota bene distributed free of charge), as, for example, Gramatyka mowy starozytnych Skuthów czyli skalnych górali [The grammar of the ancient Scyths or rock mountaineers), published in Warsaw in 1828 and Gramatyka mowy starozytnych Skuthów [...] Sanskrytem, czyli dokladnq mową zwaney [The grammar of the ancient Scyths ... called Sanskrit, that is exact speech] of 1833 (for further information see Rudnicki 1956:7). Yet the ideas of Boppian-style comparative grammar met with resistance in Poland. Seen as 'a fruit of the Germanic Spirit' which could only bring 'great dam­ ages and disasters' to the Polish language, their adoption was considered as 'a sin against a nationality' (Urbańczyk 1977:767-768).1 1.2 External and internal factors in the formation of Polish linguistic centers It has been noted (cf. Bajerowa 1987:803) how a breakthrough in the his­ tory of Polish linguistics was heralded by the investigations of two Indo-Europeanists, Jan Niecislaw Baudouin de Courtenay (1845-1929) and Jan Michal Rozwadowski (1867-1935), working in two distant academic centres of Kazan, the provincial town of tsarist Russia on the Volga, and Cracow, the original site of the Polish kings, then under the control of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. At the time of Baudouin's studies in the Historical-Philosophical Faculty of the Warsaw Main School, linguistics with a theoretical pretention was lec­ tured from the handbooks of Hipolit Cegielski (1815-1869), O powstaniu mowy i szczególnych języków (On the origin of speech and particular lan­ guages) of 1841, and Jan Poplawski (1819-1885), O początku i rozmaitosci mowy (On the beginnings and varieties of speech) of 1867. But neither of 1

Here and elsewhere throughout this historical overview quotations from Polish sources have been translated by the author (Zdzislaw Wąsik) and marked by single rather than double quotation marks. Editors.

GENERAL LINGUISTICS IN POLAND: LATE 1860S - LATE 1960S

5

them took account of the findings of the new language sciences. Popiawski was, in the later opinion of Baudouin, even more backward than Cegielski. It is reported that when 'explaining the origin of speech he sent the listeners and readers back to paradise with Adam and Eve, and [when] explaining the di­ versities of speech — to the Tower of Babel' (Weinsberg 1987:790). It was not only customary for Poles studying linguistics both at Russian and Austrian universities to apply for grants to allow them to extend their ed­ ucation in Western centers of scholarship, such as in Jena, Prague, Leipzig and Berlin, but its was also a necessity, since the university chairs of Sanskrit and comparative grammar of Indo-European were created in Poland as late as in the 1870s (cf. Williams 1993:30). Paris too, in this respect, with its Lin­ guistic Society having since 1866 as a publishing organ the Bulletin de So­ ciété Linguistique de Paris at the École Pratique des Hautes Études, was recognised as an important center of learning. The history of Polish theoretical thought on language begins in 1868 (ac­ cording to Porzeziński 1927:44), the date of publication of Baudouin's study "Einige Fälle der Wirkung der Analogie in der polnischen Deklination", edited by August Schleicher (1821-1868) in Jena (cf. also Baudouin 1904) and recognized later in Leipzig in 1870 as a doctoral dissertation at the insti­ gation of August Leskien (1840-1916). Note that in the same year (1868) the rules of analogy were explicated on German material by the Austrian-born philologist Wilhelm Scherer (1841-1886), who has been credited, rightly or wrongly, for being a discoverer of this phenomenon (for details, see Weinsberg 1987:791). Linguistic thought developed elsewhere in the world, outside the main Polish centers of learning, at the end of 1881 and the beginning of 1882 after Baudouin had presented several philological works from the University of Kazan, by himself and his student Mikolaj Habdank Kruszewski (1851— 1887), at four consecutive meetings of Société de Linguistique de Paris (cf. Williams 1993:139). Three of these meetings were attended by no other than Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913), at that time the assistant secretary of the Linguistic Society of Paris and in charge of writing the reports of the Soci­ ety's bimonthly meetings. It was noted by historiographers that, on preparing his lectures in Geneva, Saussure mentioned Baudouin de Courtenay and Kruszewski along with the names of contemporary linguists 'that should be cited' (Saussure 1954[1908]:66), especially "when discussing cardinal con­ tributions to the theory of language", as Roman Jakobson (1896-1982) un­ derlined (Jakobson 1971[1960]:420-421).

6

POLISH LINGUISTICS : ORIGINS AND TRENDS

Professional-organizational possibilities opened up for Polish linguistics in Cracow, the heart of Polish academic tradition since the late medieval pe­ riod, as soon as the Akademia Umiejçtnosci (Academy of Arts and Sciences) had begun its operation in 1873,2 and which subsequently gave birth to Komisja Językowa Akademii Umiejçtnosci, i.e., the Commission of Lan­ guage of the same Academy in 1874. Its first secretary, until 1898, was Lucjan Malinowski (1839-1898), who was working in the field of Polish dia­ lectology. The importance of the Commission (with Rozwadowski as its secretary from 1898) increased during the presidency of Baudouin de Courtenay (between 1894 and 1900). After Baudouin left Cracow in 1900, the responsibilty fell to Rozwadowski who acted as president in subsequent years between 1908 and 1935. Its next secretary (1908-1935) and its last president (1935-1952) was Kazimierz Nitsch (1874-1858), a Slavist and Polish dialectologist, pupil of both Malinowski and Baudouin de Courtenay. For over 76 years the proceedings of linguistic meetings were recorded first in Sprawozdania Komisji Językowej Akademii Umiejętności (Minutes of the Commis­ sion of Language of the Academy of Arts and Sciences), 1880-1884, then in Materialy i Prace Komisji Językowej (Materials and Works of the Commis­ sion of Language), 1901-1918, and eventually in Prace Komisji Językowej Polskiej Akademii Umiejçtnosci (Works of the Commission of Language of the Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences), 1917-1950. After the creation of the Polska Akademia Nauk (Polish Academy of Sciences) in 1951, which started its activity in 1952, the earlier series was replaced by Prace Jçzykoznawcze Polskiej Akademii Nauk (Linguistic Works of the Polish Akademy of Sciences) which have been edited by the Komitet Językoznawstwa Pols­ kiej Akademii Nauk (Linguistics Committee of the Polish Academy of Sci­ ences) from 1954 onwards. As fat* as the developmental periods in Polish theoretical thought on lan­ guage are concerned, one has to concede that their division did not always depend on historical events. Professional and generational changes too would have to be considered as contributing to the formation of scientific centers, as well some upheavals in the scientific curricula of individual linguists marked by the dates of their publications or their appearance on the international scene. Thus, the following major time spans may be distinguished in the his­ tory of general linguistics in Poland: 1868-1918, 1918-1939 and 1944-1952, 1952-1958, 1958-1979, and from 1979 onwards to the present day. 2

TheAkademia Umiejętności was founded in 1871 and renamed as Polska Akademia Umie­ jętności after 1919. (Its official English translation is Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences.)

GENERAL LINGUISTICS IN POLAND: LATE 1860S - LATE 1960S

7

2. Periods in the development of Polish linguistics 2.1 The first great period of Polish linguistics, 1868-1918 In the this period between, one can distinguish two groups of Polish prac­ titioners of language sciences whose works influenced the rise of theoretical linguistics. To the first belonged scholars coming from the Russian empire: Baudouin de Courtenay, educated in Warsaw, Jena, and Petersburg, who held university positions in St. Petersburg (1870-1871), Kazan (1874-1883), Dorpat (1883-1893), Cracow (1893-1899), again in St. Petersburg (1900-1914, 1917/1918), and finally in Warsaw (1918-1929); Kruszewski who graduated from the russified Warsaw University and who held university positions as a pupil of and later a successor to Baudouin in Kazan (1881-1886); and Jan Wiktor Porzeziński (1870-1929), Polish by birth but raised in Russia, who received his education and held university positions in Moscow (docent from 1895, professor from 1902, from 1914 as the successor of the leading Russian Indo-Europeanist Filipp Fedorovic Fortunatov (1848-1914), and then in War­ saw and Lublin (1922-1929). The second group of scholars of the period consisted of linguists working in Cracow and Lvov forming, until the end of World War I, important centers of learning in Galicia, a crown land of the Austro-Hungarian empire: Jan Rozwadowski associated with the Jagellonian University, first as a student from 1885, then as professor from 1899 until his death in 1937; Mikolaj Rudnicki (1881-1978), who had studied and obtained his habilitation (1912) in Cracow and then became professor at the University of Poznań in 1919 where he worked until his death; and Andrzej Gawroński (1885-1927), edu­ cated first in Lvov and then in Cracow where he obtained his habilitation in 1912, who received his first university position at the Jagellonian University in 1916, and then moved to Lvov becoming professor at Jan Kazimierz Uni­ versity (1917-1927). Within the time interval between 1868 and 1918, one has to highlight the 1871-1887 period in recognition of their anticipation of a structural-systemic theory of language in the work by the two Polish linguists, Baudouin and Kruszewski. The importance of their findings may be summarized in four points: 1) It was initiated by Baudouin's St. Petersburg inaugural lecture (published in 1871) in which he explained his conception of linguistics in general and of the study of language change in particular. 2) The period also encompasses the dates of Baudouin's published pro­ grams of lectures in the academic years 1875-1876, 1876-1877, and 1877-78, when he served as docent and then professor of Indo-European in Kazan (see Jakobson 1971 [1960]:397-402, for details).

8

POLISH LINGUISTICS : ORIGINS AND TRENDS

3) Baudouin 's early works of the time exhibits important traces due to his co-operation with Kruszewski during 1878-1883 (cf. Williams 1993: 134-142). 4) A caesura was introduced by the date 1887 which ended the Peters­ burg-Kazan period of Baudouin's activity, marked by the death of Kru­ szewski and the subsequent change of Baudouin's views (cf. the inter­ pretations of Jakobson 1971[1960]:417, and by Williams 1993:143-150, especially p. 142), supposedly under the influence of Kruszewski's obit­ uary written by Leonard Kolmaczewski (1850-1889) in 1888 (cf. Bau­ douin 1888 and 1888-1889). During the 1870s and 1880s the Polish scientists in Russia who were identified with a 'new movement in linguistics' formed in the West by Neogrammarians developed their views "concurrently and partly independently of the West" (Williams 1993:31). Even sharing with Western scientists a positivistic pursuit for generalizations by collecting and comparing empirical facts and explaining regularities and laws on the basis of experience, they formulated some of their statements earlier than Neogrammarians or antici­ pated the opinions of their opponents, thus paving the way towards a future structuralist movement which viewed language as a system of invariant ele­ ments. The merits of Polish linguists, in comparison with the achievements of German scholars in the theoretical domain of comparative linguistics, were recognized by historiographers on the strength of the following practices: 1) The admission of a psychologically motivated principle of analogy to historical comparative studies, aiming at the explanation of phonetic changes which occur in the actual use of language (Baudouin; cf. Wil­ liams 1993:29); 2) the application of empricist associationism generalizing the operation of analogy across all observable phenomena of human culture (Kru­ szewski; cf. Williams 1993:60ff.); 3) the reinforcement of the idea of a uniformitarian evolution (on the source and history of the term see Christy 1983, cf. Adamska-Salaciak 1996:16-17), which shifted the emphasis from historical studies of docu­ mented dead languages to the registration and explanation of changes found in contemporary (living) variations of a given language or in dif­ ferentiations of separate languages (Baudouin and Kruszewski; cf. also Williams 1993:30); 4) the unification of the perspective of a divergent evolutionism with that of a convergent diffusionism in order to emphasise that languages develop not only exclusively by splitting up in new branches, but also by influencing each other through the dissemination of changes, so that ev­ ery language might be recognized as having a mixed character (Bau­ douin; cf. Stememann & Gutschmidt 1989:314; Olmsted 1989:31-32);

GENERAL LINGUISTICS IN POLAND: LATE 1860S - LATE 1960S

9

5) the promotion of a methodological holism postulating an overall view of language which admits various approaches to its nature (Baudouin; cf. Adamska-Salaciak 1996:73-74); 6) the arrival at such distinctions as those between a psychological and a physiological, i.e., acoustic and articulatory (individual language proper­ ties), and the psychological vs. the social (collective language as an aver­ age of the properties of the speech of individuals) nature of language (Baudouin; cf. Adamska-Salaciak 1996:67-68); 7) the anticipation of the terminology of a future structuralist movement by such distinctions and categories as language vs speech (Baudouin); systems and their parts, forms and their functions, static and dynamic as­ pects of speech sounds (Baudouin and Kruszewski); phonemes and mor­ phemes (Kruszewski and Baudouin); signs and their significations, a tax­ onomy of assimilations into phonetic, morphological, and lexical assimi­ lations (Kruszewski); a taxonomy of alternations (Kruszewski following Baudouin) into divergents (later called variants of a phoneme, i.e., allophones) and correlatives (later called alternation series of speech sounds, i.e., morpho(pho)nemes), and into sound changes and sound alternations (cf. German Lautwandel vs Lautwechsel/Lautabwechslung); associations by contiguity and associations by similarity (Kruszewski), later termed rapports syntagmatiques and rapports associatifs or syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations (cf., inter alia , van Schooneveld 1989:11-16; Leška 1989:17-23; Olmsted 1989:25-34). Since 1888, as Weinsberg, a Polish linguist and historiographer, notes (1987:797), we move from a short precursory stage in the history of general linguistics to a longer receptive period, the achievements of which are to be measured not by preceding certain developments in international linguistics, but by keeping pace with its subsequent evolution (on Poland's contribution to world linguistics, see also Fisiak 1972). The next three decades between 1888 and 1918, partly extended in the history of Polish linguistics until 1929, passed mainly under the dominance of Neogrammarians positions, such as, for example, historicism — stating that languages as changeable objects should be studied from genetic and evolutional perspectives; atomism — maintaining that each element in a lan­ guage has its separate history; individualism — assuming that the only acces­ sible objects are verbal means of communication produced by particular speakers; empirical mentalism or positivistic psychologism — believing that verbal means may be observed and memorized, but their meaning exist only in the mind of their users; and heteronomism — claiming that languages are user-dependant, and hence, may be studied by disciplines which study hu­ mans in their environments (Rozwadowski, Gawroński, and Rudnicki).

10

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

A separate position in the discussion with theNeogrammarians was held by Baudouin whose theory of language united both heteronomous and auton­ omous, historical and geographical, psychological and sociological aspects. He approached various forms of existence of language in a monistic way, confronting, for example, language as a psycho-physical unity with language as a psycho-social unity, and considering the statics of language as a specific manifestation of its dynamics (kinematics), or consequently claiming that his­ tory is both chronology and development, i.e., based, on the one hand, on a series of successive substitutions of uniform and/or different phenomena, and, on the other, on an uninterrupted continuity of their essential transforma­ tions (cf. Szober 1959[1930]:412-413; see especially Baudouin's autobiogra­ phy of 1896 in Vengerov [1897:18-45], where he characterized himself as a theoretician of language). 2.2 Linguistic life at Polish universities between the two world wars The period between 1918 and 1939 was crucial for Polish linguistics from institutional-professional, social-organizational, and scientific-didactic points of view. In this period we can point to the following developments 1) the first Polish Linguistic Society was created; 2) new linguistic chairs headed by scholars with recognizable names were founded, others restored; and 3) Pol­ ish linguists, now members of learned societies, investigated (and resolved) problems in their fields and presented their findings at international confer­ ences while at the same time reflecting their reception on national scale through the publication of papers as well as through major works and synthe­ sizing handbooks. Assuming that the turning point in the history of world linguistics was the year 1930 marked by the appearance of new schools of linguistic thought in Europe and America, the period between 1918 and 1939 may be divided into the 1920s and 1930s. 2.2.1 In the 1920s, the life of linguistic departments at new or restored Polish universities was organized, among others, by Baudouin de Courtenay and Stanislaw Szober (1879-1939) in Warsaw, Wiktor Porzeziński in Warsaw as well as Lublin, by Jan Rozwadowski in Cracow, by Mikolaj Rudnicki in Poz­ nan, and by Andrzej Gawroński in Lvov. This period was rich in organizational events both in Poland and abroad. On 31 May 1925, the first general assembly of Polish linguists, under the leadership of Rozwadowski, Gawroriski, and others, gathered at Lvov and decided to launch the Polish Linguistic Society, which was to meet annually and to publish a new journal devoted to general linguistics (cf. Safarewicz

GENERAL LINGUISTICS IN POLAND: LATE 1860S - LATE

1960s

11

1982:209-212; Zaleski 1975:21-28). Abroad, there was the creation of the Prague Circle of Linguistics in October 1926 on the initiative of the Czech Anglicist Vilém Mathesius (1882-1945). The difference, however, between the role of Polish Linguistic Society and that of the Prague Circle was re­ markable with regard to the range of their respective influence on the interna­ tional scale. The propagation of the principles of Prague School was crucial for the development of European structuralism. And it was accomplished in the 1930s, as soon as a postulate to separate phonology from phonetics had been put forward on the first International Congress of Linguists held at The Hague in 1928. The opinions of Polish linguists, however, between 1918 and 1930 were expressed in: 1) The continuation of a neogrammarian agenda with regard to linguistic study (Rozwadowski, Gawroński, and Rudnicki); 2) the critical evaluation (Gawroński) or the partial appropriation (Roz­ wadowski) of Saussure's perspectives on language, such as synchronism — assuming that particular languages are relatively static in their func­ tioning, and when their structure and constituents change they differenti­ ate into new types of languages; systemism — defining languages as or­ dered sets of elements related to each other through functional coexis­ tence and/or alternative collocations, correlations, or commutability; col­ lectivism or sociologism — stating that languages are properties of speech communities; their users are not allowed to introduce any changes in their structure except that they have to obey rules of social conduct while acquiring them or introducing innovations into them being enabled by an inborn linguistic capability; only the activities of speaking and thinking are recognized as having an individual character; rational mentalism or idealistic psychologism — believing that verbal signs are mem­ orized as a twofold unity of meaning and form in the minds of their users; autonomism — stating that language should be studied as a fact in itself by internal linguistics, but it may constitute the investigative domain of external linguistics concerned with its relation to nations, personalities, territory, and the like; 3) the rejection of Karl Vossler's (1872-1949) aesthetic idealism — re­ garding language as a creation of an individual which reflects his intu­ itions, his way of life and habits of thought; but, at the same time, the re­ ception of Hugo Schuchardt's (1842-1927) type of individualism and collectivism — assuming that language is a manifestation of personality generalized into a collective body of society through imitation (Rozwad­ owski); 4) the acceptance of Bronislaw Malinowski's (1884-1942) functional anthropologism — treating a language as one of the institutional forms of culture, with reference to processualism — searching for the meaning of speech acts realized in order to satisfy integrational, narrative, practical,

12

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

and magic needs of people, as well as to contextualism — relativizing the role of language with respect to situations, uses and functional require­ ments (Gawroński and Rozwadowski); 5) the assumption that language is the most comprehensive reflection of man, embedded in his culture and civilization, his cognition and morality, religion and poetry (Rozwadowski); and 6) the confrontation between semantic associationism (Szober), on the one hand — taking into account Anton Marty's (1847-1914) psychologi­ cal philosophy of language and Hermann Paul's (1846-1921) associationist psychology of individuals based on Johann Friedlich Herbart's (17761841) psychology and partly opposed to asssociationist social psychology (Völkerpsychologie) of Heymann Steinthal (1823-1899) and Moritz Lazarus (1824-1903) — and grammatical formalism, on the other, in de­ fining words as parts of speech (Porzeziński). 2.2.2 In the 1930s, except for the leading role of Rozwadowski (d.1935) and the achievements of Szober (d.1939), significant contributions to the theoreti­ cal foundations of their disciplines were made by Witold Doroszewski (1899-1976) from Warsaw University and Jerzy Kurylowicz (1895-1978) from the University of Lvov. Mikolaj Rudnicki (1881-1978), one of the theo­ reticians of psychological linguistics, devoted his energies to descriptive and historical studies of the Polish language. The decade between 1929 and 1939 has been recorded by historians of world linguistics as a early period of structuralism, dominating international journals and conferences. Important European centers emerged in Prague, Vienna, Geneva, and Copenhagen, and, in America, at Yale. The ideas of the Kazan School, originated by the forerunners of structuralism, Baudouin de Courtenay and Kruszewski, and the theoretical thought of Saussure bore fruit in the form of a functionalist and formalist structuralism on the European ground, and the distributional structuralism in the U.S.A. As to the participation of Polish scholars in these discussions on structural linguistics, the 1930s could be characterized, inter alia, in the following terms: 1) As a search for the sources which had inspired the ideas of Saussure and by the postulation of a kind of processualism as opposed to factualism which presupposed that language is a social activity, and not a social fact in the Durkheimian or Saussurean understanding (Doroszewski); 2) by transplanting structural methods of chronological relativism from synchrony to diachrony, with the aim of explaining the evolution of lan­ guage on the basis of oppositions between its productive and non-pro­ ductive intrasystemic elements (Kurylowicz); 3) by refuting the dualism of phonology as a linguistic discipline op­ posed to phonetics as a part of the natural sciences, in favor of monism

GENERAL LINGUISTICS IN POLAND: LATE 1860S - LATE 1960S

13

uniting descriptive phonetics and functional phonetics as two branches of the same discipline; and, consequently — by postulating the analysis of speech sounds as functionally active, passive or neutral depending on their position within a word (Doroszewski following Rudnicki); 4) by opposing synchronic analyses while favoring the theory of struc­ tural bipartition in the explanation of the meaning of derivatives, at the same time postulating that the historical formation of words should be analyzed in terms of word-stems being divided into the hierarchy of word-formatives and word-bases (Doroszewski following Rozwadowski); 5) by applying functionalist methods in a search for distinctive features of speech sounds on the basis of their role in communication or by adher­ ing to a formalist perspective in order to determine the function of lan­ guage units on the basis of their homotopic occurrence and commutability (Kurylowicz); 6) by confronting the methods of qualitative isoglosses with the methods of quantitative isoglosses used in linguistic geography in order to register the boundaries between dialects and to check the instability of the output of their speakers being under the influence of a standard variety (Doro­ szewski); and 7) by formulating two principles of word evolution: a) lexicalization — the tendency of word-structures to be autonomized as word-signs in use, and b) crystallization of dominants — the tendency to select one domi­ nant form over another or to separate functions which are determined by each particular form (Doroszewski). Studying the history of the Polish science of linguistics with reference to generational and professional successions we can notice that the partitions of Poland had contributed to the formation of two informal circles during the interwar period: 1) Warsaw-Vilnius-Lublin, with Baudouin de Courtenay, Porzeziński, Szober, and Doroszewski, and 2) Lvov-Cracow-Poznań, with Rozwadowski, Rudnicki, Gawroński, and Kurylowicz. This tacit division of labor shaping the science of the interwar period had also been partly renewed by linguists affected by political settings at the universities of contemporary Poland after World War II. 2.3 The heritage of Polish thought on language afterWorld War II From those theoreticians of language who took pan in the discussions of world linguistics of the interwar period and who continued their careers at Polish universities after the World War II only two remained, Doroszewski and Kurylowicz. Shortly before the war they were joined by Tadeusz Milewski (1906-1966), an Indo-Europeanist, who emerged in the late 1940s as the author of a handbook on general and comparative linguistics. After 1944, there was a noticeable generation gap at Polish universities. As a result of war and occupation, linguistic departments had been rebuilt by

14

POLISH LINGUISTICS : ORIGINS AND TRENDS

very old professors who survived, surrounded by young assistants and stu­ dents. The legacy of such a situation was a conservatism of their teachers (cf. Lewicki 1993:595). Hostile attitudes towards structural methods were ex­ pressed, for example, by Doroszewski whose adherence to Rozwadowski's and Szober's way of thinking contributed to the fact that until the 1980s no changes of note could be made in the academic grammar of Polish (cf. Le­ wicki 1993:610). Methodological conservatism, however, had protected lin­ guists from politically motivated tendencies of regarding Saussurean and Hjelmslevian type linguistics as not conformity with Marxist-materialistic philosophy, because they stood in opposition to historicism. Owing to the fact that Western and American science had been banned by the Communist au­ thorities, those who worked according to the principles of structuralism had only very limited possibilities to publish (cf. Lewicki 1993:595). At the end of 1950s younger philologists gathered around professors of­ fering informal seminars on structuralism, such as Tadeusz Milewski in War­ saw, Ludwik Zabrocki (1907-1977, Poznan), Leon Zawadowski (1914-, Wroclaw), Olgierd Wojtasiewicz (1916-1991) and Maria Renata Mayenowa (1910-1988), both in Warsaw, to mention the major scholars only. Partici­ pants in these seminars, working on modem languages, later played an active role in the dissemination of Western ideas in the 1960s and 1970s, and were open to new trends in the 1980s and 1990s (cf. Lewicki 1993:611-612). Modern ideas were traded in Milewski's Wstęp do językoznawstwa (Intro­ duction to linguistics) as early as in 1954, extended subsequently in his much revised book Językoznawstwo (Linguistics) in 1965, but a structuralist turn­ over was given a significant boost by Jakobson's paper presented at a meet­ ing of the Linguistic Committee of the Polish Academy of Sciences on 12 January 1958 in Warsaw, entitled "The origin of the concept of phoneme in Polish and world linguistics" (summary and discussion in Jakobson 1958) which brought to the attention of Poles their pioneering structuralist heritage in the work Baudouin de Courtenay and Kruszewski. Symptomatic of the af­ termath of thepost-war attitude toward structural linguistics was the fact that the first Polish translation in 1961 of Saussure's Cours de linguistique géné­ rale was published with an introduction by no other than Doroszewski who was not favourably disposed toward Saussurean structuralism. Its reviseded second edition appeared 30 years later, but this time with a historiographical and unbiased introduction written by Kazimierz Polański (1991). In 1966, Lingwistyczna teoría języka (A linguistic theory of language) based on inductive methodology was published by Leon Zawadowski, and in 1968, the achievements of European and American structuralism against the

GENERAL LINGUISTICS IN POLAND: LATE 1860S - LATE 1960S

15

background of traditional perspectives were summarized in Słownik terminologii lingwistycznej [A dictionary of the linguistic terminology] compiled by Zbigniew Gołąb, Adam Heinz, and Kazimierz Polański. The following decades saw the production of a series of new university manuals and ency­ clopedias. A synthesis of heteronomous approaches to language was pre­ sented in Językoznawstwo otwarte (Open linguistics) by Antoni Furdal (1990 [1977]), whose author advocated an interdisciplinary position of linguistics, taking into account the relationship of language to humans in their biological, psychological and sociological settings, and Językoznawstwo ogólne [General linguistics] by Adam Weinsberg (1983), which provided, among others, a critical overview of structural methodologies, semiotics as well as various other approaches to the analysis of meaning, sociolinguistics, the differentia­ tion of languages in time and space, as well as an introductory model of lan­ guage based on generative-transformational rules and grammatico-semantic formulas. Furthermore, an anthropocentric view of language was advocated in Zagadnienia metalingwistyki: Lingwistyka—jej przedmiot, lingwistyka stosowana [Issues in metalinguistics: Linguistics — its subject-matter, ap­ plied linguistics] by Franciszek Grucza (1983), postulating a search for the main object of linguistics neither within the system of verbal means of com­ munication nor in the processes of communication, but in human linguistic capacities of speaking and learning. A systemic autonomous view of the lin­ guistic domain was propagated in Wstep do jçzykoznawstwa [Introduction to linguistics] by Jerzy Bańczerowski, Jerzy Pogonowski and Tadeusz Zgólka (1982), presenting a highly formalized description of the system of language, its entities, units and constructions. It resembles in part the approaches of Copenhagen school Glossematics with its application of notations and dis­ tinctions used in logic and the methodology of science with special reference to categorial grammars. It was during this period of Polish linguistics that a first historiographical account was made in Dzieje jçzykoznawstwa w zarysie [A history of linguis­ tics in outline] by Adam Heinz (1914-1984), which provided a history of the methodology of linguistics from antiquity to the 20th century (Heinz 1978). The achievements of the Polish practitioners of language sciences in the do­ main of general linguistics and the studies on the Polish language in the years 1900-1970 were summarized by Kwiryna Handtke and Ewa Rzetelska-Feleszko in their annotated bibliography Przewodnik po jçzykoznawstwie polskim [A guide through Polish linguistics] of 1977 (cf. Lewicki 1993:619). At present general linguistics is in very good condition to develop, given the state of knowledge included not only in the mentioned academic hand-

16

POLISH LINGUISTICS : ORIGINS AND TRENDS

books but also in such encyclopedias, as the: Encyklopedia wiedzy o języku polskim [Encyclopedia of the knowledge of the Polish language] and Encyk­ lopedia języka polskiego [Encyclopedia of the Polish language] both edited by Stanislaw Urbańczyk (1978, 1994); and Encyklopedia językoznawstwa ogólego [Encyclopedia of general linguistics] edited by Kazimierz Polański (1992). Unfortunately, General Linguistics has lost its traditional place within the modern language programs at Polish universities. Relegated to an intro­ ductory subject, it has been reduced to a course offering selected linguistic topics of various kinds. However, as a pilot discipline, within the frame of structuralism and semiotics, it has at least made some inroads among ethnol­ ogists and theoreticians of culture-oriented disciplines. 3. An assessment of the contribution of individual Polish linguists to a theoretical view of language and linguistics since 1868 The precursory nature of some of the views held by Baudouin de Courtenay in matters concerning a structuralist conception of language was recog­ nized by no other than Saussureas became public knowledge in 1957 when the Swiss linguist Robert Godel (1902-1984) published some of Saussure's scientific papers. Among the notes written by Saussure in 1908 one could find an opinion that 'Baudouin de Courtenay and Kruszewski were closer than anyone else to a theoretical view of language, without digressing from purely linguistic considerations; yet they are unknown to most Western scholars' (Godel 1957:51; quoted after Jakobson 1971[1960]:420-421). In­ deed, the name of Kruszewski did not mean much to Slavic scientists in 1957 (Weinsberg 1987:791-792), either before or after. Inspired by Saussure's praise, however, Jakobson, one of the founding fathers of Prague structural­ ism, investigated the scientific work of this forgotten Polish linguist as well as the early writings of Baudouin from the period of his cooperation with Kruszewski, 1878-1883). Some interesting facts not revealed before came to light when Jakobson presented the results of his inquiries in Warsaw in 1958, making them known more widely through his publications of 1960 and 1967. 3.1 Baudouin de Courtenay s legacy In his work "Einige Fälle der Wirkung der Analogie in der polnischen Deklination" (1868) Baudouin showed the influence of one inflectional form on the other forms, as, for example, the development of Piotrze (loc. and voc.sg. of Piotr "Peter") from the form Pietrze under the influence of forms such as Piotra (gen.sg. of Piotr), Piotrowi (dat.sg. of Piotr), and mężowie (nom.pl. of mąż "man, husband") from the form meężwie under the influence of panowie (nom.pl. of pan "lord, master"), etc. Owing to this work Bau-

GENERAL LINGUISTICS IN POLAND: LATE 1860S - LATE 1960S

17

douin's name found itself mentioned together with the Neogrammarians, whose theory of analogical creations became widely known, together with their thesis of the exceptionless sound laws, as one of the pillars of linguistic reconstruction in comparative-historical linguistics (cf. Weinsberg 1987:791792). In the history of linguistics, the Baudouin's Kazan period of scientific ac­ tivity has secured itself a permanent place. Yet as early as in his inaugural lecture of 1870 at St. Petersburg, Baudouin insisted on treating the study of 'static' aspects of sounds in a language as equal in right with those of the socalled 'dynamic' aspects, arguing against the view that only a historical ap­ proach is scientific and that concentrating one's attention on the actual state of a language might be of comparable importance to the scientist. In fact, he claimed that the grammarian's studies may be regarded as truly scientific if they connect the investigations of linguistic facts at one given moment with the full development of the language in question (cf. Adamska-Salaciak 1996:78). In his own words: "Statics deals with the laws of linguistic equi­ librium; dynamics with the laws governing the historical movement of lan­ guage, its mobility in time" (Baudouin 1879-1881, quoted in Jakobson 1971[1960]:398). Thus, Baudouin was one of the first to speak in favor of this dichotomy, which later was called synchrony and diachrony by Saussure (cf. 1922[1916]:138-140). By 'static laws' Baudouin meant to say that the laws operating within a given contemporary language are not to be explained with the laws of past periods or those of other languages. At that time, his view of the subject-matter of linguistics was very broad when he insisted on the study of the life of language in all its manifestations (Baudouin 1990[1871]:45; cf. Adamska-Salaciak 1996:75). In the same lecture we may also find the distinction between the two forms of existence of language, ab­ stract and concrete: i.e., a language as a determined complex of certain con­ stituent parts and categories, existing only in potentia, and a language as a re­ current process steadily renewing itself in use; the former called simply 'language' (jazyk), and the latter, 'speech' (riecz) reminds us the opposition between langue and parole, introduced in Saussure's lectures of 1907-1911 (cf. 1922[1916]:138-140; for details, see Williams [1993:31-32], especially p.55). The next of Baudouin's published works considered relevant for the de­ velopment of general linguistics were his detailed programs of his Kazan lectures during the academic years 1875-1878 (Baudouin 1876, 1877-1878, 1879-1881). At the head of Baudouin's contributions to structuralist views of language, some fifty years before its first theses were formulated, one has to

18

POLISH LINGUISTICS : ORIGINS AND TRENDS

place his treatment of linguistic facts from the viewpoint of their role in lan­ guage. As one of the objectives of his lectures he asks and also answers the question as to "why, to what end is accent used by different peoples?" (Jakobson 1971[1960]:401-402). Baudouin also provides examples of a mov­ able accentuation in Russian, like wysypat ("to pour out", cf. Polish wysypac) vs wysypát ("to habitually pour out", cf. Polish wysypywac), where it may serve to express the morphological opposition, against a stabilizing stress as, e.g., in Polish, where accent plays a role 'of phonetic cement' binding sylla­ bles together into words (see Weinsberg 1987:792-793). The awareness of the difference between the mere physical nature of sounds and their significance for the people who use them in a certain lan­ guage brings Baudouin to treat phonetics either as an acoustic-physiological part of natural sciences or as a morphological-etymological part of the gen­ eral sciences of sounds standing 'in connection with the word meanings' they contribute to. The former, called 'anthropophonics', 'considers all sounds of human speech [...] from the objective-physical and physiological point of view'; and the latter, defined as 'phonetics in the strict sense of this word', should 'sudy and analyze the equivalents of sounds (of sound units and their combinations) with respect to certain of their properties, i.e. to the role they play in language' (Baudouin 1871; see Jakobson 1971[1960]:399). Again the awareness of the conventional nature language and its systemic-relational character was formulated in a typically structuralist way, as we may conclude from Baudouin's statement: 'In different languages physiologically identical sounds may possess different values in accordance with the whole sound sys­ tem, i.e. in accordance with their relations to the other sounds of the same language' (1877-1878; see Jakobson, p.400). "These investigations", writes Jakobson (402-403), "entered an entirely new phase in 1878 when the 27year-old Polish linguist Mikolaj Kruszewski [...] came to Kazan' to work on his dissertation under the supervision of Baudouin de Courtenay". 3.2 Kruszewski's (and Baudouin s) work during the Kazan period In Kruszewski's independent work "Ob 'analogii' i 'narodnoj etimologii' ('Volksetymologie') [On 'analogy' and 'folk-etymology' ('Volksetymolo­ gie')]" of 1879, and the works carried out under Baudouin's supervision, such as Ueber die Lautabwechslung (1881b) and "Prinzipien der Sprachent­ wicklung" (1884-1890), the pioneering proposals of the pupil were inter­ weaving with the thoughts initiated by his teacher (cf. Baudouin 1904[18881889]: 96-175; cf. Jakobson 1967:x-xxv; on Kruszewski's contribution to general linguistics and his theoretical innovations, see Koerner 1986: 60-67,

GENERAL LINGUISTICS IN POLAND: LATE 1860S - LATE 1960S

19

68ff. and in Kruszewski 1995:xxviii-xxxii). Here the neo grammarian notion of analogy, applied earlier by Baudouin, Scherer, and their followers only to matters of inflection, was explicated in a more generalized way. Kruszewski noticed, for example, that the phenomenon of the so-called folk etymology does not differ in essence from the inflectional analogy, that is, the transfor­ mation of the stem of one word under the influence of that of another (as, for example, the change of the Polish word cmentarz "cementary, burial-ground" into smętarz under the influence smętek, smętny "sadness/sorrow, sad/sor­ rowful" (cf. Weinsberg 1987: 792-792). Another pair of structuralist notions which is identified today with that of 'syntagmatic' and 'paradigmatic' relations, was formulated by Kruszewski as 'the order of co-existence' and 'the order of succession' nearly in the same psychological manner as Saussure (cf. 1922[1916]:170-175) did it later on when distinguishing rapports syntagmatiques and rapports associatifs. Ac­ cording to Kruszewski (1883:149) 'The laws of association transform an un­ limited mass of words in one harmonious whole. Thanks to association by similarity words form many co-ordinated systems, or nests; association by contiguity orders them into series' (see Williams 1993:83-85, for a detailed analysis). One of the main theses (ascribed later to Saussure although with the stress on synchrony over and above diachrony), was proclaimed by Baudouin as early as in 1870 (cf. 1990[1871]:43; for pertinent quotations and comments, see Adamska-Salaciak 1996: 75, 78) and realized by him and Kruszewski, when they postulated a 'static' linguistics as being equally indispensable as a 'dynamic' linguistics. As well, they introduced the two basic notions, impor­ tant for a grammatical description of modern languages, namely the notion of 'morpheme' as the smallest indivisible entity which bears meaning as a word in itself or as a constituent of a word (such as root, prefix, suffix, inflectional ending, and the like) and the concept of 'alternation', that is, the variation in the form of speech sounds as they occur in inflectional derivational mor­ phemes in different environments or under different conditions. The term 'morpheme' (morfema) was introduced by Baudouin in 1881 ex post to the program of his Kazan lectures of 1877-1878. The term 'alternation', referring to the exchange or replacements of speech sounds in the same phonetic envi­ ronment, occurs for the first time in 1881 in Baudouin's review of Kru­ szewski's Master' thesis of (1881a) "K voprosu o gune: Issledovanie v oblasti staroslovianskogo vokalizma" [On the question of guna: A study in the domain of Old Slavic vocalism] devoted to the phenomenon of vowel gra­ dation in the Indo-European languages. The notion of alternation was first put

20

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

forward by Baudouin, but as he himself emphasized, Kruszewski set forth the theory of alternations 'much more philosophically, concisely and precisely' (Baudouin 1894:234; quoted from Jakobson 1971[1960]:406). Both notions became popular somewhat later thanks to the German version of Baudouin's 1894 treatise Versuch einer Theorie phonetischer Alternationen: Ein Capitel aus der Psychophonetik (1895). The third notion, connected with the functional theory of sound systems and decisive for the role of meaningful components in a language, was the notion of 'phoneme'. As Weinsberg (1987:794) has pointed out, in the same year, 1881, both chief representatives of the Kazan linguistic school were aware that the distinction, introduced by Baudouin by distinguishing between anthropophonics and phonetics proper which required a parallel of variables that would represent phonetic units of language in both domains of their oc­ currence. However, Baudouin (1881:69) placed this notion within the realm of comparative and genetic linguistics when he defined the phoneme as 'the sum of generalized anthropophonic properties of a given phonetic part of the word, indivisible in the process of establishing the links of correlation within one language and the links of correspondence within several languages', and, more specifically, as 'what is phonetically indivisible from the point of view of the comparability of phonetic parts of the word' (quoted after AdamskaSalaciak 1996:105). So, it was again Kruszewski, seen from the present-day structuralist perspective, who reached the essence of the descriptive and 'stat­ ic' linguistics when he stated (1881:14): T propose to call the phonetic unit (i.e., what is phonetically indivisible) a phoneme, as opposed to the sound — the anthropophonetic unit. The benefit and indispensability of such a term (and of such a concept) are obvious a priori'. (On differences of interpretation of this observation, compare Jakobson 1971[1960]:407 and Adamska-Salaciak 1996:27.) Kruszewski might also be considered as the discoverer of the notion of combinatorial variants, not only of phonemic, but also morphemic types, when one interprets the statement included, in his only article written in Pol­ ish, the following statement: 'Every linguistic unit [...] occurs in speech in different environments. [...] Every sound unit changes its form in accordance with its environment" (Kruszewski 1885:91, also quotated in Jakobson 1971 [1960]:410, note 68). And he nearly came to a functional definition of pho­ neme (based on its relevant features and its social universality) when he formulated the so-called static law of sounds, stating that "each sound is, in the same conditions, approximately the same, acoustically and physiologi­ cally, for all individuals of a given dialect and period" (Adamska-Sałaciak's

GENERAL LINGUISTICS IN POLAND: LATE 1860S - LATE 1960S

21

[1996:46] transl, of Kruszewski 1883:17; on the concept of the uniformity and harmony of the sound and the sound system, see Williams 1993:89-94). The extraordinary significance of Kruszewski's work and his scientific independence from Baudouin was highlighted in the obituary written after his death by Leonard Koimaczewski (1888), professor of West-European litera­ ture in Kazan. Baudouin reacted to what he considered an exaggerated ap­ praisal of his pupil in his own obituary of Kruszewski (Baudouin de Courtenay 1888) and a subsequent critical analysis (1888-1890) of all of Kru­ szewski's publications (cf. Weinsberg 1987:795-796). For example, in a polemic with Kruszewski's dualist division of words into morphemes as be­ longing to the psychological domain and phonemes to the physical domain of human speech, Baudouin proposed a twofold division of words on a psycho­ logical level, first into morphemes and then into phonemes as mental images of sounds connected with meaning-bearing units, and on a physical-physio­ logical level into syllables and then into sounds considered as parts of phrases realized in articulated speech. This conclusion was drawn by Williams (1993:148) from the following quoted passage from Baudouin (1888-1889: 146-147): 1) The psychological division is from the point of view of the brain center of speech; thus it is a division into units which are endowed with meaning, into units, which are associated with a whole series of both linguistic and extra-linguistic images. 2) The phonetic division, the anthropophonetic division, [...] a division from the point of view of the linguistic periphery. From this point of view the particular manifestations of speech, which represent an uninterrupted continuity of sound, are divided first into series of sounds [...] which are pronounced with one breath.

3.3 Baudouin s views after Kruszewski's death As Weinsberg pas pointed out (1987:796-797), Baudouin — like Kru­ szewski and, later, Saussure — always stood under the partial influence of psychologism, but from 1888 he propagated it in its most extreme form (cf. Heinz 1978:217; Horálek 1989:105). Quite characteristically, in his 1894 monograph written during his professorship at the University of Dorpat, 'An attempt at a theory of phonetic alternations', whose German translation was provided with the characteristic subtitle 'A chapter from psychophonetics' (1895), Baudouin defined the phoneme as 'the psychic equivalent of a sound' (Baudouin 1894:234). Later still, Baudouin redefined the opposition between anthropophonetics and phonetics proper in terms of an opposition between phonetics and psy­ chophonetics. Suffice it to point out the titles of Baudouin's works dealing with the subjects of general linguistics from the period before the World War I to illustrate his position: "O psychicznych podstawach zjawisk językowych

22

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

[On psychical foundations of linguistic phenomena]" (1903), "Próba uzasadnienia samoistnosci zjawisk psychicznych na podstawie faktów językowych [An attempt at justifying the autonomy of psychical phenomena on the basis of linguistic facts]" (1905), "O zwi^zku wyobrażeń fonetycznych z wyobrazeniami morfologicznymi i semazjologicznymi [On the connection of pho­ netic images with morphological and semasiological images]" (1908), "Charakterystyka psychologiczna języka polskiego [The psychological character­ istics of the Polish language]" (1915). The latter provides the reader with an elaborate definition of the phoneme as 'the fusion in one monolitic represen­ tational group of the images of the actions of the articulatory organs as well as the images of the acoustic shades connected with these actions — images joined in one whole by the image of simultaneously performing the actions and perceiving the impressions of the acoustic shades' (Baudouin 1915:163; quoted after Jakobson 1971[1960]: 419). Finally in 1918, at age 73, when Baudouin received the Chair of IndoIndo-European Linguistics at Warsaw University, his academic work merely reflected his earlier creative labors. In the period between 1918 and 1929, Baudouin wrote articles on theoretical aspects of language, for example, "Różnica między fonetyką. a psychofonetyką. [The difference between pho­ netics and psychophonetics]" and "Ilościowość w mysleniu językowym [Quantitativeness in linguistic thinking]" (1927a, b), discussing such phe­ nomena as number, measure, duration, diminutiveness, iteration, augmenta­ tion, etc., in which he stressed the significance of statistics in language study. A posthumously published paper was devoted to the problem of the cogna­ tion of languages (Baudouin 1930). These works were replete with the spirit and imagery of psychologism. As Baudouin was interested in the Humboldtian problem how a given language may exert an influence upon the world view of its speakers (for an analysis of this issue see Grodziński 1989) and the mood of its speakers, Baudouin (1929) investigated the character of dif­ ferent grammatical categories. Constituting the system of abstract ideas, the categories of grammar specific to a given language, are not to be equated, in Baudouin's view, with extralinguistic reality. They are, rather, to be com­ pared to a kind of 'mythology' which transforms, in a manner of speaking, the whole of human experience into gold while touching it. On searching for the ways in which grammatical categories may affect lexical units, Baudouin found illustrations where they had stigmatized religious beliefs, folklore, and art, and should therefore be regarded as sources of various 'etymological myths' (cf. Stankiewicz 1986[1976]:47; Wąsik 1991:48).

GENERAL LINGUISTICS IN POLAND: LATE 1860S - LATE 1960S

23

In his appreciation of the role of Baudouin in the development of Polish linguistics Szober (1959[1930]:412-415) lists twenty-two points of Bau­ douin's autobiography included in the dictionary of writers and scholars edited by Vengerov (1897). In Baudouin's view, the recognition of language as a product of psycho-social factors with the claim that the basis for linguis­ tics should constitute not only individual psychology but also sociology in confrontation with the traditional treatment of language is an organism, was of crucial methodological importance for contemporaries working at universi­ ties during the particular period when Baudouin was active in international discussions, because even such prominent linguists as Schleicher and his followers, and also Kruszewski, were influenced by the idea that linguistics was to be considered a part of the natural sciences. Among Baudouin's principal theses, which did not lose its scientific vi­ tality among his followers and pupils, was his distinction between phonetic and psychophonetic values of speech sounds, his theory of phonetic alterna­ tions, his methodological postulate to examine linguistic facts within the to­ tality of the system in which they function as constituents, his requirement to study the living language(s) befor proceeding to deal with documents of dead languages in order to strive for generalizations, and, apart from this, the pos­ tulate to take into account not only the history but also the geography of a language, bearing in mind that 'every fact should be considered in its appro­ priate spatial and temporal environment' (see Jakobson 1971 [1960]:399, ref­ erence 16). 3.4 Porzeziński' s contribution to Polish linguistics Another linguist among the theoreticians of language who worked at first in Russia and then continued their career in Poland was Wiktor Porzeziñski (1870-1929), who was Baudouin's junior by twenty-five years. He was known not only as a most gifted student of Fortunatov (and his successor at Moscow University in 1901), who transmitted the teachings of his scarcely publishing master (Weinsberg 1987:801-802), but also as a defender of the neogrammarian credo concerning the law of exceptionless phonetic changes. In Porzeziński's view, even the principle of analogy is to be rejected, and all exceptions from sound laws, considered hitherto as apparent, should be ex­ plained by borrowings from another language or dialect. Accordingly, in his Introduction into Linguistics, both in its Russian version (Vvedenie v jazykovedenie) and its German translation Einleitung in die Sprachwissenschaft, Porzeziñski (1910[1907]) spoke in favor of the distinction of linguistics from psychology, physiology, and philology when defining, on the one hand, the study of language as the ensemble of signs of our thoughts and emotions

24

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

which are accessible to perception, and on the other the science of the history of human languages (cf. Weinsberg 1987:801). After 1922 Porzezinski moved to Poland permanently, to take up the Chair of Indo-European linguis­ tics at the University in Warsaw and, concurrently, at the Catholic University in Lublin. Despite certain anachronistic views in the period before World War I, Porzezinski was very progressive with respect to structural trends de­ veloping at the turn of 1920s. His contributions to theoretical problems of linguistics during the last seven years of his life spent in Poland included sev­ eral works on the history of Polish linguistics, on questions of methodology as well as on selected problems of semantics and orthoepics. Worthy of men­ tion is his approach towards the classification of the parts of speech (pub­ lished in Polish in 1923 and known from its French translation of 1929); Porzeziński (1929) he compared the state of traditional grammar with the achievements of modern linguistics of his time, with special reference to their practical applications. The subject of several of his critical analyses were di­ visions based on semantic criteria which, in his view, relied unduly on im­ pressionistic-psychological data. In opposition to Jan Los (1860-1928) and Szober, Porzeziński proposed to apply only strictly formal criteria for defin­ ing the parts of speech, that is, the grammatical criteria derived from mor­ phology and syntax. In his semantic studies on grammatical forms in 1927, devoted to Łoś, where he critically analyzed the viewpoints of Bertold Del­ brück (1842-1922), Wilhelm Streitberg (1864-1925), and others, Porzeziński proposed to distinguish (1) the sense inherent in a language from the coinci­ dental, secondary sense implied by the context; (2) the actual state of the sense as distinct from the historical one, and (3) the grammatical sense marked by a formal feature derived from the sense in which this feature does not occur. 3.5 Rozwadowski's contribution to Polish linguistics One of the most prominent organizers of the scientific life in linguistics in the Polish speaking world, not only in the period between the two World Wars but also earlier, was Jan Rozwadowski (1867-1935), professor of Com­ parative Grammar at the Jagellonian University in Cracow from 1899, and co-founder of the Polish Linguistic Society in 1925. As an Indo-Europeanist and Slavist, he made his name known in Poland through works pertaining to all domains of the sciences of language: descriptive phonetics, the historical study of sound changes, history of language, dialectology, word formation and inflection, etymology and semasiology, syntax and stylistics, as well as toponomastics. Yet he was best recognized also as a general theorist of lan-

GENERAL LINGUISTICS IN POLAND: LATE 1860S - LATE 1960S

25

guage (cf. Lehr-Spławiński 1936:3-21; Szober 1959:189-195[=1937:421425]; Mańczak 1960:5-17; and Rokoszowa 1991:17-27). Rozwadowski's contribution to general linguistics was outlined in the following works: (1) Wortbildung und Wortbedeutung (1904), an elaboration of a Polish study on semasiology (Rozwadowski 1903); (2) "Ein quantitatives Gesetz der Sprachentwicklung" (1909), and (3) the lecture "Zjawisko dysautomatyzacji i tendencja energii psychicznej [The phenomenon of disautomatization and the tendency of psychical energy]" delivered in 1911, but not published until 1922. Rozwadowski characterized the results of these earlier studies after World War I in a journai Polska w kulturze powszechnej [Poland in the public culture] (2.133-134 [Cracow, 1918]), as follows: I formulated some observations which with the scope of their generalization may de­ serve the names of Taws' and namely, the law of bipartition, that the basis of every linguistic product, provided that it is an expression of a clear apperception, is biparti­ tion; furthermore, the law of quantitative development of a language stating that the difference between pairs of linguistic products must present a certain constant quan­ tity; when it diminishes under this measure, one of the products, as independent, dis­ appears; when it augments above this quantity, a new independent product comes into existence;finally, the law of disautomatization stating that the principal cause of evolution in linguistic creativity, equally as good as in cultural creativity, is a con­ stant need for the refreshment of an emotional factor being used up through automa­ tization. (Quoted in Szober 1959[1937]:423)

Within the domain of a theory of diachronic word-formation the concept of duality in the structural division of words which was presented by Roz­ wadowski in Wortbildung und Wortbedeutung undoubtedly played an inspir­ ing role. Its original extension, in the interwar and early postwar period in Poland, was a word-formation theory of Doroszewski (1928-1931, 1946), which, in effect, impeded the progress of synchronic analyses of words per­ taining to the meaning of their lexical and grammatical constituents (cf. Wierzchowski 1993:75-77). Rozwadowski tried to find the answer how the structure of a newly created word reflects its creator's conception about its designate. In opposition to Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920), who claimed that the objects are usually named after one unique feature,3 Rozwadowski stated that the base of every language product consists of two parts: a distinguishing component pertaining to its semantic aspect; and an identifying component pertaining to its formal aspect. For example, in the words wiatrak ("wind3

Cf. the following passage included in chapter 3, ''Benennung von Gegenständen" of the 2nd volume of Wundt's Völkerpsychologie (31912 II.505 [= 1909 II.464]; spread print in the original): "Jede Benennung von Gegenständen, mag sie eine primäre oder eine sekundäre sein, pflegt nun nach e i n e m e i n z e l n e n M e r k m a l zu geschehen."

26

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

mill"), German Windmühle, compared with other words of the type chlopak ("boy"), wieszak ("rack"), Wassermühle, Kaffemühle, it is -ak, or respectively -mühle which appear as identifying components, contrary to wiatr-, Windplaying the role of distinguishing components. Hence, as Mańczak (1960:7) underlined, the identifying component corresponds approximately to the ele­ ment which is called in logic genus proximum, and the corresponding ele­ ment of the distinguishing component is differentia specifica (see also Weinsberg 1987:797-798). As a popularizer of scientific knowledge Rozwadowski became famous after editing, in 1921, all of his representative works in one collection O zjawiskach i rozwoju języka (On the phenomena and development of language). This fact had been noticed even by the Indo-Europeanist Antoine Meillet (1866-1936) who expressed his regret that this book was not published in French (cf. Weinsberg 1987:799). Another linguistic subdiscipline on which Rozwadowski presented his own views was semantics. In one of his major works dealing with 'Semantics and grammar: The science of meaning within the domain of the sciences of language' (1924), he argued that semantics is not to be placed in the same dimension with the fields describing other systems of language, such as pho­ netics, inflection, derivation, and syntax. The same cannot be said with regard to word morphology. In his view, every language product, being a unity of form and meaning, can be treated at the same time either from the point of view of morphology or from the point of view of semantics. And, as to their hierarchy within the system of language, he argued that such units as (1) sound products: phones, groups of phones (diphthongs, affricates), syllables and groups of syllables, (2) word products: uniform words (radical words), suffixal words, compound words, fused words, groups of words, (3) sentence products: uniform sentences (unisegmental), simple bisegmental sentences, compound sentences, (4) conventionalized 'sayings' such as propositions, re­ ports, questions, answers, orders, wishes, and the like (among them also proverbs, greetings, etc.), (5) compositions: stories, instructions, conversa­ tions, recommendations, reprimands, and, more generally, (6) speech (lan­ guage); social languages, professional languages, dialects, etc., being the products of different levels and different structures, are mutually overlapping and intersecting. As a result, Rozwadowski argued that it is inappropriate to separate phonetics, inflection, and syntax in the same way as in traditional grammar, According to him, the interrelationships between different levels of grammar may be shown hierarchically and componentially. For example, phonetics is not to be treated as a separate discipline, but it should be investi-

GENERAL LINGUISTICS IN POLAND: LATE 1860S - LATE 1960S

27

gated from the point of view of morphology or semantics and vice versa, as either a phonetic morphology or a phonetic semantics. Furthermore, distin­ guishing the different levels of language products, one may speak about things such sound phonetics, word phonetics, sentence phonetics, the phonet­ ics of 'sayings', and the phonetics of dialects. Following this point of view, inflection is not to be reduced to the plane of words alone; it can also refer to sounds, while explaining the conditions of sound change, further to syllables, words, word compounds, and so on. The same may be said with reference to syntax (cf. Wąsik 1991:49). Rozwadowski was at the peak of his scientific accomplishments, when he delivered a lecture before the audience of the Société de Linguistique de Paris in 1925. Assuming that language is one of the most comprehensive reflec­ tions of human culture, he presented linguistics as in the highest degree pre­ destined, among the other humanistic disciplines, to formulate generaliza­ tions about the main mechanisms of human thinking. As the best way to learn more about the relevant features of culture and the psychical development of man, he proposed to undertake the following urgent tasks which presented themselves, at the time, to the linguistic world, namely to describe: (1) the general grammar including all linguistic categories and the structures of all languages of the world, (2) the general lexicon containing the choice of all possible lexical entries, arranged systematically and notionally, with etymo­ logical explanations and semantic values, and (3) the general or, in other words, universal 'literature' collecting those kinds of literary products which had not been documented in writing, that is to say, transmitted orally from generation to generation only. Rozwadowski was aware of the fact that it would be 'an enormous enter­ prise demanding the cooperation of mankind as a whole', but he was con­ vinced that the result of it would be a delivery of the great register of all civilizations, the picture of its present state in different phases and, in other words, also the picture of the de­ velopment of our cognition, morality, philosophical ideas, religion, and poetry. (Rozwadowski 1960[1925] :239) 3.6 Rudnicki's contributions to general linguistic ideas in Poland Rozwadowski's ideas regarding the bipartite apperception of linguistic facts were developed further by Mikolaj Rudnicki (1881-1978), an Indo-Europeanist and Slavist, in his habilitation on 'psychophonetic' subjects (Rud­ nicki 1912-1913). Assuming the Chair of Linguistics at the University of Poznań in 1919, he devoted much of his energies to the substantiation of the thesis of a long-standing Slavic habitat in the river-basin between Vistula and

28

POLISH LINGUISTICS : ORIGINS AND TRENDS

Oder (see Rudnicki 1971:219; cf. Bańczerowski [1981:32] and Wąsik [1991: 47], for details). Moreover, he extended the law concerning the relations of association between reproducing and reproduced mental images (which were seen as affecting the development of language and its dialectal disintegration) into the law of the identification of insufficiently different associations, pub­ lished in the 1927 Rozwadowski Festschrift under the title "Język jako zjawisko pamięciowe [Language as a memory phenomenon]". In this latter work he included his theoretical ideas mainly from his doctoral dissertation on the operation of assimilation in Indo-European, in particular the Romance and Slavic languages. Among the basic principles of Rudnicki's understanding of language as a memory phenomenon, one can reconstruct the following assertions: (1) Lin­ guistic phenomena are to be studied in relation to individual subjects and cul­ tures; (2) language is one of the forms of individual and collective conscious­ ness; (3) linguistic consciousness and linguistic reproductions constitute two separate phenomena that condition two kinds of notional images which are stored in the minds of subjects: the reproducing and the reproduced ones; 4) phonetic changes in a language result from a disturbance of the balance in the consciousness between the reproducing and the reproduced images; 5) lin­ guistic consciousness manifests itself in the particular acts of linguistic re­ production, when the processes of identification or differentiation of the no­ tional images come into prominence, and, finally, (6) speech sounds in the psychophonetic system of a given language may have different degrees of semasiological significance, depending on their quality and the number of words in which they occur, as well as one the length of words, or the types of morphemes as parts of words, and on their position within these entities. 3.7 Gawroñski' s contribution to general linguistics One of the co-founders of the Polish Linguistic Society was Andrzej Gawroñski (1885-1927), a prominent Indologist, the author of the first Polish handbook of Sanskrit, who first received the Chair of Sanskrit at the Jagellonian University in Cracov in 1916 and then moved to Lvov in order to take over the Chair of Linguistics a year later. He died prematurely, leaving a great output behind him, but only few articles in which he treated language as a subject-matter of philosophy, logic, psychology and sociology and origins of language were noticed in the history of linguistics (Kurylowicz 1927:3746; Rysiewicz 1948:3-29). As Kurylowicz stated in his obituary (1927:38) Gawroñski also left behind many interesting marginalia. The summary of Gawroński's theoretical approach to language can be found in his paper "La langue, sa nature et son origine" (1927). It was written

GENERAL LINGUISTICS IN POLAND: LATE 1860S - LATE 1960S

29

in France with the aim to be delivered as a lecture for the Société de Linguis­ tique de Paris, but could be published only after the author's death. As a pupil of Gerson Blatt (1858-1916) in Lvov, Karl Brugmann (1849-1919), August Leskien (1840-1916) and Eduard Sievers (1850-1932) in Leipzig, he persis­ tently held to the neogrammarian position in his approach to comparative Indo-European studies, defending at the same time the principles of autonomizing psychologism and individualistic expressionism, also leaning towards aesthetic idealism. The article of 1927 was not only an exposé of the follower of a certain movement, but also a critical discussion of the new ideas of structuralism and stylistics, represented by the work of Saussure and Charles Bally (1865-1947). In fact, Gawroński was against the definition of language as a system of signs, and rejected the division of linguistic investigations into synchronistic and diachronistic perspectives, the conception of language as a collective property as well as such notions as language, parole, valeur, and the like. The main theses of Gawroński's general linguistic views may be summa­ rized in the following statements: (1) Language is a phonic and articulated form of the psychic interior of an individual, and, as a medium expressing the human mind; it may be compared to the fine arts. (2) The psychic interior consists both of intellectual elements related to the senses of words, to their notional representations, and of emotional elements evoked by extralinguistic factors and/or language forms. (3) All changes in language correspond to changes in the mind, but not all changes in the mind have to be reflected in a language, (4) Language as a lifeless form of a living psychical interior, adapted by an individual to his needs, is always in arrears in its development in relation to the development of human intelligence when it is relatively per­ sistent as a means of communication. (5) Communication, constituting a so­ cial matter, is subordinated to the automatization of human habits, whereas language as a personal matter is dependent, with regard to the possibilities of changes, upon the will of an individual striving for the disautomatization of habits. (6) Social language does not exist at all; similarly, there is no collec­ tive spirit nor is there collective intelligence; it is merely a kind of fiction based on the content of communication (cf. Wąsik 1991:50). 3.8 Szober's views in the area of general linguistics Another Polish linguist who worked in a similar spirit of psychologism as Gawroński was Stanislaw Szober (1879-1939); on him, cf. Taszycki (1938:39) and Wieczorkiewicz (1959:7-22). He was the pupil of, inter alia, Jan Karlowicz (1836-1903) and Porzeziński, and a successor of Adam Antoni Kryński (1844-1932) in the Chair of the Polish Language at the University of

30

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

Warsaw. As a theoretician of language searching for the explanation of lin­ guistic facts in reference to the human mind, Szober explained himself in the second revised edition of his Gramatyka języka polskiego (Grammar of the Polish language) of 1923, and later in his Zarys językoznawstwa ogólnego [An outline of general linguistics], of which only the first volume was ever pub lished (Szober 1924). Writing in the first part of this book on the psycho­ logical foundations of language, Szober remained true to the position of an associatinist psychologism. He defined, for example, words as signs of the images of things, the notions of which form features representing only partial constituents of thought; only sentences are signs of the whole finished thought, i.e., as only they represent an ensemble of images (Gesamtvorstel­ lung). In the chapter on the meaning of words, Szober devoted his main atten­ tion to the classification of the parts of speech. Arranging them in elaborated tabular form, he distinguished altogether 27 categories of so-called language signs replacing the traditional parts of speech. In the first category signs were divided into (1) signs as constituents of thought, i.e., formal words, formalconcrete words, and general words, and (2) signs of emotions. In the second category, we find (1) words with a concrete meaning, i.e., signs designating concrete objects, and (2) words with an abstract meaning, ordered in accord­ ance with the degree of their abstracteness, i.e., signs of features (properties, acts, and states) of objects, signs of properties of features, and signs of ab­ stract notions. In the second part of his book, dealing with the interrelationship between language and society, Szober discussed the conventional nature of language and presented his opinion on creativity in language and the role of the indi­ vidual in the following terms: Man can never become an independent creator of his language; at best he happens to be only its co-author. The nature of language does not refuse him this particular work of co-authorship, whether in a conscious or an unconscious manner, and supplies him with the vast domains of style, syntax, and word formation, within which an individual, in dependence of his mental resources and in accordance with his own intellectual competence and emotional attitude, is able to develop, within the boundaries of established customs, his own independent creativity [...]. (Szober 1924:211-212)

The relation between the language of an individual and the language of socie­ ty, he characterized as follows: The products of individual language activity happen to possess their assured stability inasmuch as they, having broken their bonds with their individual creator, become transformed into the common property of a national language. (Ibid.)

GENERAL LINGUISTICS IN POLAND: LATE 1860S - LATE 1960S

31

3.9 Doroszewski' s impact on Polish linguistics from the 1930s to the 1970s The linguistic output in Poland, starting in the 1930s before World War II, was enriched by Witold Doroszewski (1899-1976), Szober's successor of to the Chair of the Polish Language at the Warsaw University since 1939. His name appeared on the international scene thanks to his thought-provoking claim that Saussure's insights into the social nature of language derived from the work of French sociologist Emile Durkheim (1858-1917). Doroszewski's statement on the subject was published in French in 1929, followed by a pa­ per given at the fourth meeting of the Polish Linguistic Society in 1930, and presented abroad at the Second International Congress of Linguists, held in Saussure's birthplace (Doroszewski 1931) and, last but not least, in a further article, also in French and published in Paris (Doroszewski 1933) in which he argued that while Saussure's concept of 'langue' as fait social was inspired by Durkheim, the individual aspect, 'parole', was due to a concession Saus­ sure had made to Durkheim's opponent, Gabriel Tarde (1843-1904). Al­ though Doroszewski never supplied any textual evidence for his claims, his suggestions became almost a dogma in the historiography of linguistics (cf. Koemer 1975: 787, 795-796). In general linguistic matters Doroszewski was inclined (according to Skorupka 1977:3) to encompass linguistic phenomena holistically in their rela­ tion to man, studied not only by linguists but also by representatives of other disciplines as philosophy, ethnography, physiology, psychology, neurology, and other both natural and social sciences. Therefore, he did not accept the structuralists' innovations without criticism. For example, when the program of the Prague School became widely known, he rather preferred to submit his own solutions. His writings of that period were marked by a monistic ap­ proach, insisting on the inseparability of phonology from phonetics and of the description of language from its history. At the same time he held to a prag­ matic utilitarianism which presupposed that language is a social activity, and not merely a social fact in the Durkheimian and Saussurean understanding. Linguists should pay their attention, in his view, not to the sounds as types, as ideal objects, but rather to the phonetics of the speaker. Indeed, Doroszewski utilized the term 'phoneme' only as a synonym for a sound which distin­ guishes meanings, since he ascribed a greater practical profit to classifying the sounds as constituents of words, i.e., as being functionally active, func­ tionally passive, and the valiants of sounds being functionally neutral. Such an approach resulted from his claim that phonetics as a science is only one, and that its two subdivisions: descriptive and functional phonetics, have the same object of study; they differ only in methodological standpoints. Simi-

32

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

larly, in the domain of semantics, Doroszewski proposed not to ask for the meaning of words following the chronology of their formation but for their uses, as far as they are acts of people who speak and write in a given lan­ guage. At the same time, when the tendency to construct a theory of language in­ stead of depicting its history prevailed in linguistics, and when themphasis shifted from the search for laws governing linguistic evolution to the detec­ tion of laws determining the function of language in social life, Doroszewski intervened in the international debate on subjects like dialectology and the search for quantitative isoglosses (Doroszewski 1935a, b), which were to be applied in registering the instability of language norms being under the influ­ ence of a standard variety. Its importance, however, was to be appreciated not earlier than after the 1960s with the development of urban sociolinguistics (cf. Ivić 1966[1963] §155). A remarkable step towards the theory and method of empirical linguistics was made by Doroszewski in his series of "Monografie slowotwórcze" (Monographs on word formation) of 1928-1931. They contributed (1) to the development of the Rozwadowski's bipartition concept regarding the division of word-stems into word-formatives and word-bases according to their histor­ ical formation; (2) to the distinction between structural and truly semantic specialization of derivational formatives; (3) to the differentiation between logical and syntactic types of derivativations, considered as functionally (i.e., derivationally) motivated vs non-motivated forms, and subjective vs predica­ tive formations, and (4) to the specification of the two principles of evolution, namely, (a) lexicalization — connected with a transformation of derivationally motivated word-structures into autonomous word-signs, and (b) crystal­ lization of dominants — stating that among the forms having the same com­ mon function, or among different functions related to one and the same lan­ guage form, there is a natural tendency to select one dominant form or to sep­ arate functions which are connected from this time on with each particular form. The methods of word formation proposed by Doroszewski before War War II and summarized in his publication on "Kategorie slowotwórcze [Word formation categories]" in 1946 were continued by some of his students until the 1970s. The idea of bipartition in the analysis of word forms was first challenged in 1957 by Jozef Wierzchowski (1927-1999) who proposed ex­ cluding the concept of derivation from the synchronic, that is, pre-grammatical analysis of words which are to be treated as linguistic signs with uniform meaning. (For further discussion, see Wierzchowski 1993:79.)

GENERAL LINGUISTICS IN POLAND: LATE 1860S - LATE 1960S

33

During the period of political liberation of scientific thinking from Marx­ ist dogma which took place in Poland after 1954-1956, Doroszewski also made known some of his convictions on the roots of structuralism, especially on Baudouin de Courtenay as a precursor of new trends in linguistics (1955), the historical foundations of structuralism (1957), on the fundamental con­ cepts of de Saussure's Cours (1961). Lexicographical team-work, started during the pre-World War II period, and continued with great impetus thereafter; Doroszewski's academic posi­ tion allowed him to formulate many principles guiding the activities of a lexi­ cographer. A series of practice-oriented articles based on Polish material were published in the journal Poradnik Językowy ["Language Advisor"]. Some of them were of considerable value for general semantics. The most vivid theoretical questions which fostered the attention of his pupils and fol­ lowers and to which Doroszewski returned steadily in all his works were col­ lected in his Elementy leksykologii i semiotyki [Elements of lexicology and semiotics] published in Poland and abroad (Doroszewski 1970, 1973). In the preface of this work the author states that there is only one reality which de­ serves the full attention of a linguist, namely, language as a unity of bio-psy­ cho-social properties of man. His monistic view of mind and body in social interaction is expressed in chapters such as 'Thought and experience'; The trend of dualism and the trend of monism in the history of linguistic thought'; The soul and the brain. Thinking as cognitive process and the lexical mythcreating activity'; The notion of the subject of thought'; The notion of law: Two systems of signals' (Doroszewski 1973). In some other parts of his book Doroszewski explains his understanding of the relationship between lexicol­ ogy and lexicography; he considers the notion of sign as an object of percep­ tion and as an element of the linguistic system, discusses the notion of word (lexeme), and reflects upon the properties which an appropriate definition of word should possess. In short, Doroszewski' s work resolves not only theoret­ ical-linguistic questions, but also epistemological and methodological-philo­ sophical ones in general (cf. Skorupka 1977:7). 3.10 The place of Kurytowicz in national and international linguistics The first Polish linguist who accepted new structural approaches to the evolution of language, while working within the traditional domain of histor­ ical-comparative linguistics, was Jerzy Kurylowicz (1895-1978). He became Professor of Comparative Linguistics at the University of Lvov in 1928. Af­ ter World War II he briefly worked at the University of Wroclaw (19461948), and from then on until his retirement at the Jagellonian University in Cracow (cf. Wąsik 1991:52).

34

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

Although he did not produce any synthesis of his general linguistic views which would deliver a theoretical model of language comparable to what had been provided by Saussure, Karl Bühler (1879-1963), and Louis Hjelmslev (1889-1965) in Europe or by Leonard Bloomfield (1887-1949) in America, Kuryłowicz was, however, in his own theoretical achievements and in his empirical work, a 'match for the classics of structuralism' of the circles of Vienna, Prague, or Copenhagen, by systematically paving the way, alongside the members of these 'schools', step by step, for acceptance of the new meth­ odology, as Adam Heinz illustrated in his obituary "Professor Jerzy Kury­ lowicz as a theoretician of language" (Heinz 1998[1980]). Out of Kurylowicz's sixty-two publications written before 1939 only two had a directly theoretical character (in Heinz' [1998:158-160] estimation), namely, the articles on "Dérivation lexicale et dérivation syntaxique" of 1936, and the "Struktura morfemu [The structure of a morpheme]" of 1938, where the empirical side (Indo-European philology) and the theoretical side (structuralism) were fruitfully combined. However, fewer than thirty out of around three hundert scientific books and papers published after the World War II, could be selected as useful for the purposes of reconstructing Kury­ lowicz's general theory of language. To his most quoted works belong eight articles written in the early postwar period: "Le sens des mutations consonantiques" (1947a); The poetic language from a linguistic point of view' (1947b); "Contributions à la théorie de la syllabe" (1948a); "Les structures fondamentales de la langue: Groupe et proposition" (1948b); "Le problème du classement des cas" (1949a); "La notion de l'isomorphisme" (1949b); "Linguistique et théorie du signe" (1949c); "La nature des procès dits 'ana­ logiques'" (1949d), as well as also his booklet on Język a cztowiek [Language and man], which had a popular-scientific impact (Kurylowicz 1948c). Kuryłowicz's theoretical reflections which contributed to the establish­ ment of a systematic treatment of language can be summarized on the basis of the following frames of reference (cf. Heinz 1998[1980]:158): 1) The substantiation of a structuralist methodology with special adher­ ence to Praguean functionalism oscillating towards Copenhagen formal­ ism, based on the principle of abstractive relevance and the signified/signifier distinction under special consideration communicative acts. These concepts were successfully applied in his monograph The Inflec­ tional Categories of Indo-European (Kurylowicz 1964b). 2) The distinction between the primary and the secondary form of a given function, assuming that its 'firstness' is determined by the language system and its 'secondness' by the text; hence, inter alia the need for a distinction between a lexical derivation and a syntactic derivation (Kury­ lowicz 1936).

GENERAL LINGUISTICS IN POLAND: LATE 1860S - LATE 1960S

35

3) The, assumption of a hierarchical organization of language where the organization of linguistic levels, units, and their functions within the whole system depends on the structure of the system, and, within the text, on the range of its use determined by the distribution of a given function or a given textual form (Kurylowicz 1948b). 4) The assertion of isomorphism existing within textual structures (syl­ lable, word, and sentence), expressed in terms of the parallel identity of their composition on every linguistic level (Kurylowicz 1949b). 5) The transposition of structural methods from synchrony to diachrony, in order to investigate the relative chronology of linguistic elements and structures on the basis of their occurrence in textual valiants, i.e., follow­ ing the method of 'internal reconstruction' (Kurylowicz 1964a[1962], 1962/63). 6) The specification of such notions as, among others, analogy (Kury­ lowicz 1949d), variance (1947a, 1958), sign (1949c), grammatical and concrete cases (1949a), syllable and syllabication (1948a). 7) The distinction between the objects studied within the domain of lin­ guistics proper and objects of the related disciplines (Kurylowicz 1947b, 1948c). 3.11 Milewski s contribution to general linguistics The events of the war and the German occupation of Poland (1939-1945) had, strangely enough, influenced the crystallization of theoretical interests in the representative of younger generation of linguists, such as Tadeusz Milewski (1906-1966), who had obtained his habiltation in Slavic Philology after his studies at the University of Lvov in 1933 and, following a scholarship, in Indo-European linguistics in France in 1937. Being imprisoned at the beginning of the war together with other profes­ sors of the Jagellonian University, Milewski did not waste the time of his stay in the Nazi camp, as Jan Safarewicz (1904-1992) writes in his scientific bio­ graphy of Milewski (1966:3-4). Thanks to his contact with Tadeusz Kowalski (1889-1948), a professor of oriental studies, he had the opportunity to get ac­ quainted with Turkish in order to extend his knowledge of languages beyond Indo-European. Thus, after his return to Cracow Milewski started to work on the problems of general linguistics, with special reference to language typol­ ogy, interested as we was in the comparative study of their structure. The 'Minutes from the activities and sessions of the Polish Academy of Learning' (Sprawozdania z czynności i posiedzeń Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności), vol. XLV, Sept. 1939 - Dec. 1944, a collective volume published in 1945, pp. 1415, point to a number of clandestine meetings held during the war. However, among the eighteen linguistic communications presented at these sessions of the Commission of Language only two were devoted to general linguistics.

36

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

Those were the papers read by Milewski on 20 April 1941 on "Problematyka lingwistyki ogólnej [Issues in general linguistics]" and on 31 May 1942, "Rozmieszczenie języków w czasie i przestrzeni [The distribution of lan­ guages in time and space]". Referring to Saussurean principles, Milewski dis­ tinguished three research domains in general linguistics: (1) the distribution of languages in time and space including the history and geography of lan­ guages, (2) the investigation of language functions, and (3) the causes of the evolution of language (for details see Wąsik, in press). Milewski was able, however, to publish a synthesis of his research only after the war, when he became docent at the Jagellonian University in 1946. At the same time, he prepared a popular booklet on 'Language and society' (Milewski 1947) and an encyclopedic reference book of a hitherto unattained thematic scope, composed of two parts under the main title 'An outline of general linguistics5 (Milewski 1947-1948). The abbreviated version of its third part was to deal with synchronic comparisons of world's languages; it appeared later as 'Theoretical foundations of the typology of languages' (Milewski 1950). Four years later it was used as a material source for a chap­ ter in the introductory text Wstęp do językoznawstwa (Milewski 1954) and in a revised version of a more advanced handbook Językoznawstwo (Milewski 1965). A comparison between works which Milewski published between 1947 and 1965 with regard to the approaches to the theory of linguistics re­ flects the state of the knowledge available to their author. The first theoretical part of Milewski's Outline of 1947 dealt not only with the topics of general linguistics, but also provided a fairly detailed history of linguistic ideas. As far as its methodological framework is concerned, Milewski's attention was concentrated more on precursors of structuralism than on Saussure, and where functionalism is concerned, he was under a strong influence of the Vi­ enna psychologist Bühler and his main work Sprachtheorie (1934). In the second part of 1948 Milewski provided a synthesis of 'external linguistics', summarizing the history and geography of the world's languages in an acount of their origin, expansion and decline, as well as their mutual relationships. But in the 1950s new points of view emerged, deriving especially from American schools, which led Milewski to refer to a logical analysis of lin­ guistic phenomena and the application of mathematical methods. Milewski was much less dependent on Bühler's views, and presented in a very careful and critical way some of the more recent points of view. However, due to a political crisis between 1954 and 1956, a structuralist turn-over in Polish lin­ guistics was preceded by Milewski's Wstęp do jçzykoznawstwa (1954), be­ fore a series of Western works began to become available in Polish transía-

GENERAL LINGUISTICS IN POLAND: LATE 1860S - LATE 1960S

37

tion. The extended version of Milewski's handbook, since 1965 entitled simply Językoznawstwo, has played an important role in the dissemination of structuralist's thought until the late 1980s. Milewski's opus magnum of 1947-1948 was very highly estimated by Kurylowicz, who wrote: 'We deal here with the first Polish synthesis in the respective domain. Thus, disregarding any objections whichever at present or in the future could be raised, its author's merit remains durable' (1950:98). Another theoretical achievement was Milewski's article of on 'Phonolog­ ical derivation' of 1949, which evoked a vivid discussion, inter alia, of Zdzislaw Stieber (1903-1980) and Przemyslaw Zwolinski (1914-1981), around the openess of synchronic phonological systems and the diachronic nature of the so-called potential phoneme in a language. 3.12 Zawadowskïs contributions to linguistic theory The circle of the theoreticians of language became stronger at the end of 1940s when a pupil of Kurylowicz's, Leon Zawadowski (employed at the University of Wroclaw between 1946 and 1969, from 1955 as professor in the Department of General Linguistics) defended his doctoral dissertation on the on the theory of relative clauses in 1948 (published as Zawadowski 1952), in which he had applied newer structuralist approaches to issues in comparative-historical linguistics. Educated as a classical philologist, Zawa­ dowski also cultivated Romance languages at the University of Wroclaw. Moreover, he published many papers in English. In the 1950s and 1960s he was engaged mostly in resolving the topics from the domain of general and comparative linguistics in combination with issues of a theory of cognition. His theoretical contributions to linguistics at that time were mainly in the ar­ eas of semantics and syntax. To the most quoted of Zawadowski's early publications belong articles dealing with semantic relationships on various levels of the linguistic system: "On the elements of semantic systems" (1950) and 'A real or apparent influ­ ence of the context upon the meaning' (1949). The empirical standpoint of in­ ductive functionalism exhibited in the works of the Prague School and of de­ ductive formalism developed by the Copenhagen School were applied in his paper on "The so-called relative motivation in language", read to the 7th In­ ternational Congress of Linguists held in Oslo in 1957 (cf. Zawadowski 1958a) and more extensively in his book Constructions grammaticales et formes périphrastiques (Zawadowski 1959). Subsequently, the role of this dual methodological approaches to modem linguistics was explained theoret­ ically in his articles on "Induction et déduction en linguistique" (1965a) and "Primary data of linguistic analysis" (1965b); terminological distinctions of

38

POLISH LINGUISTICS : ORIGINS AND TRENDS

functional textual linguistics were proposed in his treatises on "Substance and relation in language" (1963) and "La signification des morphèmes poly­ semes" (1958b), both dealing with the mutual relations between lexicon and grammar with reference to the question of the meaning of morphemes. The author's epistemological views are expressed throughout his discussion of these and other issues of linguistic theory. The culmination of Zawadowski's theoretical inquiries was his mono­ graph Lingwistyczna teoría języka [A linguistic theory of language] of 1966 (published in an extended English version in 1975), in which he discussed both the hitherto prevailing aspectual theories of language as well as charac­ terized his own structural-functional and text-oriented approach to the object of linguistic study. Much attention is devoted in his works to theoretical re­ marks on the acquisition and use of language, and, furthermore, to the divi­ sion of language elements into entities, units and constructions as well as methods of text segmentation based on the functional analysis of categorial and semantic relationships between text elements and their referents in the extratextual reality and other subjects. A linguistic theory had to be — in Zawadowski's understanding — a the­ ory of language independent of any other outside discipline. Nevertheless, thinking about the autonomy of his discipline he delimited the subject-matter of linguistics proper in abstraction from man, society and mind, albeit within the framework of logical semiotics and epistemology. The point of departure of his theory constituted the definition of language as a semantic system with grammar and universal lexicon in a functional and 'ecological' sense, i.e., the system that can be used everywhere by everyone for every task as a set (of classes) of text elements serving to communicate about the (set of classes of referents in the) extratextual reality. By 'lexicon' Zawadowski means an in­ ventory of morphemes, the smallest entities of meaning, composed of 'diacrits' (cf. Gk. diákrit), the smallest entities of (i.e., diacritic) distinctive and delimitative function, and by 'grammar' the set of relationships, that is, the rules of functional co-existence, and the rules of substitutional alternativeness organizing and ordering its lexicon, its diacrits and morphemes, into texts el­ ements of a concrete human language. The description of language consists of two parts — according to Zawadowski — (1) morphology in the broadest sense, dealing with the form of texts, and (2) with semantics in the broadest sense concerned with the meaning of texts, specified as their relationships to the extratextual reality (cf. Handtke & Rzetelska-Feleszko [1977:28-29], for elaboration).

GENERAL LINGUISTICS IN POLAND: LATE 1860S - LATE 1960S

39

Engaging in polemics with traditional trends, Zawadowski (1966:27) moved to define the subject-matter of modern linguistics in terms of the fol­ lowing sets of oppositions: 1) communicativism and functionalism vs tradi­ tional expressionism; 2) textualism (and referentialism) vs psychologism; 3) collectivism vs solipsism (individualism); 4) systemism (and relationism) vs atomism, and 5) synchronism (not excluding diachronism) vs an exclusive diachronism. 4. Concluding remarks It seems that Milewski's death in 1966 and Zawadowski's emigration in 1969 first to the United States, then to Canada marked the end of an era in Polish general linguistic theory. Both Milewski and Zawadowski, trained in Indo-European comparative-historical philology, were able to encompass the whole scope of the linguistic discipline, both in terms of 'data orientation' and 'theory-orientation'. They familiarized themselves with the tenets of the various competing structuralist schools, but went on to develop their own postulates as to how to delimit the the domain of linguistic study and to go about their self-imposed tasks. Starting from the 1970s, more energy was de­ voted in Poland to conduct empirical investigations on the basis of more recent Western theoretical trends embracing more specific — and restricted — areas of linguistic inquiry. REFERENCES Adamska-Salaciak, Arleta. 1996. Language Change in the Works of Kruszewski, Baudouin de Courtenay and Rozwadowski. Poznan: Motivex. Bajerowa, Irena. 1987. "Językoznawstwo polonistyczne [Polish studies in lin­ guistics]". Historia nauki polskiej [A history of Polish science] ed. by Bogdan Suchodolski, vol.IV: 1883-1918, part III, 802-819. Wroclaw-Warszawa, [etc.:] Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich. Bally, Charles. 1926. Le langage et la vie. Paris: Payot. Bańczerowski, Jerzy, Jerzy Pogonowski & Tadeusz Zgółka. 1982. Wstęp do językoznawstwa [Introduction to linguistics]. Poznań: Uniwersytet imienia Adama Mickiewicza. Bañczerowski, Jerzy. 1981. "Z ogólnojęzykoznawczych koncepcji Mikołaja Rudnickiego (1888-1978) [From the general-linguistic concepts of Mikolaj Rudnicki]". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 38.11-32. [English translation in the present volume, Chapter 8.] Bartschat, Brigitte. 1989. "Die kritische Weiterentwicklung der morphologischen Typologie des 19. Jahrhunderts durch J. Baudouin de Courtenay und H. G. C. von der Gabelentz". Rieger et al. 1989.295-212. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1868. "Einige Fälle der Wirkung der Analogie in der polnischen Deklination". Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung auf dem

40

POLISH LINGUISTICS : ORIGINS AND TRENDS

Gebiete der arischen, cel tischen und slawischen Sprachen 6.19-88. (Polish transl, with restored preface in Szkice jçzykoznawcze [Linguistic sketches] by J. Baudouin de Courtenay, 176-248. Warszawa: Piotr Laskauer, 1904; photographic repr. in Dziela wybrane [Selected works] by J. Baudouin de Courtenay, vol.1.176-248. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1974.) Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1869. "August Schleicher". Tygodnik ilustrowany 104.317-319. (Russian transl, in /. A. Boduen de Kurtenè: Izbrannye trudy po obščemu jazykoznaniju [J. Baudouin de Courtenay: Selected works in general lin­ guistics] ed. by V. P. Grigorev & A. A. Leont'ev, 35-44. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk, 1963.) Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1871. "Nekotorye obscie zamecania o jazykovedenii i jazyke [Some general remarks about linguistics and language]". Zumal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosvescenija 153.279-316 (Feb. 1871). (Repr. in Dziela wy­ brane [Selected works] by J. Baudouin de Courtenay, vol.IV.35-64. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1990; English transl, in Baudouin de Cour­ tenay 1972.49-80.) Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1876. "Programma ctenij docenta sravnitel' noj grammatiki indoevropejskix jazykov v tekuscem 1875/76 akademiceskom godu [A program of readings by a docent of comparative grammar of Indo-European lan­ guages in the current academic year 1875-1876]". Izvestija imperatorskogo Kazanskogo Universiteta 12:1.191-195. (English transl, in Baudouin de Courtenay 1972.81-91.) Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1877-1878. 'Todrobnaja programma lekcij v 18761877 akademičeskom godu [The detailed program of lectures in the academic year 1876-1877]". Izvestija imperatorskogo Kazanskogo Universiteta 13.309-324; 14:1.61-133. (English transl, in Baudouin de Courtenay 1972.92-113.) Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1881. "Nekotorye otdely 'sravnitelnoj grammatiki' slavjanskix jazykov [Some chapters of the 'comparative grammar' of the Slavic languages]". Russkij filólogičeskij vestnik 5.265-344. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1879-1881. "Podrobnaja programma lekcij v 18771878 akademiceskom godu [The detailed program of lectures in the academic year 1877-1878]". Izvestija imperatorskogo Kazanskogo Universiteta 16:2.350-380, 6.445-492; 17:6. 370-480; 18:1.481-612. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1888. "Zametka k nekrologu Nikolaja Vjaceslavovica Krusevskogo [A remark on the obituary of Nikolaj Vjaceslavovic Krusevskij]". Russkij filolo gičeskij vestnik 1888:3/4.296-302. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1888-1889. "Mikoiaj Kruszewski, jego zycie i prace naukowe [Mikołaj Kruszewski, his life and scholarly works]". Prace Filologiczne 2:3.837-849, 3:1.116-175. (Repr. in Szkice jçzykoznawcze by J. Baudouin de Courtenay, 96-175. Warszawa: Piotr Laskauer, 1904; repr. in Dziela wybrane [Selected works] by J. Baudouin de Courtenay, vol.1, 96-175. Warszawa: Pañst­ wowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1974.) Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1894. "Proba teorii alternacji fonetycznych [An attempt at a theory of phonetic alternations]". Rozprawy Akademii Umiejętności. Wydzial Filologiczny 2:5.219-364. (Repr. in Dziela wybrane [Selected works] by

GENERAL LINGUISTICS IN POLAND: LATE 1860S - LATE 1960S

41

J. Baudouin de Courtenay, vol.IV. 140-278. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1990.) Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1895. Versuch einer Theorie phonetischer Alterna­ tionen: Ein Capitel aus der Psychophonetik. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1903. "O psychicznych podstawach zjawisk językowych [On psychical foundations of linguistic phenomena]". Przeglqd filozoficzny 6:2.153-171. (Repr. in Dziela wybrane [Selected works] by J. Baudouin de Courtenay, vol.IV.355-371. Warszawa: Paiistwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1990.) Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1905. "Proba uzasadnienia samoistnosci zjawisk psychicznych na podstawie faktów językowych [An attempt at justifying the autonomy of psychical phenomena on the basis of linguistic facts]". Sprawozdania z posiedzeń Wydzialu Filologicznego Akademii Umiejętności w Krakowie 1-3. (Repr. in Dziela wybrane by J. Baudouin de Courtenay, vol.IV.372-392. War­ szawa: Paiistwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1990.) Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1908. "O związku wyobrażeń fonetycznych z wyobrazeniami morfologicznymi i semazjologicznymi [On the connection of phonetic images with morphological and semasiological images]". Sprawozdania z Posie­ dzen Towarzystwa Naukowe g o Warszawskiego 1:4/5.9-28. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1915. "Charakterystyka psychologiczna języka pols­ kiego [The psychological characteristics of the Polish language]". Encyklopedia polska, vol. 11:3.154-226 (Repr. in Dziela wybrane [Selected works] by J. Bau­ douin de Courtenay, vol.V.28-98. Warszawa: Paiistwowe Wydawnictwo Nau­ kowe, 1983; also in O języku polskim [On the Polish language] by J. Baudouin de Courtenay, ed. by Jan Basara & Mieczyslaw Szymczak, 139-225. Warszawa: Paiistwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1984.) Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1917[1909]. Vvedenie v jazykovedenie [Introduction to linguistics]. 4th ed. St.Petersburg. (Repr. in I. A. Boduèn de Kurtenè, Izbrannye trudy po obščemu jazykoznaniju [J. Baudouin de Courtenay: Selected works in general linguistics] ed. by V. P. Grigor'ev & A. A. Leont'ev, II, 246-293. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk, 1963.) Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1927a. "Różnica między fonetyką a psychofonetyką [The difference between phonetics and psychophonetics]". Sprawozdania z Posiedzeń Towarzystwa Naukowego Warszawskiego 19.3-9. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1927b. "Ilościowość w mysleniu językowym [Quantitativeness in linguistic thinking]", Symbolae grammaticae in honorem Ioannis Rozwadowski vol.I.3-18. Cracow: Gebethner & Wolff. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1929. "Einfluss der Sprache auf Weltanschauung und Stimmung". Prace Filologiczne 14.184-225. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1930. "Zagadnienie pokrewieństwa językowego [The problem of the cognation of languages]". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 2.104-116. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1972. Baudouin de Courtenay Anthology: The begin­ nings of structural linguistics. Edited with an introduction by Edward Stankiewicz. Bloomington & London: Indiana University Press.

42

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

Bühler, Karl. 1934. Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: Gustav Fischer. (2nd ed., Stuttgart, 1965.) Christy, Thomas Craig. 1983. Uniformitarianism in Linguistics. Amsterdam & Phi­ ladelphia: John Benjamins. Doroszewski, Witold. 1928-1931. "Monografie slowotwórcze [Monographs on word formation]". Prace Filologiczne 13.1-261; 14. 34-85; 15:1.275-300; 15:2. 423-436. Doroszewski, Witold. 1929. "'Langue' et 'parole': Une page d'histoire des idées générales en linguistiques". Prace Filologiczne 14.485-487. (Polish version in Studia i szkice jçzykoznawcze by W. Doroszewski, 80-88. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1962.) Doroszewski, Witold. 1930. "Socjologia i filozofja Durkheima [Sociology and philosophy of Durkheim]". Przeglqd Filozoficzny 33.181-195. Doroszewski, Witold. 1931. "Sociologie et linguistique, Durkheim et de Saussure". Actes de Deuxième Congrès international de Linguistes, 146-147. Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve. Doroszewski, Witold.. 1933. "Durkheim et F. de Saussure". Journal de Psychologie normale et pathologique 30. 82-91. Doroszewski, Witold. 1935a. "La linguistique générale et l'étude des dialectes". Atti del III. Congresso Internationale dei Linguisti, Roma 1933, p.34. Firenze: Felice Lemonnier. Doroszewski, Witold. 1935b. "Pour une réprésentation statistique des isoglosses". Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 35.28-42. Doroszewski, Witold. 1946. "Kategorie slowotwórcze [Word formation cate­ gories]". Sprawozdanie Warszawskiego Towarzyswa Naukowe go 39.20-42 (Repr. in Studia i szkice jçzykoznawcze by W. Doroszewski, 205-222. Warszawa: Pañst­ wowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1962.) Doroszewski, Witold. 1955. "Jan Baudouin de Courtenay na tle swojej epoki i jako prekursor nowych prądów w językoznawstwie [Jan Baudouin de Courtenay against the background of his epoch and as a precursor of new trends in lin­ guistics]". NaukaPolska 1.47-58. Doroszewski, Witold. 1957. "Historyczne podstawy strukturalizmu [Historical foun­ dations of structuralism]". PoradnikJezykowy 1957.241-255. Doroszewski, Witold. 1961. "O podstawowych koncepcjach Kursu de Saussure'a [On the fundamental concepts of de Saussure's Cours]". Kurs jçzykoznawstwa ogólnego by F. de Saussure, transl, by Krystyna Kasprzyk, 5-11. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Doroszewski, Witold. 1970. Elementy leksykologii i semiotyki. Warszawa: Pañst­ wowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. (Transl, by Iain Taylor as Elements of Lexicology and Semiotics. Berlin & New York: Mouton & de Gruyter, 1973.) Fisiak, Jacek. 1972. Wklad Polski do językoznawstwa światowego [Poland's con­ tribution to world linguistics]. Poznań: Uniwersytet imienia Adama Mickiewicza. Fisiak, Jacek. 1975. Wstęp do wspólczesnych teorii lingwistycznych [An introduction to contemporary linguistic theories]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne. (2nd ed., 1978.)

GENERAL LINGUISTICS IN POLAND: LATE 1860S - LATE 1960S

43

Florczak, Zofia. 1978. Europe]skie zródla teorii jçzykowych w Polsce na przelomie XVIII i XIX wieku. Studia z dziejów teorii języka i gramatyki [European sources of the theories of language in Poland at the turn of the XVIIIth and XlXth centuries. Studies from the history of the theory of language and grammar]. Wroclaw, Warszawa, Krakow & Gdańsk: Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich. Furdal, Antoni. 1977. Językoznawstwo otwarte. Opole: Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossoliñskich. (2nd enl. ed., Wroclaw, 1990.) Gawroñski, Andrzej. 1927. "La langue, sa nature et son origin". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Jçzykoznawczego 1.3-93. (Polish transl. "O istocie i rozwoju jçzyka [On the nature and development of language]" in Szkice jçzykoznawcze by A. Gawroñski, 1-37. Warszawa, Krakow, Lublin, Lodz, Poznań, Wilno & Zakopane: Gebethner & Wolff, 1928.) Godel, Robert. 1957. Les sources manuscrites du Cours de linguistique générale de F. de Saussure. Geneva: Droz. Gołąb, Zbigniew, Adam Heinz & Kazimierz Polański. 1968. Slownik terminologii jçzykoznawcze] [A dictionary of the linguistic terminology]. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Grabowski, Yvonne 1989. "The Views of Baudouin de Courtenay on Mixed Char­ acter on All Languages". Rieger et al. 1989.97-102. Grodziñski, Eugeniusz 1989. "Jan Baudouin de Courtenay o wplywie jçzyka na światopogląd [Jan Baudouin de Courtenay about the influence of language on the world view]". Rieger et al. 1989.141-147. Grucza, Franciszek. 1983. Zagadnienia metalingwistyki: Lingwistyka—jej przedmiot, lingwistyka stosowana [Issues in metalinguistics: Linguistics — its subjectmatter, applied linguistics]. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Gutschmidt, Karl. 1989. "Jan Baudouin de Courtenay und Hugo Schuchardt: Einige Bemerkungen", Rieger et al. 1989.155-164. Handtke, Kwiryna, & Ewa Rzetelska-Feleszko. 1977. Przewodnik po językoznawstwie polskim [A guide to Polish linguistics]. Wroclaw, Warszawa, [etc.]: Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossoliñskich. Heinz, Adam. 1966. "Językoznawstwo ogólne i indoeuropejskie w 20-leciu PRL [General and Indo-European linguistics on the 20th anniversary of the Polish People's Republic]". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Jçzykoznawczego 24.16-33. Heinz, Adam. 1978. Dzieje jçzykoznawstwa w zarysie [A history of linguistics in outline]. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Heinz, Adam 1980. "Profesor Jerzy Kurylowicz jako teoretyk jçzyka [Professor Jerzy Kurylowicz as a theoretician of language]". Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 557; Prace Jçzykoznawcze 66.53-60. (Repr. in Studia jçzykoznaw­ cze. Wybór prac opublikowanych w języku polskim [Linguistic studies: A selection of works published in Polish] by J. Kurylowicz, 5-12. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1987.) Heinz, Adam. 1980. "Profesor Jerzy Kurylowicz. Wspomnienie posmiertne [Pro­ fessor Jerzy Kurylowicz: A memoir after the death]", Biuletyn Polskiego Towar­ zystwa Językoznawczego 37.3-7.

44

POLISH LINGUISTICS : ORIGINS AND TRENDS

Horálek, Karel 1989. "Jan Baudouin de Courtenay a psychologizm w językoznawstwie [Jan Baudouin de Courtenay and the psychologism in linguistics]". Rieger et al. 1989.103-109. Ivić, Milka 1966[1963]. Kierunki w lingwistyce [Trends in linguistics]. Polish transl, from Serbo-Croatian by Anna Wierzbicka. Wroclaw-Warszawa-Kraków: Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich. (2nd enl. ed. transl, from the 3rd Serbo-Croatian ed. of 1974 by Kazimierz Feleszko & Anna Wierzbicka, Wroclaw, Warszawa, Krakow & Gdańsk: Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossoliñskich, 1975.) Jakobson, Roman. 1958. "Powstanie pojęcia fonemu w lingwistyce polskiej i swiatowej [The origin of the concept of the phoneme in Polish and world linguistics]". Sprawozdania z prac naukowych Wydzialu Nauk Spolecznych Polskiej Akademii Nauk [Minutes from the scientific works of the Faculty of Social Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences] 1:6.48-54. Jakobson, Roman 1960. "Kazaiiska szkoia polskiej lingwistyki i jej miejsce w światowym rozwoju fonologii [The Kazan school of Polish linguistics and its place in the international development of phonology]". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 19.3-34. (Repr. in English transl, in R. Jakobson, Selected Writ­ ings, vol.11: Word and language, 394-428. The Hague: Mouton, 1971.) Jakobson, Roman 1967. "Znaczenie Kruszewskiego w rozwoju językoznawstwa ogólnego [The significance of Kruszewski in the development of general lin­ guistics]". Wybór pism [Selected writings] by M. Kruszewski, x-xxv. WroclawWarszawa- Kraków: Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossoliñskich. Koerner, E[rnst] F[rideryk] K[onrad]. 1973. "European Structuralism: Early begin­ nings". Current Trends in Lnguistics ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok, vol. XIII: Histo­ riography of linguistics, 717-827. The Hague: Mouton. Koerner, E. F. K. 1986. "Kruszewski's Contribution to General Linguistic Theory". Linguistics across Historical and Geographical Boundaries: In honour of Jacek Fisiak, vol.1: Linguistic theory and historical linguistics ed. by Dieter Kastovsky & Aleksander Szwedek, 53-75. The Hague: Mouton. Kolmaczewski, Leonard = K[olmacevskij] L[eonard Zenonovic]. 1888. "Krusevskij, Nikolaj Vjaceslavovič". Russkij filologičeskij vestnik 1888:1.70-75. Kruszewski, Mikolaj. 1879. "Ob 'analogii' i 'narodnoj etimologii' ('Volksetymo­ logie') [On 'analogy' and 'folk-etymology' ('Volksetymologie')]". Russkij filologièeskij vestnik 2:3/4.109-122. Kruszewski, Mikolaj. 1881a. "K voprosu o gune: Issledovanie v oblasti staroslovianskogo vokalizma [On the question of 'guna': A study in the domain of Old Slavic vocalism]". Russkij filologie eskij vestnik 5:1.1-109. (Extracts in Polish transl, in Wybór pism [Selected writings] by M. Kruszewski, 25-46. WroclawWarszawa-Kraków: Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossoliñskich, 1967.) Kruszewski, Mikolaj. 1881b. Ueber die Lautabwechslung. Kazan: Universitätsbuch­ druckerei. (English transl, by Robert Austerlitz in Kruszewski 1995.5-34.) Kruszewski, Mikolaj. 1883, Ocerk nauki o jazyke [An outline of the science of language]. Kazan: Tipografija Imperatorskogo Universiteta. (Polish transl, in Wybór pism, [Selected writings] by M. Kruszewski, 47-150. Wroclaw, Warszawa & Krakow: Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossoliñskich, 1967; English transl, by Gregory M. Eramian in Kruszewski 1995.43-172.)

GENERAL LINGUISTICS IN POLAND: LATE 1860S - LATE 1960S

45

Kruszewski, Mikolaj 1884-1890. "Prinzipien der Sprachenentwicklung". Interna­ tionale Zeitschrift für allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 1.295-307, 2.258-268, 3. 145-170, 5. 133-144, 360-399, (Friedrich Techmer's transl, of Kruszewski 1883, rev. by the author.) Kruszewski, Mikolaj. 1885. "Przyczynek do historii pierwotnych samoglosek dlugich [A contribution to the history of original long vowels]". Prace Filologiczne\.9\-\0\. Kruszewski, Mikolaj. 1995[1881b, 1883]. Writings in General Linguistics: On Vocalic Aternations; An Outline of Linguistic Science. Ed., with an introduction, by Konrad Koerner. (= Amsterdam Classics in Linguistics, 1800-1925, 11.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1927. "Andrzej Gawroński (1885-1927)". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Jçzykoznawczego 1.37-46. Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1936. "Dérivation lexicale et dérivation syntaxique (Contribution à la théorie des parties du discours)". Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris. 37. 79-92. (Repr. in Kurylowicz 1960.41-50.) Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1938. "Struktura morfemu [The structure of a morpheme]". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Jçzykoznawczego 7.10-28. (Repr. in Kurylowicz 1960.51-65.) Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1947a. "Le sens des mutations consonantiques". Lingua 1:1.7785. (Repr. in Kurylowicz 1960.240-247.) Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1947b. "Język poetycki ze stanowiska lingwistyki [The poetic language from a linguistic point of view]". Sprawozdania Wroclawskiego Towarzystwa Naukowego 2.4-11. (Repr. in Kurylowicz 1960.299-304.) Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1948a. "Contributions à la théorie de la syllabe", Biuletyn Pol­ skiego Towarzystwa Jçzykoznawczego 8.80-114. (Repr. in Kurylowicz 1960.193220.) Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1948b. "Les structures fondamentales de la langue: Groupe et proposition". Studia Philosophica 3.203-209. (Repr. in Kurylowicz 1960.35-40.) Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1948c. Jçzyk a czlowiek [Language and Man]. (= Jçzykoznawswo ogólne [General linguistics], 1.) Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna. Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1949a. "Le probème du classement des cas". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 9.20-43. (Repr. in Kurylowicz 1960.131-150.) Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1949b. "La notion de l'isomorphisme". Travaux du Cercle Lin­ guistique de Copenhague (= Recherches Structurales dédiées à L. Hjelmslev) 9.48-60. (Repr. in Kurylowicz 1960.16-26.) Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1949c. "Linguistique et théorie du signe". Journal de Psycho­ logie 1949.170-180. (Repr. in Kurylowicz 1960.7-15.) Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1949d. "La nature des procès dits 'analogiques'". Acta Lin­ guistica 5.15-37. (Repr. in Kurylowicz 1960.66-86. English transl, by Margaret E. Winters, "The So-Called Laws of Analogy", Diachronica 12:1.122-144 [1995].) Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1950. "Tadeusza Milewskiego Zarys językoznawstwa ogólnego Il [Tadeusz Milewski's Outline of general linguistics II]". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Jçzykoznawczego 10.98-105.

46

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1955. "Językoznawstwo ogólne w dziesiçcioleciu 1945-1954 [General linguistics in the decade 1945-1954]". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Jçzykoznawczego 14.1-10. Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1958. "Allophones et allomorphs". Omagiu lui lorgu lordan cu privilejul împlinarii a 70 de ani, 495-500. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Romîne. (Repr. in Kurylowicz 1960.27-34.) Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1960. Esquisses linguistiques. (= Prace jçzykoznawcze [Lin­ guistic works], 19) Wroclaw & Krakow: Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich. Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1962/63. "O tzw. wewnętrznej rekonstrukcji [On the so-called internal reconstruction]". Sprawozdania Wydzialu Nauk Spolecznych Polskiej Akademii Nauk 19-41. (Repr. in Studia językoznawcze [Linguistic studies] by J, Kurylowicz, 48-70. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1987.) Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1964a. "On the Methods of Internal Reconstruction", Proceed­ ings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, Cambridge, Mass., August 27-32 1962 ed. by Horace G. Lunt, 9-36. The Hague: Mouton. Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1964b. The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European, Heidel­ berg: Carl Winter. Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1967. "Mikołaj Kruszewski". Wybór pism [Selected writings] by M. Kruszewski, iii-ix. Wroclaw-Warszawa -Krakow: Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich. Lehr-Spławiñski, Tadeusz. 1936. "Plon prac językoznawczych Jana Rozwadowskiego (1867-1937) [The fruits of Jan Rozwadowskie's linguistic works]". Biu­ letyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Jçzykoznawczego 5.3-21. Leska, Oldrich. 1989. "The Structure of Language: Jan Baudouin de Courtenay and present-day linguistics". Rieger et al. 1989.17-23. Lewicki, Andrzej Maria. 1993. "Językoznawstwo polskie w XX wieku [Polish lin­ guistics in the XXth century]". Wspólczesny język polski by Jerzy Bartmiński (= Encyklopedia kultury polskiej, 2), 589-624. Wroclaw: Wiedza o Kulturze. Mańczak, Witold. 1960. "Zagadnienia ogolnojęzykoznawcze w pracach Jana Rozwadowskiego [General linguistics issues in the works of Jan Rozwadowski]". Wybór pism [Selected writings], vol.III: Językoznawswo ogólne [General linguis­ tics] by J. M. Rozwadowski, 5-17. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Nau­ kowe. Milewski, Tadeusz. 1947. Język a spoleczeństwo [Language and society]. (= Wyklady i Przemówienia, 25). Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego. Milewski, Tadeusz. 1947-1948. Zarys językoznawstwa ogólnego [An outline of general linguistics ] (= Prace Etnologiczne [Ethnological Works], vol.1), part 1: Teoria jçzykoznawstwa [A theory of linguistics], part II: Rozmieszczenie języków [The distribution of languages], fasc.l: Tekst, fasc.2: Atlas. Lublin & Krakow: Naklad i Wydawnictwo Polskiego Towarzystwa Ludoznawczego. Milewski, Tadeusz. 1949. "Derywacja fonologiczna [Phonological derivation]". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Jçzykoznawczego 9.43-57. (Repr. in Z zagadnień językoznawstwa ogólnego i historycznego [From the issues of general and his­ torical linguistics] by T. Milewski, 55-70. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1969.)

GENERAL LINGUISTICS IN POLAND: LATE 1860S - LATE 1960S

47

Milewski, Tadeusz. 1950. "Podstawy teoretyczne typologii języków [Theoretical foundations of the typology of languages]''. Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 10.122-140. Milewski, Tadeusz 1954. Wstęp do językoznawstwa [Introduction to linguistics]. Lodz, Warszawa & Krakow. (2nd ed., 1959; 3rd ed., 1960; 4th ed. 1962.) Milewski, Tadeusz. 1965. Językoznawstwo [Linguistics]. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. (English transl, from the 1969 ed. by Maria Brochwicz as Introduction to the Study of Language. The Hague: Mouton; Warszawa: Pañst­ wowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe/Polish Scientific Publishers, 1973.) Milewski, Tadeusz. 1966. "Dzialalnosc naukowa Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego w 20-leciu PRL [The scientific activity of the Polish Linguistic Society on the 20th anniversary of the Polish People's Republic]". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 24.9-16. Olmsted, D[avid] L[ockwoodl. 1989. "Baudouin, Structuralism and Society". Rieger et al. 1989.25-34. Polański, Kazimierz. 1975. "Językoznawstwo polskie w powojennym 30-leciu [Pol­ ish linguistics in the 30 years after the war]". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Jçzykoznawczego 33.15-22. Polański, Kazimierz. 1991. "Wprowadzenie [Introduction]". Kurs jçzykoznawstwa ogólnego by F. de Saussure, transl, by Krystyna Kasprzyka, 5-22. 2nd improved ed. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Polañski, Kazimierz, ed. 1993. Encyklopedia jçzykoznawstwa ogólnego [Ency­ clopedia of general linguistics]. Wrociaw-Warszawa-Kraków: Zakiad Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich. Porzeziñski, Wiktor. 1910[1907]. Einleitung in die Sprachwissenschaft. Authorized transl, from the Russian by Erich Boehme, revised by the author. Leipzig & Ber­ lin: B. G. Teubner. Porzeziñski, Wiktor. 1927. "Die allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft in Polen seit 1868". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Jçzykoznawczego 1.44-79. Porzeziñski, Wiktor 1929[1923]. "Quelques mots sur les 'parties du discours'". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Jçzykoznawczego 2.82-122. Rieger, Janusz, Mieczyslaw Szymczak & Stanislaw Urbañczyk, eds. 1989. Jan Niecislaw Baudouin de Courtenay a lingwistyka swiatowa: Materialy z konferencji międzynarodowej Warszawa 4-7 IX 1979 [Jan Niecislaw Baudouin de Courtenay and world linguistics: Materials from the international conference, Warsaw 4-7 IX 1979]. Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków-Gdańsk-Łódź: Zakład Narodowy imienia Ossoliñskich. Rokoszowa. Jolanta. 1991. "Problemy ogólnojęzykoznawcze i filozoficzne w pracach Jana Michala Rozwadowskiego". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Jçzyko­ znawczego 43-45.17-27 Rozwadowski, Jan Michał. 1903. "Semazjologia czyli nauka o rozwoju znaczeń wyrazów. Jej stan obecny, zasady i zadania [Semasiology or the science of the development of word meanings. Its current state, principles and tasks]". Eos 9.17111. Rozwadowski, Jan 1904. Wortbildung und Wortbedeutung. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. (Polish transl, by Gustaw Foss as"Slowotwórstwo i znaczenie wyrazów [Word

48

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

formation and word meaning]" in Wybór pism [Selected writings], vol.Ill: Językoznawstwo ogólne [General linguistics] by J. Rozwadowski, 21-95. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1960.) Rozwadowski, Jan. 1909. "Ein quantitatives Gesetz der Sprachentwicklung". Indo­ germanische Forschungen 25.38-50. (Polish transl, by Eugeniusz Sluszkiewicz "O pewnym prawie ilosciowym rozwoju jezyka [On a certain quantitative law of language development]" in Wybór pism [Selected writings], vol.III: Językoznawstwo ogólne [General linguistics] by J. Rozwadowski, 96-105. Warszawa: Pañstwo­ we Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1960.) Rozwadowski, Jan. 1921. O zjawiskach i rozwoju języka [On the phenomena and the development of language]. Krakow: Gebethner & Wolff. (2nd ed., 1950.) Rozwadowski, Jan. 1922. "Zjawisko dysautomatyzacji i tendencja energii psychicznej [The phenomenon of disautomatization and the tendency of psychical energy]". Kwartalnik filozoficzny 1.19-37. (Repr. in Wybór pism , vol.III: Językoznawstwo ogólne by J. Rozwadowski, 106-119. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydaw­ nictwo Naukowe, 1960.) Rozwadowski, Jan. 1924. "Semantyka a gramatyka. Nauka o znaczeniu w obrebie nauk o języku [Semantics and grammar. The science of meaning within the domain of the sciences of language]". JęzykPolski 9:97-108 & 129-143. (Repr. in Wybór pism , vol.III: Językoznawstwo ogólne by J. Rozwadowski, 138-160, War­ szawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1960.) Rozwadowski, Jan. 1925. "Les tâches de la linguistique". Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 25.105-122. (Polish transl, by Eugeniusz Słuszkiewicz as "Zadania językoznawstwa" in Wybór pism vol.III: Językoznawstwo ogólne by J. Rozwadowski, 228-239. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1960.) Rudnicki, Mikolaj. 1912. "Z zagadnień psychofonetycznych. (Na tle konkretnych wypadków polskich i słowiańskich) [From psychophonetic issues (Against the background of concrete Polish and Slavic cases)]". Materialy i Prace Komisji Językowej Akademii Umiejętności 5.173-260. Rudnicki, Mikolaj 1913. "Studya psychofonetyczne. I: Assymilacya [Psychopho­ netic studies. I: Assimilation]". Rozprawy Wydzia łu Filologicznego Akademii Umiejętnosci 3:5(50).98-204. Rudnicki, Mikolaj. 1913. "Wyobrazenia reprodukują.ce i reprodukowane [The repro­ ducing and the reproduced images]". Lingua Posnaniensis 16.49-59, Rudnicki, Mikolaj. 1927. "Język jako zjawisko pamięciowe (Prawo identyfikacji wyobrazeñ niedostatecznie róznych) [Language as a memory phenomenon. (The law of the identification of insufficiently different images)]". Symbolae grammaticae in honorem Ioannis Rozwadowski, vol.1.53-698. Kraków: Gebethner & Wolff. Rudnicki, Mikolaj. 1956. Językoznawstwo polskie w dobie oświecenia, Poznań: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Rudnicki, Mikołaj. 1971. "Językoznawstwo polskie w dobie uzyskiwania niepodległości [Polish linguistics in the period of regaining the independence]". Slavia Occidentalis 28/29.205-221.

GENERAL LINGUISTICS IN POLAND: LATE 1860S - LATE 1960S

49

Rysiewicz, Zygmunt. 1948. "Andrzej Gawroński et les travaux linguistiques au cours des vingt dernières années". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 8.3-29. Safarewicz, Jan. 1955. "Językoznawstwo indoeuropejskie w Polsce w latach 19451954 [Indo-European Linguistics in Poland in the years 1945-1954]". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 14.11-23. Safarewicz, Jan. 1966. "Tadeusz Milewski 1906-1966". Biuletyn Polskiego Towar­ zystwa Językoznawczego 24.3-8. Safarewicz, Jan. 1982. "Polskie towarzystwa jçzykoznawcze i polskie czasopisma jçzykoznawcze [Polish linguistic societies and Polish linguistic journals]". Język i jçzykoznawstwo polskie w szescdziesiçciolecie niepodleglosci (1918-1978). Materialy konferencji naukowej, Warszawa, 25 października 1978 [Language and Pol­ ish linguistics on the sixtieth anniversary of independence (1918-1978). Materials of the scientific conference, Warsaw, 25 October 1978] ed. by Janusz Rieger & Mieczysław Szymczak, 209-212. Wroclaw-Warszawa-Kraków: Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich. Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot. (2nd ed., 1922.; Polish transl, of the 5th ed., 1955. Kurs jçzykoznawstwa ogólnego by Krystyna Kasprzyk. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1961; 2nd revised ed., 1991.) Saussure, Ferdinand de 1954. ""Notes inédites de F. de Saussure", Ed. by Robert Godel. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 12.49-71. Schaarschmidt, Gunter 1989. "Baudouin de Courtenay and Language Contact Phe­ nomena". Rieger et al. 1989.89-95. Scherer, Wilhelm. 1868. Zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: Weidmann. van Schooneveld, Cornelis H. 1989. "Baudouin de Courtenay's Methodological Premisses for the Investigation of Language and their Relation to Present-Day Linguistics". Rieger et al. 1989.11-16. Skorupka Stanislaw. 1977. "Teoretyczny i metodologiczny aspekt badań językoznawczych profesora Witolda Doroszewskiego [Theoretical and methodological aspects of the linguistic research work of professor Witold Doroszewski]". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 35.3-9. Stankiewicz, Edward. 1976. Baudouin de Courtenay and theF oundations of Struc­ tural Linguistics. Lisse/Holland: Peter de Ridder Press. Sternemann, Reinhard & Karl Gutschmidt. 1989. Einführung in die vergeichende Sprachwissenschaft. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Szober, Stanislaw. 1923[1914—1916]. Gramatyka jçzyka polskiego [Grammar of the Polish language]. 2nd altered and enlarged ed. Lwow & Warszawa: Ksiąznica Polska. Szober, Stanislaw. 1924. Zarys jçzykoznawstwa ogólnego [An outline of general linguistics]. Fasc.l. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Towarzystwa Miłośników Języka Polskiego. Szober, Stanislaw. 1929. "Wiktor Porzeziński (1870-1929)". Biuletyn Polskiego To­ warzystwa Językoznawczego 2.69-81. Szober, Stanislaw. 1930. "Jan Ignacy Niecislaw Baudouin de Courtenay (18451829)". Prace Filologiczne 15.vii-xxiii, bibliography xxiv-liv. (Repr. in Wybór

50

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

pism [Selected writings] by S. Szober, 406-416. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1959. Szober, Stanislaw. 1937 "Jan Michal Rozwadowski (1867-1935)". Prace Filologiczne 28.189-195. (Repr. in Wybór pism [Selected writings] by S. Szober, 421425. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1959.) Taszycki, Witold. 1938. "Działalnosc naukowa Stanislawa Szobera (1879-1938) [The scientific actitvity of Stanislaw Szober]". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 7.3-9, Urbañczyk, Stanislaw, ed. 1978. Encyklopedia wiedzy o języku polskim [Ency­ clopedia of the knowledge of the Polish language]. Wroclaw-Warszawa, etc.: Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossoliñskich. (2nd revised and extended ed., Ency­ klopedia języka polskiego [Encyclopedia of the Polish language], Wroclaw, War­ szawa & Kraków, 1994.) Urbañczyk, Stanislaw. 1977. "Jçzykoznawstwo [Linguistics]". Historia nauki polskiej [A history of Polish science] ed. by Bogdan Suchodolski, vol.III: 1795-1862, 762-769. Wroclaw-Warszawa, [etc.]: Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich. Vengerov, S[emen] A[fanas'evič]. ed. 1897. Kritiko-biograficeskij slovar' russkix písatelej i učenyx [A critical-biographical dictionary of Russian writers and schol­ ars], vol.V. St. Petersburg: Tipografija M. M. Stasjulevica. Wsiąk, Zdzislaw, 1991. "General linguistics in Poland between 1918 and 1939". Languages of the World (Unterschleissheim near Munich) 2.43-52. Wąsik, Zdzislaw. 1999. "Jçzykoznawstwo ogólne [General linguistics]". Historia nauki polskiej: Wiek XX [A history of Polish science: The 20th century], vol.III: Nauki filologiczne[Philological sciences] ed. by Andrzej Śródka, 37-63. War­ szawa: Instytut Historii Nauki, Polska Akademia Nauk. Weinsberg, Adam, 1987, "Jçzykoznawstwo ogólne [General linguistics]". Historia nauki polskiej [A history of the Polish science] ed. by Bogdan Suchodolski, vol. IV, 1883-1918, part 111,786-802. Wroclaw-Warszawa, [etc.]: Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossoliñskich. Weinsberg, Adam. 1983. Jçzykoznawstwo ogólne [General linguistics]. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Wieczorkiewicz, Bronislaw. 1959. "Zycie i dzialalnosc naukowa Stanislawa Szobera [The life and scientific activity of S. Szober]". Wybór pism [Selected writings] by S. Szober, 7-22. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Wierzchowski, Jozef. 1993. "On the history of word formation analysis in Poland". Trends in Semantics I, 74-86. Bialystok: Katedra Językoznawstwa Ogólnego i Stosowanego Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego - Filii w Bialymstoku. Williams, Joanna Radwańska. 1993. A Paradigm Lost. The linguistic theory of Mikolaj Kruszewski. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Wundt, Wilhelm [Max]. 1900. Völkerpsychologie: Eine Untersuchung der Entwick­ lungsgesetze von Sprache, Mythus und Sitte, vol.I: Die Sprache. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann. (2nd ed., 1904; 3rd ed., 1912.) Zaleski, Jan. 1975. "50 lat dzialalności Polskiego Towarzystwa Jçzykoznawczego [50 Years of Activity of the Polish Linguistic Society]". Biuletyn Polskiego To­ warzystwa Jçzykoznawczego 33.21-28.

GENERAL LINGUISTICS IN POLAND: LATE 1860S - LATE 1960S

51

Zawadowski, Leon. 1948. "Zagadnienia teorii zdań względnych (Streszczenie) [Is­ sues in the theory of relative clauses (Summary)]. Sprawozdania Wroclawskiego Towarzystwa Naukowego 3.107-201. Zawadowski, Leon 1950. "On the Elements of Semantic Systems". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 10.77-98. Zawadowski, Leon. 1951. "Rzeczywisty i pozorny wpływ kontekstu na znaczenie [A real and apparent influence of the context upon the meaning]". Sprawozdania Wroclawskiego Towarzystwa Naukowego 4.1949-Dodatek 2:1-18. Zawadowski, Leon. 1952. Zagadnienia teorii zdanwzgęldnych [Issues in the theory of relative clauses]. Wroclaw: Nakladem Wroclawskiego Towarzystwa Nauko­ wego. Zawadowski, Leon. 1958a. 'The So-Called Relative Motivation in Language". Omagiu lui Iorgu lor dan cu privilejul împlinarii a 70 de ani, 927-937. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Romîne. Zawadowski, Leon. 1958b. "La signification des morphèmes polysémes". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Jçzykoznawczego 17.67-96. Zawadowski, Leon. 1959. Constructions grammaticales et formes périphrastiques. (= Prace językoznawcze [Linguistic works], 18.) Kraków-Wroclaw-Warszawa: Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossoliñskich. Zawadowski, Leon. 1963. "Substance and Relation in Language". Rozprawy Komisji Językowej Wroclawskiego Towarzystwa Naukowego 4.5-26. Zawadowski, Leon. 1965a. "Induction et déduction en linguistique". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Jçzykoznawczego 23.71-93. Zawadowski, Leon. 1965b. "Primary Data of Linguistic Analysis". Symbolae linguisticae in honorem Georgi Kurylowicz ed. by Adam Heinz et al. (= Prace Kom­ isji Językoznawstwa [The works of the linguistic commission], 5), 369-378. Wroc­ law-Warszawa-Kraków: Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossoliñskich. Zawadowski, Leon. 1966. Lingwistyczna teoría języka. Warszawa: Pastwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Zawadowski, Leon. 1975. Inductive Semantics and Syntax: Foundations of empiri­ cal linguistics. The Hague: Mouton.

CHAPTER 2 ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT OF APPLIED LINGUISTICS IN POLAND* FRANCISZEK GRUCZA University of Warsaw 1. Stratifying the field In this chapter I shall provide an outline of the history of achievements of Polish linguists in the area of applied linguistics, and a description of the pre­ sent state of this field in Poland. However, by way of introduction, I shall be­ gin with some more general remarks in order to provide a background for a more specific, local treatment of the subject's history. For thousands of years people have been performing metalinguistic op­ erations. Nevertheless, until relatively recently humanity was performing such acts being unaware of their nature, i.e., not knowing that they consist in, generally speaking, producing sentences (utterances) about other sentences (utterances). The specificity of these operations was first shown in 1933 by Alfred Tarski (cf. Tarski 1933). Only an awareness of the specificity of such operations made it possible to finally solve 'the eternal enigma' of logical paradoxes and the need to adapt this discovery to linguistic discussions was brought to general attention by George L. Trager (1949), Einar Haugen (1951), and Roman Jakobson (1958). Years later, I also attempted to transfer the results of this discovery to the domain of applied linguistics (Grucza 1968, 1983). I mention this here as it underlines the necessity of distinguish­ ing two levels of operations: (a) a plane of basic operations that may be clas­ sified as the field of applied linguistics, and (b) a plane of relevant metaoperations, i.e., a plane of thinking, speaking and/or writing about the basic operations included in the scope of applied linguistics and/or the conse­ quences of such operations. However, if we approach more closely such mental/linguistic meta-operations, it will become clear that it is necessary to further divide them into two different levels as it is also important to distinguish an additional plane of de* Based on a much longer, discursive draft by the author, translated into English by Anna Setkowicz-Ryszka, in consultation with Prof. Barbara Kielar of Warsaw, and reworked by the editors with the assistance of John Kearns.

54

POLISH LINGUISTICS : ORIGINS AND TRENDS

liberations in applied linguistics (and indeed in linguistics in general). We shall call this "plane (c)" and put it directly over plane (b). These meta-operations and their effects can also be a subject for discussion. It is also obvious that one may (and ought to) analyse ways of distinguishing the field of ap­ plied linguistics within the linguistic universe, discuss the accuracy of various divisions of this universe, the appropriateness and/or correctness of various teleological concepts in applied linguistics, and only then may one deal with the question of whether it is right or wrong to include particular linguistic operations in this field. The ideas to be discussed here are situated mainly on the last-mentioned plane. It is this plane which offers a vantage point from which we may view the history of applied linguistics and comment on its present state. 2. The early history of applied linguistics The division into pure linguistics and applied linguistics was first made expressis verbis by a German scholar, August Friedlich Bernhardi (17691820) who devoted to each of the two parts of linguistics one volume of his work Sprachlehre,, The first volume, published in 1801, was subtitled Reine Sprachlehre, and the second one, published in 1803, was subtitled Ange­ wandte Sprachlehre, In the preface to the first volume he admitted that he had divided his Sprachlehre into the pure and the applied following the ex­ ample of mathematicians. Bernhardi believed that applied linguistics should examine possibilities of using language as a means of presenting various strings of thoughts and/or representations. He treated language as a means of presenting 'nature' and 'mind' (conceptions and thoughts). The combination of those statements {Sprache in ihrer Anwendung auf Poesie und Wissenschaft) and the subtitle given to the second volume of his work Angewandte Sprachlehre suggest that applied linguistics is part of a 'whole' linguistics which ought to be established in order to investigate possibilities of more effectively using the potential of language both in the fields of conceptions and thoughts. Moreover, he believed that applied linguistics should examine the musical functions of sound aspects of linguistic expressions treated as if they did not mean anything in semantic tenus. Unfortunately, however, Bernhardi's work was forgotten relatively quickly, similar to many other works representing 'theoretical thought' on human languages from the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries. Certainly this happened as a result of the process which, as early as the middle of the 19th century, resulted in the almost complete limitation of linguistic discussion to historical issues.

APPLIED LINGUISTICS IN POLAND

55

3. The beginnings of Polish applied linguistics A similar division of linguistics was made by Jan Baudouin de Courtenay (1845-1929), a Polish linguist and one of the most eminent scholars dealing with linguistic issues in general (cf. Koemer 1972, Stankiewicz 1972). Al­ though he spent the greater part of his active academic life at Russian uni­ versities and published many works in Russian, he considered himself to be a Pole (cf. Malachowska 1973). While it is true that he started his work neither in Poland nor in Polish, one must bear in mind that Poland did not exist as an independent state in those times, that her territory was occupied by foreign powers, and that the locality where Baudouin de Courtenay was born (Radzymin near Warsaw) was under the rule of the Russian Tsar. Thus he could not obtain the post of professor in any former Polish university of the Russian sector of the partitioned country. It would not be an overstatement to say that the history of Polish applied linguistics begins with Baudoin de Courtenay. For chronological reasons the hypothesis that he borrowed the idea from Bemhardi cannot be rejected com­ pletely, but there are no documented data on which such an hypothesis could be based. It is certain that neither he nor Bernhardi invented the distinction from scratch. Each borrowed the idea from different sources: Bernhardi di­ vided linguistics into pure and applied following the example of mathe­ matics, while Baudouin de Courtenay did so under the influence of the natural sciences. Moreover, each assigned different tasks to applied linguis­ tics. The first time he presented his ideas was in a lecture delivered in Russian at the University of St. Petersburg in 1870 on the occasion of his appointment to the Chair of Comparative Grammar of the Indo-European Languages. It was published a year later under the title "Nekotorye obscie zamecanija o jazykovedenii i jazyke [Some remarks on linguistics and language]" in the Žurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosvescenija 153.279-316 (quoted after Boduèn de Kurtenè 1963:47-77, also available as Baudouin de Courtenay's Dziela wybrane, vol. IV, 35-64). In this lecture Baudouin de Courtenay notes (p.57) that "one must distinguish pure linguistics (i.e., linguistics in itself dealing with language as a sum of uniform facts that belong — for their universality — to the category of human phenomena) and applied linguistics, dealing with the application of the data of pure linguistics to issues of other sci­ ences."

56

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

Baudouin goes on to explain that he treats the terms jazykovedeny and jazykoznanye as synonyms of 'linguistics' and 'glottics' 1 , respectively. Thus, we can translate the terms chistoye jazykovedenye and prikladnoye jazykovedenye as 'pure linguistics' and 'applied linguistics'. The goals of the latter are determined by him more precisely on page 7 4 : 2 As regards applied linguistics, it consists in: 1) the application of data in the field of grammar to the problems in morphology (etymological myths), ancient his­ tory and the history of culture in general (comparing words important in terms of cultural and historical background including the history of primitive (prehistoric) times created by means of linguistics, also called linguistic palaeontology) as deter­ mined through grammatical research on the mutual influence of nations upon each other, etc.; 2) the application of data in the field of systematics to problems in ethnography and ethnology, as well as to problems in the history of nations in gen­ eral (division of languages in connection with the natural division of peoples) and others; and 3) the application of the results of the research described in Chapter 2 (on the beginnings of the language etc.) to the issues which are the subjects of anthropol­ ogy, zoology etc. (where linguistics is only of secondary importance)." In short, Baudouin de Courtenay believed that one objective of applied linguistics is to find and to examine the possibility of " u s i n g " the knowledge acquired by pure linguistics in solving problems that are the subject matter of other branches of science. Baudouin de Courtenay recognised the possibility of using linguistic knowledge in practice, but at the same time he said that dealing with it is not the subject matter of science. The domains that have an objective "to apply theory to practice" are separate from science and the arts. H e says (p.48): The distinction between art in the broad sense of this word (hence, not only the fine arts) and science in general fully corresponds to the distinction between practice and theory, as well as the distinction between an invention and discovery. Art is specific because of its technical rules and assumptions, science — because of its generalisation of facts, conclusions and scientific principles. There are two aspects in art: 1) current practice pursued on the basis of tradition, and 2) improvement of mea­ sures taken for the implementation of practical objectives of art. [...] In reference to language, in contrast to the teaching of a language, one may also speak about art, or rather about such arts whose subject matter is either language in general or particular languages.

1

This term ('Glottik', in German) was created by August Schleicher in 1861 in order to re­ place the hybrid (Latin-Greek) 'Linguistik'; of course Sprachwissenschaft remained ac­ ceptable to him. Baudouin, his one-time student at Jena, took 'glottika' from him. [Eds.] 2 Translations from the Russian original have been provided by the second editor; they are given in single quotes. An English translation of the entire paper can be found in Stankiewicz 1972:49-80 [Eds.]

APPLIED LINGUISTICS IN POLAND

57

The 'aits' dealing with language were divided by Baudouin de Courtenay into three groups. The first included all arts concerned the application of the results of linguistics to the purposes of daily life; the second group covered arts supporting any measures taken in order to create national literary lan­ guages, their standardisation, precision and development, and the third group included activities constituting a 'technical aspect of science' (p.51) such as, for instance, collecting data, choosing an appropriate scientific method, etc. In the first group Baudouin de Courtenay distinguished four domains of hu­ man activities that may be improved by means of linguistic knowledge. The description of those domains is still valid, although not commonly known. Thus, it deserves to be quoted here in extenso (48-49): 1) The first is the learning of a language or languages, starting in one's child­ hood, the field that partly makes one of its subjects didactics, and is partly a question of one's independent individual effort whose success depends on one's abilities and practical ease to learn. It concerns the learning of (a) one's native language, or (b) one's foreign language. Achievements in this field to a great extent depend on deriv­ ing benefit from discoveries made in pure linguistics that, in relation to one's native language, create solid foundations providing a proper method (a) to enable an infant to speak its native language from the very beginning, and (ß) to learn in one's child­ hood and youth how to master one's native language and to use it freely and per­ fectly; as far as it concerns foreign languages, a practical benefit from linguistics is to facilitate the learning of foreign languages for communication and creative purposes, i.e. in order both to easily understand and to express one's ideas properly and fluently. A learner's efforts should aim to improve methods of the practical mastering and exercising of the language or to improve and to apply a proper approach to the teaching of foreign languages. Somewhere between the learning of one's native language and foreign languages there is the learning of a literary language that unites a whole nation, facilitates mutual communication of all its members, and usually constitutes (with a few modifications) a spoken language of the so-called educated class as distinguished from dialects. In countries where the literary language varies substantially from certain local dialects (e.g., in Germany) such dialects are hardly easier to be learnt than foreign languages. 2) Quite a different approach is required in the art of teaching the teaching of a language to those who are deaf-mute. No audible language exists for the deaf-mutes who understand only the language of mime. They can even produce sounds that imi­ tate the sounds of a certain language, yet such sounds exist only for their listeners and not for themselves: they treat the movements of their facial muscles produced on such occasions as pantomime similar to making faces and showing fingers. The teaching of the deaf-mute to pronounce audible words is based on data in the anatomical and physiological part of the grammar. Only a profound knowledge of the sounds of the language, as distinguished from their graphical representations, and a knowledge of word etymology and collocations may be the basis of, on the one hand

58

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

3) an appropriate method of teaching children (and adults) how to read and write in a familiar language - on the other hand 4) orthography and rules of writing appropriate to the results of scientific re­ search.

From the above statements Baudouin de Courtenay drew the conclusion that 'linguistics can be hardly applied to man's life: from this point of view as compared with physics, chemistry, mechanics etc., it seems not to be any­ thing at all' (p 50). At the same time he objected to those who believed that linguistics was completely useless. In his view, such an opinion resulted from a lack of understanding as to the scope of that domain. That is why he at­ tempted in his lecture to present its subject matter and its objectives and, first and foremost, to prove that linguistics is a branch of science. In general terms, one can say that his objective was to correct the then common opinion about the object of linguistics. He wanted to show that lin­ guistics was not about formulating instructions as to how one should speak or write, but that it was a serious science dealing with descriptions and explana­ tions of linguistic phenomena, a domain whose achievements could be useful for other disciplines. He made this attempt at a time when the thinking about linguistics was already completely dominated by the historical vision, when synchronic linguistics, as it was termed later, was generally denied the status of a science. These circumstances allow us to interpret the standpoint which he expressed in his lecture in the following way: firstly, he wanted to show that linguistics was a domain neither of art nor of practical activity, but a se­ rious science — a science useful from the point of view of other branches of science. In other words, what he wanted was to elevate linguistics above the plane of practice. This was undoubtedly why he classified adjusting linguistic knowledge for practical purposes to the scope of art and not of linguistics as a science. Additionally, if we take into account the fact that he expressed this opin­ ion on becoming the head of a chair of the historical science of language, then we cannot but treat it as an extraordinary event for those days. It is cer­ tainly a very progressive view. He saw at an early stage the possibility, in­ deed the need, to supplement linguistics with an 'applied' part. Others would for decades have questioned the scientific nature of (applied) linguistics dealing with practical issues — and many have not yet solved the problem until now (for more on this subject, see Grucza 1983:365 ff). Baudouin de Courtenay soon began even to modernise his initial opinion about applied linguistics. We can find traces of this development as early as in the conference paper O zadaniach językoznawstwa [About the tasks of lin­ guistics] presented in Dorpat in 1888 and published a year later, and also in

APPLIED LINGUISTICS IN POLAND

59

his texts published in 1904. In the latter, he included in applied linguistics certain subjects which, in 1870, he had treated as belonging to the scope of art. In these texts he wrote, inter alia, that 'applied linguistics' is 'the appli­ cation of linguistic data either to consider issues that belong to the scope [...] of other sciences or to matters of social and intellectual life in general' (Baudouin de Courtenay 1904:288). As regards the practical applications of linguistics, in all cases he repeated his earlier statement that, in comparison with other sciences, the practical applications of linguistics are not particularly big. Yet in 1889 he wrote that it had only been this way 'so far', and in 1904 he added (p.289): We are, however, fully justified in believing that in future the application of linguis­ tics, as well as of psychology, the science which it is based on, will play an important role both in pedagogy and in various spheres of practice [...]. Applications of linguistic data and results in issues that belong to the scope of other sciences are already now quite extensive'. Moreover, he criticised 'the so-called public' for their disregard of linguistics, a disregard which was reinforced '1) by the official way, when organising schools to which the access of the science of language is rendered difficult in any conceivable manner (the science of language having nothing to do with the pseudo-classical philology promoted in schools); 2) by old-fashioned philologists and various other hide-bound conservatives on the one hand, and by some representatives of sciences that confuse linguistics with 'philology' and with literal pedantry, on the other.

In the 1889 text he also declared that linguistics already had certain appli­ cations in 'pedagogy, or to be more precise, in didactics', 'in oratory, i.e., practical rhetoric' (proper pronunciation, proper word forms and proper order thereof), in the teaching of speaking and writing of those who are deaf-mute, in the teaching of reading and writing texts, as well as in politics: 'Its data are used as one of the means for objectively defining and theoretically determin­ ing national or State unity as long as a given group of people possesses such unity' (Dziela Wybrane, vol.I, p. 198). As for the didactic applications of lin­ guistics, it is noteworthy that Baudouin de Courtenay did not limit them to foreign languages, but referred them also to one's "own" language, the mother tongue' (ibid.). 4. The interwar period Unfortunately, similar to Bernhardi's conception of applied linguistics in Germany, Baudouin de Courtenay's conception did not have any direct con­ tinuation in Poland. There were various reasons for this, but the main one, I think, was that at that time in Poland hardly anybody understood his ideas about applied linguistics. Nobody except Baudouin de Courtenay was dealing

60

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

with the theory of languages sensu stricto, let alone with metalinguistics. In those times applied linguistics was studied practically only in Germany (and even there its presence was limited to a only a few centres; cf. Grucza 1983). Elsewhere, nobody was yet aware of its existence. As regards the status of applied linguistics during the interwar period in Poland, it should first be emphasised that it would be mistaken to think that after Baudouin de Courtenay's death in 1929, the history of its development in this country stopped altogether. In fact his death interrupted its develop­ ment only partly. It was definitely the case at the level of metareflection, that is on plane (b) which we initially distinguished and, of course, also on plane (c). In other words, Baudouin de Courtenay's death meant that in Poland there was a temporary interruption in dealing with applied linguistics as a certain relatively separate, domain of academic research: analysing its tasks, fixing its boundaries, etc. It was different, however, at the basic level of ap­ plied linguistics. As for this plane, it would only be justified to conclude that in the period between the wars in Poland — just as in the majority of other countries — nobody dealt with any issues that were later classified as belong­ ing to applied linguistics, with the awareness that they belonged to its scope. Yet if we look at the linguistics research carried out in Poland during that period, and in particular at the works completed in departments of neophilology, from the point of view of the list of domains that 20 or 30 years later were considered (first in the United States) as constituting applied linguistics, we can easily see that in the period between the wars various kinds of re­ search in this scope were initiated or continued in Poland. We shall under­ stand the aptness of this statement even better if we look at these works from the point of view of the sciences represented at AILA3 congresses as separate sections and thereby as if classified by this organisation as domains of ap­ plied linguistics (on this issue, see Grucza 1983). The fact that at that time in Poland people did not realise to which category the work belonged is irrele­ vant in this case as is the issue of whether it was right or rather wrong of the AILA to classify this research as being within applied linguistics. Adopting this point of view, we can say that it was as early as in the in­ terwar period that some works were published in Poland which may be re­ garded as precursors of the studies later distinguished in America, following the suggestions of Benjamin Lee Whorf (1941) and Charles C. Fries (1945), as contrastive linguistic analysis. It is even more noteworthy if we remember that in the late fifties, mainly under the influence of the conceptions pre3

The acronym stands for Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquée, which has since the 1970s been the umbrella organization for Applied Linguistics world-wide. [Eds.]

APPLIED LINGUISTICS IN POLAND

61

sented by Lado in 1957 (cf. also Lado 1972), it was precisely these studies or analyses that were considered to be the basic type of research in applied linguistics. As we know, it was in order to intensify this work that the first independent centre of applied linguistics was established in Washington, D.C., in 1959 and it was not without a good reason that this institution was named the Center for Applied Linguistics.4 The results of work carried out at the Centre or commissioned by it are presented in the famous series of volumes published under the general title of "Contrastive Structure Studies". In his Foreword to Volume I, Charles A. Ferguson characterised the tasks which would have to be undertaken: "[to] describe the similarities and dif­ ferences between English and each of the five foreign languages most commonly taught in the United States: French, Gemían, Italian, Russian, and Spanish" (cf. Moulton 1962). As regards the Polish precursors of contrastive studies, one should add that, generally speaking, the palm is once again carned by Baudouin de Courtenay. He must be considered the author of the first Polish work of this kind, a study published in St. Petersburg in 1912 entitled Polskij jazyk sravniteI'no s rus skim i drevne cerkovnoslavjanskim: Posobie dla prakticeskix zanjatij po "sravnitel'noj grammatike slovjanskix jazykov" i dla samoobucenija [The Polish language in comparison with Russian and Old Church Slavic: A handbook for practical classes in the "Comparative Grammar of Slavic Languages" and for self-study]. In this work he attempts to apply the results of his comparative (contrastive) studies of Polish and Russian in a clear manner for practical (glotto)didactic purposes. It is, however, Adam Kleczkowski (1883-1949) who is generally consid­ ered to be the father of Polish descriptive contrastive studies, though his 4

To add a bit of further history to the subject of 'applied linguistics', let us quote from John C. ("Ian") Catford's autobiographical account, "Sixty Years in Lingustics", First Person Singular: Autobiographies by North American Scholars in the Language Sciences ed. by E.F.K. Koerner (Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1998), 3-38, notably the fol­ lowing passages (pp.25-26): In 1957 I was appointed Director of the newly opened School of Applied Linguistics (SAL) at Edinburgh University. The SAL was set up at the instigation of the British Council as a centre for the advanced education of experienced teachers of English overseas who were destined to become leaders in the field in their countries. So far as I know, the SAL, [...], was the first academic institution in the world to have Applied Linguistics in its title — the Centre de Linguistique appliquée at Besançon was established in 1958 and the the Center for Applied Linguistics in Washington opened in 1959. In Russian, use of an equivalent of the term 'Applied Linguistics' goes back at least to Baudouin de Courtenay's inau­ gural address at St. Petersburg University in 1870 — the earliest use in English known to me is the sub-title of Leonora Lockhart's book Word Economy: A study in applied linguistics (1931) though the term 'Applied Phonetics' was used much earlier, in Le Maître Phonétique in 1899 and 1909.

62

POLISH LINGUISTICS : ORIGINS AND TRENDS

claim to this title is only in respect of his work in what we now call neophilological contrastive studies, particularly regarding Polish and German. His first work in this field in Poland was published in Cracow in 1935, though his later work is also significant (Kleczkowski 1935, 1949). Kleczkowski is rightly considered to be the father of German linguistic studies in Poland, even of Polish linguistic neophilology as such, and was the first Polish Ger­ manist and neophilologist to thoroughly deal with linguistic issues. He spent almost all of his life in Cracow, except for the period 1919-1922, which he spent in Poznan as the first Professor of German Philology at the University of Pozna ń. In the context of this essay, the attempts to create specialist didactic (pedagogical) grammars made during the interwar period merit special atten­ tion. Examples of such attempts include the works of Albert Leder's Deut­ sche Grammatik (1922), Juliusz Ippoldt's Dydaktyka jçzyka niemieckiego (1925), Karol Zagajewski's Gramatyka jçzyka niemieckiego (1927) and a Grammaire française inductive et systématique accompagnée d'exercices by B. Kielski and L. Pionnier. But what ought to be mentioned here in the first place is the highly innovative conception of teaching foreign languages de­ scribed by Michał Ciesla — the conception of learning 'natural grammar' through 'viewing and conversation'. It consisted, as Ciesla put it (1974:264), 'in transforming whole sentences into ever new creations', that is in perform­ ing specific grammatical transformations. In one of his earlier works, Ciesla (1965) described Erdman's idea, in line with the opinion about applied lin­ guistics prevailing at that time, as 'a specific conception of applied linguis­ tics'. Moreover, the interwar period was also a time when the foundations of the Polish methodology of teaching foreign languages (glottodidactics) were laid, even up to a tertiary level. There were intense discussions about many different issues concerning the 'organisation' of teaching of foreign lan­ guages in Polish schools, which were being revived after 130 years of non­ existence. The discussions concerned, among other things, questions about whether schools should teach one or two foreign languages (cf, Piatek 1929, Trenklerówna 1929); whether the teaching of foreign languages in schools should focus solely on communicative purposes or on educational purposes as well (Ciesielska-Borkowska 1930, Gottlieb 1932); whether it should cover only matters relating purely to the language or also include geographical and cultural material (Kielski 1927, Zagajewski 1931); what methods should be used in such teaching (Ziemnowicz 1918, Kwiatkowski 1921); to what extent

APPLIED LINGUISTICS IN POLAND

63

it should include the teaching of grammar (cf. Ciesla, 1974:266ff.); what vo­ cabulary should be taken into account, etc. An important role in this respect was played by the Polish Neophilological Society (Polskie Towarzystwo Neofilologiczne [PTN]), set up in Warsaw in 1930 during the First Congress of Teachers of Modern Languages. Its first president was Zygmunt Lempicki, who undoubtedly was the most distin­ guished Polish Germanist of the interwar period (cf. Kuczyński 1991, Szulc 1998). Other outstanding university neophilologists actively participated in the activities of this Society, such as Roman Dybowski (1883-1945), a pro­ fessor of the Jagiellonian University who established the first Polish Chair of English Studies; Juliusz Ippoldt, an Associate Professor at the Jagiellonian University, a Germanist and a well-known practitioner and theoretician of methodology and didactics of foreign languages; Zygmunt Czerny, a Roman­ ist and professor at the University of Lwow and later at the Jagiellonian Uni­ versity; Stanislaw Wedkiewicz, a Romanist and professor of the Jagiellonian University; and Tadeusz Grzebieniowski and Stanislaw Helsztyński, both Anglicists and both professors of the University of Warsaw (cf. Iwan 1972, Ciesla 1974). The Society published a magazine entitled Neofilolog [The Neophilologist], It played quite an important role in Poland by disseminating knowledge about the learning and teaching of foreign languages, foreign culture and lit­ erature, as well as general knowledge about other countries. It published arti­ cles written by eminent practitioners and theoreticians of foreign language teaching. More publications on the subjects related to foreign language teach­ ing were also included in such magazines as Szkota [School], Ruch Pedagogiczny [Pedagogical Movement], Gimnazjum [Gymnasium] and Muzeum [Museum]. It is also worth noting that many of the then university professors knew schools not only from the perspective of a student, but also from that of a teacher, Before they were appointed as university teachers, many had worked as teachers of foreign languages in schools. Others had learned about what was happening in schools from their colleagues who taught classes both at universities and schools. Finally, it is particularly noteworthy that these uni­ versity professors did not spurn such practical occupations as writing foreign language textbooks for schools. Even the most eminent of them (including Lempicki, Czerny, Ippoldt, and Grzebienowski) devoted time to such tasks. Moreover, during the interwar period, some chairs of Polish language and literature also dealt with certain matters which were subsequently classified as falling within the scope of applied linguistics. These include, firstly, the is-

64

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

sue of Polish language standardisation and various questions from the field of the cultivation of "Polish linguistic culture". All these matters were dealt with both from a theoretical point of view and for practical purposes. As regards standardisation, attention was focussed not solely on matters of orthography, but also orthoepy. Moreover, during this period Polish scholars began dealing with certain specialist discourses and their "polonisation" and standardisation. Such languages included, for example, the language of the navy or — more generally — the language of seamen. As far as orthography is concerned, it is understandable that after Poland regained independence, there was an urgent need to standardise Polish spel­ ling on a national scale. This works was carried out under the auspices of both the Warsaw Society of the Friends of Sciences [Warszawskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciól Nauk] (in the so-called Kryński project), and the Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences [Polska Akademia Umiejętnosci]. The first compromise was reached as early as in 1919. However, in the long run, its results did not satisfy anybody and further work in this field started in 1934. It was then that the new Spelling Commission was established under the aus­ pices of PAU and the results of its activity were officially approved in 1936. The most popular work was the orthographic dictionary prepared on the basis of these results by Stanislaw Jodlowski and Witold Taszycki An Ortho­ graphic Dictionary and the Rules of Polish Spelling. In the field of orthoepy, certainly the most active scholar of that time was Tytus Benni (professor of the University of Warsaw where he was founder of the Institute of Phonetics), who dealt not only with Polish, but also with German, French and English. For each of these languages, he developed a handbook which was meant to help in the teaching of pronunciation in Polish schools. Mention should be made here of the efforts during this period in the field of lexicography. In 1938 The New Dictionary of Polish edited by Tadeusz Lehr-Spławiński began to be published. In addition, the years 1900-1927 saw the final publication of the so-called Warsaw dictionary of Polish in eight volumes compiled by Jan Karlowicz, Adam Krynski and Wladyslaw Niedzwiecki. Several new bilingual dictionaries were also prepared, 'Language culture' was interpreted among Polish philologists as a certain degree of practical knowledge of a given language, a certain level of profi­ ciency in the language and a certain degree of the ability to use its means in a critical way. As for 'linguistic culture' understood in this way, it does make sense to speak about improving and cultivating it and this was precisely the task that the Society of Friends of the Polish Language [Towarzystwo Milos-

APPLIED LINGUISTICS IN POLAND

65

ników Języka Polskiego] set for itself. The Society was founded in Cracow in 1920 by a number of outstanding Polish linguists of that time including Kazimierz Nitsch, Andrzej Gawronski, Jan Rozwadowski and Jan Los, and its organ was a magazine called Język Polski [The Polish Language] established in 1913 in Cracow, Today, the activities in the field of linguistic culture understood this way are treated as a certain kind of applied linguistics. 5. The beginnings of Polish applied linguistics As with everything else, all work in the field of applied linguistics that commenced in Poland in the interwar period, was brutally interrupted in September 1939, when Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland. During the occupa­ tion, Polish academic life ceased almost completely, in many cases forever. Many scholars, including linguists, did not survive the occupation: some died as soldiers, some were shot at the very beginning of the war, some were killed in German or Soviet concentration camps. As a result of the war, Pol­ ish academia was devastated and many universities were bombed and/or plundered. Moreover, after the war, Poland's frontiers were pushed west­ wards and two of its oldest universities in Lvov and Vilnius were lost. Following the war it was necessary to start academic activity anew almost everywhere. To make things worse, this process was soon taking place in completely different administrative and ideological conditions which were imposed by force, conditions which made the development of Polish neophilology particularly difficult. Although immediately after the war, mod­ ern language studies started to develop as dynamically as many other branches of Polish academia, what happened five years later came as a seri­ ous blow. When the 'cold war' broke out between the US and the USSR, its further development was blocked for several years. Worse still, its academic institutional representation was reduced to a minimum: each of the so-called western philologies was reduced to two departments and each was allowed to admit only 20 students per year. Similar pressures were imposed on many other sciences in Poland, and sociological or phonological research was pro­ hibited altogether. This situation did not change until after 1956, or more precisely, after the so-called 'June events in Poznan", that is, after the first mass demonstrations of the 'Polish working class' — Polish workers employed in big industrial plants — against the social and political system. Even though the events of 1956 did not mark the beginning of a period of a fully independent develop­ ment of Polish neophilology, many of the restrictions which had been im­ posed were lessened or lifted. After 1956, Polish neophilology started to

66

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

grow rapidly, not only in terms of human resources, but also in institutional terms. In Poland, this was the case not only with German and Romance stud­ ies, but primarily with English studies. In the late 1970s, English and German studies again had their institutional representations in all Polish universities and also in some of the higher schools of teacher training. By that stage, if at­ tempts to create an institutional representation of neophilology failed in a particular institution, it was only for lack of professors or the unwillingness of the local academic authorities to devote adequate attention to this issue. After 1956, the range of topics which Polish neophilology took an inter­ est in stalled to grow rapidly and gradually, it re-established its traditional international contacts. Interest began to grow in applied linguistics after 1956, particularly with the arrival of the first information about the activities and opinions of American linguists, particularly those who had been working during the war on methods of accelerating the process of foreign language learning, developing new teaching methods, and carrying out empirical and/or theoretical research. What turned out to be particularly interesting for Polish linguists were the theoretical assumptions of work carned out at the Center for Applied Linguistics in Washington, D.C. (cf. Zabrocki 1966). Soon after 1956 Polish scholars became quite interested in the abovementioned American works and concepts concerning foreign language teach­ ing, because, as a result of the former restrictions, would-be students of neophilologies had only a rudimentary knowledge of respective foreign lan­ guages and it was necessary to improve this situation immediately. Hence the curricula of Polish neophilological studies started to include compensatory programmes which taught these foreign languages. The necessity to act ef­ fectively was even greater as one of the purposes of such studies was to train future teachers of these languages. However, the objective was not only to make the compensatory teaching of foreign languages at universities as ef­ fective as possible, but also to provide the students (i.e., prospective language teachers) with the best available methodological instruments. The fact that in 1956 it again became possible to publicly discuss, write and publish papers about the American conceptions and/or studies was one of the achievements of the 'Poznan events'. What was gained in Poland at that time was never completely lost in the years to come. The main promoter of academic efforts in the field of foreign language teaching in Poland was Ludwik Zabrocki, the most eminent Polish germanist and linguist (more information about him can be found in the essay by Bańczerowski in the present volume). It was he who managed to gather a group of young linguists and to offer them various topics from the scope of

APPLIED LINGUISTICS IN POLAND

67

applied linguistics and in this he succeeded in creating the first "Polish school" of applied linguistics. It is this achievement that constitutes the fun­ damental difference between his academic heritage and the legacy left by Baudouin de Courtenay. In the early 1960s, thanks to Zabrocki's efforts, the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan became the main Polish centre where applied linguis­ tics was not only a topic for discussion, but where certain research in this field was practised with great intensity. Later, some of his disciples transferred the conceptions developed in Poznan to other Polish universities. In 1965 Aleksander S zulcleftPoznan, followed by the author of this article in 1970. The former became a professor at the Jagiellonian University, the latter in Warsaw. Another to leave Poznan was one of Zabrocki's oldest col­ leagues Leon Kaczmarek and he deserves to be mentioned for two reasons: firstly, because after moving to the Marie Curie-Sklodowska University in Lublin he created a leading Polish centre of logopaedics and did much to make this area a relatively independent academic discipline; secondly, he started to deal with the problems of logopaedics mainly under the influence of Zabrocki. Naturally, those disciples of Zabrocki who remained in Poznań developed further some of the domains of research considered to be part of applied lin­ guistics. Among these we should mention, firstly Jerzy Bańczerowski, Waldemar Pfeiffer and, to a certain extent, Jacek Fisiak whom Zabrocki brought to Poznan and who worked with him closely for some time. I shall write more about the achievements of these scholars in the field of applied linguistics later in this chapter. 6. The Poznan school of Polish applied linguistics Zabrocki began to form the Poznan school in the late 1950s, within the Chair of Germanic Languages at the Adam Mickiewicz University, a chair which had been established in 1952 especially for him. He led it until 1968 when it was closed down as a result of reforms in Polish tertiary educational institutions (reforms which, in my view, were ideologically motivated). The traditional chairs were liquidated throughout the country and institutes were created instead. I think that this measure was taken in order to weaken the traditional independence of university professors, and to place them under 'party' control. Up to 1968 the heads of departments were appointed by the national circles of professors and received tenure; subsequently directors of institutes were appointed by administrative and political authorities, and only for a term of three years. It was not until the 1990s that those occupying the

68

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

latter positions started to be elected, but according to quite different rules than those applied before 1968. Until its liquidation, the Department of Germanic Languages was the first Polish institution to deal with applied linguistics. At the same time, it was an institution within which many innovative projects were formulated. One such project was the idea of creating a separate unit which would deal with applied linguistics as its primary task. Zabrocki managed to implement this idea as early as in 1964 in the form of an autonomous Section of Applied Linguistics. This Section was the first institutional representation of applied linguis­ tics in Poland and it is worth noting that it was created only five years after the Center for Applied Linguistics — the first American institutional repre­ sentation of this field. Moreover, Zabrocki's Section was only the second unit of its kind in the world! Yet in order to determine more precisely the chronological relations between the Center in Washington and the Section of Applied Linguistics in Poznan, we need to consider the following statement made by Ludwik Zabrocki: "The Institute of Applied Linguistics which is be­ ing set up now is only formally a new institution. Actually it has been a sec­ tion of the Department of Germanic Linguistics for the last ten years. The time has come for it to be independent" (Zabrocki 1966:134) Together with the founding of the Section of Applied Linguistics a new periodical was launched and was named Glottodidactica, since the main task of the Section was to deal with the problems of methodology and/or the di­ dactics of foreign language teaching, and in particular, with the methodology of those foreign languages which were taught in Polish schools, namely En­ glish, German, French and Russian. Nevertheless, the periodical had (and still has) the subtitle An International Journal of Applied Linguistics. Both parts of the title of this periodical taken together show that, at that time, even Zabrocki and his colleagues identified, at least on a practical level, applied linguistics with didactics, or the methodology of foreign language teaching. A still stronger argument to prove this thesis is that the first volume of the magazine contained mostly texts concerning (sometimes indirectly) is­ sues of foreign language teaching. Even the already quoted text by Zabrocki, published in the first volume of Glottodidactica (Poznan, 1966), provides an argument in favour of this thesis, and particularly the following fragment de­ scribing the tasks of the Institute of Applied Linguistics (p. 133): The Institute of Applied Linguistics in Poznan will mainly conduct research in the methodology of foreign language teaching [...]. Let us only add that, in the same text, Zabrocki described the tasks of this domain as follows: The methodology of

APPLIED LINGUISTICS IN POLAND

69

foreign language teaching has to [...] seek the best and quickest means of teaching a given foreign system of language communication. On the other hand, however, it should be noted that Zabrocki was of the opinion that the methodology of foreign language teaching should be treated as a certain separate branch of science. At the end of the text quoted here he makes the following statement: "It is a fact that the methodology of teaching foreign languages is an independent branch of science" (1966:134). The closure of the Section of Applied Linguistics brought with it the de­ struction of the institutional bases of the phenomenon which I have termed "the Poznan school of applied linguistics". Also destroyed was the unusual creativity of Zabrocki, his innovative force and extraordinary didactic talent. This is a sad story especially due to the fact that some linguists from Poznan contributed to it! A few year's later, the process of reconstructing applied lin­ guistics began at the Adam Mickiewicz University with the creation of the Institute of General Linguistics. In the meantime, the University of Warsaw managed to take over the function of the Polish centre of applied linguistics. This also shows that applied linguistics was not politically blacklisted in this country. The closure of the Section of Applied Linguistics in 1968 was moti­ vated by quite different reasons. The Section of Applied Linguistics created by Zabrocki played an impor­ tant role in constituting this domain in Poland, particularly given that it was brought back into existence under this very name. The appearance of this name on an official level provoked great intellectual ferment. First and fore­ most, it made Zabrocki's colleagues reflect on the subject, and deal with such questions as: How can (should) the domain of applied linguistics be 'de­ fined'? Can it really be identified with the methodology of foreign language teaching? What is the relationship between these domains? What do they have in common and what are the differences between them? What tasks do they have to perform? Yet the reflections about applied linguistics, which started in Poznan in the 1950s and early 1960s, survived the institutional crisis of this discipline caused by the departmental closures. Such reflections took root in the minds of some of Zabrocki's students and it may be this that should be considered the most important fruit of his endeavours in this field. The first authors to present the results of the first attempts in Poznan to deal with questions concerning applied linguistics were Jerzy Bańczerowski and the present author. We did so in our articles published in 1971. We both showed that in the late 1960s, in the Poznan centre, the narrow conception of applied linguistics with regard to language didactics was definitely a thing of

70

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

the past. This change was also influenced by the later thinking of Zabrocki, who suggested the ideas for both these articles and who saw to their publica­ tion. The parts of these articles that stirred the greatest interest were those de­ voted to the nature of applied linguistics and to the domains that could be considered among not only the cognitive, but also the practical applications of linguistic knowledge. In my article, I divided the latter into the technical and the non-technical. My examples of the non-technical applications in­ cluded (apart from language didactics) such domains as language standardi­ sation, setting the norms of linguistic correctness (orthography, orthoepy, etc.), creating alphabets for languages, logopaedics, psychotherapy, lexicog­ raphy, interlinguisties, explaining the links between language and culture, "combating" demagogy, propaganda, etc. Among the examples of technical domains of the application of linguistic knowledge I included machine trans­ lation, automatic processing of linguistic data and telecommunication. As a certain 'side effect' of the activity of the Poznan centre and, above all, of the work of Zabrocki, in the late 1960s and early 1970s separate sec­ tions of applied linguistics dealing with the teaching methodology of the re­ spective foreign languages were set up in all Polish institutes of neophilology and in many institutes of Russian studies. Consequently, these domains grew in terms of human resources and soon started growing in terms of quality, transforming from ones that mainly resolved practical problems into domains where theoretical thinking was practised more frequently. In the 1970s, doc­ toral theses in these fields started appealing, followed by the first habilitation theses. Yet against this background it is surprising that neither Witold Doroszewski nor Adam Heinz — authors of two large introductions written for the edition of Baudouin de Courtenay's Selected Works mentioned a word about his division of linguistics into pure and applied linguistics. Maybe Doroszewski can be, to some extent, excused by the fact that his text opened volume I of the Works, published as early as in 1974, and consequently the text must have been written a long time earlier. No such excuses can be found for Heinz, however. His text opened volume IV of these collected works, which was not published until 1990.5 This omission may come as a surprise as Heinz was writing in a period when applied linguistics was already relatively well-known in Poland and in view of the fact that he wrote his text especially for a volume whose main part starts with a reprint of the 5

Adam Heinz had died in 1984, i.e., six years before this volume appeared in print; Doroszewki (d.1976), by contrast, was still alive when volume I was published. [Eds.]

APPLIED LINGUISTICS IN POLAND

71

above-quoted lecture given by Baudouin de Courtenay in St. Petersburg in 1870. 7. Polish contrastive linguistics 7.1 An outline of the history of Polish contrastive linguistics Work in contrastive studies in Poland date back to the interwar period and even earlier. As Fisiak (1984:139) pointed out the roots can be traced back [...] to comparative synchronic studies [...] particularly [...] to the work of BAUDOUIN DE COURTENAY [...who] in his comparative grammar of Slavic languages (1902) laid foundations of CL, pointing out that comparative surveys of languages are of three types, and one of them is such that 'linguistic processes can be examined without regard to linguistic kinship, in order to establish the degree of similarity or difference between the structures of two languages (p.319). [...] As a result of this kind of comparison one can arrive at universal linguistic phenomena (p.320).

In 1912 Baudouin de Courtenay published his comparative study of Pol­ ish, Russian and Old Church Slavonic, a contrastive grammar par excellence. However it was not until the late 1950s and early 1960s that these studies were undertaken on a larger scale, beginning with Jan Stanislawski's (19501951) English Grammar for Advanced Learners: A detailed analysis of dif­ ferences occurring between the grammars of English and Polish, Kielski's (1957-1960) The Structure of the French and Polish Languages in the Light of Comparative Analysis, and Cygan's (1965) "On the system of negation in English and Polish". Among the first Polish works on the theory of con­ trastive studies was an article by a germanist Jan Czochralski, "Grundsätz­ liches zur Theorie der kontrastiven Grammatik" (cf. Czochralski 1966), and a paper "Fundamental Principles of Structural Contrastive Studies", by the Anglicist Tomasz Krzeszowski (1967). While Czochralski did not give an opinion on this issue, Krzeszowski included contrastive studies within the scope of applied linguistics. In later years, both authors devoted many papers to contrastive studies, Czochralski working on various detailed Polish-Ger­ man issues and Krzeszowski also dealing with theoretical issues. Krzeszow­ ski was a leading theorist in contrastive studies developing and elaborating on such important issues as equivalence, congruence and tertium comparationis (Krzeszowski 1971, 1976, 1980). Among the most important and comprehensive works was Krzeszowski's dissertation Contrastive Gen­ erative Grammar, first published in Lodz in 1974, and subsequently reprinted in 1979 in Germany (cf. Krzeszowski 1974). Its ideas were later included in Contrasting Languages; The scope of contrastive linguistics. Important con­ tributions to the theory of contrastive studies were made by Maria Grze-

72

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

gorek-Lipinska (1977), and to the question of congruence and equivalence by Waldemar Marton (1968), Karol Janicki (1986), and Roman Kalisz (1986). The first complete implementations of the theory of contrastive linguistics were studies on the Polish equivalents of the English works by Aleksander Szwedek (1973, 1974, 1976). As for Czochralski, his work entitled Verbal­ aspekt und Tempussystem im Deutschen und Polnischen: Eine konfrontative Darstellung should be considered his main achievement in this field (Czoch­ ralski 1975). Zabrocki presented his views on contrastive linguistics in a comprehen­ sive manner in an address entitled Grundfragen der konfrontativen Gram­ matik, presented in 1969 in Mannheim at the first conference on contrastive linguistics organised by germanists (cf. Zabrocki 1970). The address was published a year later in a volume entitled Probleme der kontrastiven Gram­ matik (Moser 1970), In a summary of the results of this conference, Eugenio Coseriu (1970) declared that it laid the theoretical foundations for a linguistics aiming at de­ scribing synchronic differences and/or interlingual similarities starting from the point of view of the structure of the German language and/or relating to that structure. Zabrocki's conception, which distinguished between the prac­ tically oriented contrastive grammar and confrontative grammar, oriented towards scientific cognition, was widely accepted (cf. Coseriu 1970:175). As for the term 'confrontative grammar', we should add that Zabrocki borrowed it from linguists working in Leipzig at that time, which he himself mentioned in a subsequent article (Zabrocki 1975). Unfortunately, Zabrocki's distinction between 'contrastive grammar' and 'confrontative grammar' was not adopted in the practice of linguistics and it seems that even he himself forgot about it rather quickly, because in his 1975 article he presented the geographical distribution of the use of terms 'con­ trastive grammar' and/or 'confrontative grammar' in such a way as if they were in competition on the very same plane, denoting the same ranges of lin­ guistic tasks, rather than groups of tasks which are teleologically and, in a way, also methodologically different. Without doubt, among the Polish linguists who made the most remarkable contributions to the development of contrastive studies in Poland we must mention Jacek Fisiak. As early as in 1965 inspired the first contrastive works within the framework of the first wide-scale research programme, The Polish-English Contrastive Project implemented in co­ operation with the Center for Applied Linguistics in Washington (cf. Fisiak 1973). Between 1970 and 1990, both he and his Institute of English

APPLIED LINGUISTICS IN POLAND

73

Philology in Poznan played an important role in this field on an international scale and this happened, inter alia, thanks to international academic conferences organised within the framework of the above-mentioned PolishEnglish Contrastive Project. These efforts were consolidated by the periodical edited by Fisiak (initially in co-operation with the Center for Applied Linguistics) entitled Papers in Contrastive Linguistics (its first volume was published in 1973 and 37 volumes have been published up to now). Finally, many doctoral and habilitation dissertations were written in the Institute, and various articles were published, not only on topics relating to Polish-English contrastive linguistics, but on also various theoretical aspects of the area. Among the most important works one should mention two collective volumes edited by Fisiak (1984, 1990). At that time, contrastive studies were (and, in a way, still are) of interest not only to anglicists and germanists, but also to other neophilologists, in­ cluding specialists in Russian and Slavic studies and even orientalists. Rus­ sian scholars in Poland mainly use the term 'confrontantive linguistics' (cf. Kozlowska 1985). In 1975 they devoted a special national conference in Lodz to the subject. The papers presented at the conference were published in 1976 in a volume entitled Confrontative Grammar of the Polish and Russian Languages: Materials from a Scientific Conference, Łódź 28-29 April 1975. Subsequent publications edited by Jan Wawrzyńczyk (1978) and Michal Blicharski (1980) added to discussion in the area. Those pursuing Polish studies in Poland devoted relatively little attention to contrastive linguistics. There is no mention of this domain in their standard historical guides to the subject (Handke & Rzetelska-Feleszko 1977, Rieger & Szymczak 1980, Urbańczyk & Kucaia 1999). Nevertheless, the complete list of contrastive works written in Poland is a long one. It is impossible to discuss them all here in detail, and numerous accounts of the subject already exist (cf. Miemietz 1981; Fisiak 1982; Katny 1981, 1986; Płocińska 1982). As far as the more recent period is concerned, we do not have to deal in detail with the contrastive works written during this period as from the early 1980s contrastive works were no longer treated as belonging to the scope of applied linguistics and were no longer automatically assigned the original ap­ plied value. It was also at around this time that Polish Anglicists began to lose interest in contrastive studies almost completely. Subsequently it was just germanists, connected with the already mentioned project directed by Ulrich Engel, and Russian scholars who still practice such studies on a larger scale in Poland. In any case, I shall not discuss them here. If the reader is in­ terested in this work (particularly concerning the German language), further

74

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

details can be found in bibliographical lists prepared by A. Katny (1989, 1991, 2001). For my part, I would only like to add some general remarks about the actual usefulness of the results of contrastive linguistics. 7.2 On the applications of contrastive linguistics Firstly, even though all neophilologies in Poland after 1965 devoted con­ siderable attention to contrastive studies, so far only the germanists have suc­ ceeded in developing a complete, systematic contrastive grammar (cf. Engel et al. 2000). However, we should add that even this grammar takes into ac­ count only the German-Polish perspective. The Polish-German perspective is represented only sporadically, despite the fact that the majority of the authors were Polish native speakers, representing German studies in Poland, and it is this second perspective that seems to be of greater importance for Polish stu­ dents wishing to learn German. As far as English is concerned, despite the enormous momentum that ef­ forts in this field gained at a certain period, until now no complete contrastive grammar has been developed, either English-Polish or Polish-English. Only An introductory English-Polish Contrastive Grammar has been published by Jacek Fisiak, Maria Lipińska-Grzegorek & Tadeusz Zabrocki (1978; 2nd ed., 1987) and English Grammar for Poles written by Krzeszowski (1980). (In the introduction, Krzeszowski emphasises the "confrontative character of the present grammar [...] making learners aware of differences and similarities between Polish and English" [p. 17]). Other Polish neophilologies have not even been able to produce an outline of the relevant grammars and so far have made only minor contributions to such grammars. Secondly, it is to be regretted that the glottodidactic optimism which formed the foundations of contrastive studies — an optimism that its repre­ sentatives have maintained to a large extent until now — has more to do with wishful thinking than with concrete glottodidactic practice, The belief which those engaged in contrastive studies held about the absolute glottodidactic relevance of such work was fundamentally challenged by representatives of glottodidactics as far back as the early 1970s, first in America and then in Europe. The 'anti-contrastive' arguments put forward by opponents forced the supporters of contrastive linguistics to weaken their originally radical glottodidactic hypotheses for contrastive studies (cf. Grucza 1976). However, later on many representatives of glottodidactics also considered those weak­ ened hypotheses on the practical value contrastive studies to be insufficiently realistic (cf. Sadownik 1997). In fact many representatives of glottodidactics rejected the area completely at the beginning of the 1970s. As a result of such a negative attitude towards contrastive hypotheses among those dealing with

APPLIED LINGUISTICS IN POLAND

75

glottodidactics, this domain started losing, in a way, its glottodidactic raison d'être. Thirdly, in my view, neither of these radical evaluations of the glottodi­ dactic relevance of contrastive linguistics is adequate: neither that which au­ tomatically ascribes a glottodidactic relevance to the results of contrastive studies, nor that which denies that they possess this kind of relevance alto­ gether. It is known today that their glottodidactic value is not obvious, that it does not follow from them automatically. It is also known that the results of contrastive studies possess some potential for glottodidactic relevance. Yet they may attain glottodidactic relevance only if they are prepared taking into account the specific needs of glottodidactics. Since usually this has not been the case, so far the results of both of Polish contrastive studies in the field of English, and their German equivalents, have failed to find any practical ap­ plications in the area of glottodidactics in Poland. Moreover, they were not reflected in any special way in the materials used for teaching the respective foreign languages in Poland, and this certainly was not the fault of the au­ thors of such materials. In brief, expectations of the kind which are found in the papers published in the volume Contrastive Linguistics and the Language Teacher did not materialise (cf. Fisiak 1981). I think it was Fisiak who, driven by the belief in their glottodidactic rele­ vance, once suggested dividing contrastive linguistics into theoretical and ap­ plied contrastive linguistics. To some degree this suggestion converges with the already mentioned division of the field into contrastive and confrontative linguistics proposed by Zabrocki. Initially both these divisions had their sup­ porters. But in my view they are both problematic for quite fundamental rea­ sons (cf. Grucza 1986). I shall only repeat here that I think there is no such thing as applied contrastive linguistics and, what is more, no such field can ever be established. Contrastive linguistics does not belong at all in the field of applied linguistics sensu stricto. It is, as a whole, a certain sub-field of comparative linguistics though to say that its results may be "useful" for other fields of scientific cognition is a different issue. Yet such a forecast may be true of any kind of scientific cognition, which is one good argument why contrastive linguistics cannot be included within the scope of applied linguistics. Additionally, applied linguistics cannot be identified with any applications of the knowledge produced by linguistics. Besides, such a belief in its automatic applied relevance has not found any confirmation on the plane of glottodidactic practice.

76

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

8. The Institute of Applied Linguistics in Warsaw In the early 1970s the Institute of Applied Linguistics in Warsaw started to lead the field of applied linguistics in Poland. It was established in 1972 at the University of Warsaw. (The author of this chapter was involved in the establishment of the Institute and served as its first director until 1998.) Like the Department of Applied Linguistics created by Zabrocki in Poznań, the In­ stitute in Warsaw from its conception started to incite and intensify reflection in applied linguistics through public presentations of its curriculum, its con­ ceptual assumptions, through national academic symposia organised almost every year since its establishment, and finally, by publishing papers given at these symposia. Initially, attention focussed mainly on the problems of ap­ plied linguistics and glottodidactics, trying at the same time to determine in a detailed manner the similarities and differences between them. Later various basic issues concerning translation and interpretation were also examined. As a result of these interests I came up with a conception, presented during the fourth symposium, of translation studies as a relatively independent academic domain. From the beginning, the Institute dealt in a fundamental way with general problems of interpersonal communication. It was the fruits of these efforts which constituted the theoretical foundations for both the conception of glottodidactics I was developing and for a new conception of translation studies. The initial objects of study that are or should be dealt with by both these domains are merely certain specific variants of the general model of interpersonal communication, in particular the model of interpersonal linguistic communication. I presented the problems in a little more detail in my address to the Third Symposium of the Institute of Applied Linguistics in 1975 (cf. Grucza 1978) and we returned to these issues during the fifteenth symposium, whose subject was Models of Interpersonal Communication (Woźniakowski 1992). Initially the Institute was composed of three departments: the Department of the Theory of Linguistic Communication, the Department of General Methodology of Foreign Language Teaching, and the Department of Metho­ dology of Training Translators and Interpreters. As a consequence of the above discussions I managed to transform the second and third into the De­ partment of Glottodidactics and the Department of Translation Studies. Later we started to gradually add new issues to our range of interests, especially is­ sues concerning culture in its broad sense and cultural competence, and is­ sues of grammaticography and lexicography on the other. Consequently two new departments were created: the Department of Applied Cultural Studies

APPLIED LINGUISTICS IN POLAND

77

and the Department of Lexicography and Grammaticography. During the twelfth, thirteenth and nineteenth symposia we focussed on issues of culture (cf. Grucza 1989, 1992; Grucza & ChOmicz-Jung 1996), while the fourteenth symposium was devoted to the issues concerning grammar (cf. Grucza 1992). For a certain period we also dealt with automatic speech analysis, but we were not able to introduce this line of studies permanently in the Institute. The departments at the Institute were conceived as units which would act 'embryonically' in relation to the domains they represented, that is to say, it was envisaged that they would become independent units once they were conceptually mature and had the necessary human resources. Just as we treated applied linguistics and glottodidactics as relatively independent do­ mains, thus we also treated translation studies in a similar way from the out­ set. I never considered either of these domains as part of applied linguistics sensu stricto. Even at that time I used the name of "Institute of Applied Lin­ guistics" as a kind of collective term, that is, one having a similar function to that referred to by the name '(neo)philology' in Poland. Yet even though neither glottodidactics nor translatorics nor the other domains having their institutional representations in the Institute are treated as relatively independent sciences now, because of the fact that AlLA still qualifies them in such a way as if they were certain sub-domains of applied linguistics, I shall go on to present the history of development at least of some of these fields. In some cases I shall also attempt to describe their cur­ rent status in our country both in personal and institutional terms. In the 1970s I developed my conception of applied linguistics by linking it more closely to the general theory of science, on the one hand, and by go­ ing deeper into the logical reconstruction of the primary object of linguistics, on the other hand. Here, I shall only add that one of the unusual fruits of the activities of the Institute was the establishment of what is now called 'the Polish school of applied linguistics'. At least, this was the opinion presented by the organisers of the Institute's eighteenth symposium — Barbara Kielar, Lidia Bartoszewicz, Jan Lewandowski, and others (cf. Kielar, Bartoszewicz & Lewandowski 1994). To those interested in the history and achievements of the Institute I might also recommend another volume containing materials from symposium organised to celebrate the first decade of the Institute's existence (cf. Grucza 1985).

78

POLISH LINGUISTICS : ORIGINS AND TRENDS

9. The development and status of certain domains included in AILA 9.1 Introductory remarks I would like to devote some attention not only to the domains which were the 'pillars' of the Warsaw Institute (i.e., glottodidactics and translation stu­ dies) but also all domains of applied research initiated in the interwar period in the field of Polish studies in Poland, since all of them, sooner of later, were resumed after the war and some of them reached a significant level of devel­ opment. It is regrettable that none of these domains were linked with applied lin­ guistics in the Polish studies in Poland. In the second edition of the Ency­ clopaedia of the Polish Language, published in 1999, a volume that aspired to provide the reader with a complete 'knowledge about language in general and about the Polish language in particular' only about a dozen lines are de­ voted to 'applied linguistics'. This seems strange, because in another work from the field of Polish studies published even before the first edition of the Encyclopaedia in 1977, this term was discussed more extensively by Handke & Rzetelska-Feleszko (1977:31-32). 9.2 Glottodidactics It is undoubtedly the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan that should be considered the birthplace of Polish glottodidactics, through the efforts of Zabrocki. However, he did not call it 'glottodidactics' himself, usually using the terms 'methodology' or 'didactics of foreign language teaching'. He ex­ patiated on his views in two larger works (Zabrocki 1966, 1977). The place where the word 'glottodidactics' was used for the first time as the name of the academic domain in question is in the Institute of Applied Linguistics in Warsaw though the field also stalled to be promoted at quite an early stage in Poznan through the work of Waldemar Pfeiffer. As for the In­ stitute of Applied Linguistics, it was not only the place where the use of the word 'glottodidactics' was initiated, but it was also where an original con­ ception of this domain was created — one much richer than that in Poznan. By no means does this conception limit the scope of glottodidactics to re­ search and/or the development of methods of teaching foreign languages. Ac­ cording to this conception, glottodidactics as a domain is interested in a cer­ tain category of communicative systems which I call glottodidactic systems. Their main constituents are students on the one hand and teachers of lan­ guages on the other — not only foreign language teachers, but also mother tongue teachers. The primary task of glottodidactics is to reconstruct specific features of teachers and students participating in this kind of communicative

APPLIED LINGUISTICS IN POLAND

79

system. I attempted to present a systematic analysis of language teachers in an essay published as "Ansätze zu einer Theorie der Ausbildung von Fremd­ sprachenlehrern" (Grucza 1993). Methods of teaching foreign languages are only one of many subjects of research in glottodidactics. The same applies to such elements of an overall glottodidactic system as (foreign) language teaching materials, means used to intensify the learning process, etc. The Department of Glottodidactics established within the Institute was the first relatively independent academic unit in Poland to represent this do­ main. The name I suggested, "The Inter-School Centre of Glottodidactics", initially was not accepted by the Polish Minister of Higher Education. He thought the name was "funny" because of the word 'glottodidactics'. Al­ though I managed to create the Centre in 1975, I was forced to change its name and finally it was established under the name of "The Inter-School Centre of Methodology of Foreign Language Teaching". Its objective was to deal with the teaching of foreign languages in Polish institutes of higher edu­ cation. However, the same minister agreed to include the term 'glottodidactics' in the Department's publishing organ and the journal is still published under the name of Glottodidactic Review, which was accepted at that time. This un­ doubtedly made a major contribution to popularising the name itself and the 'Warsaw' conception of glottodidactics. In the first volume I published an article entitled 'Glottodidactics: Its scope and problems' (Grucza 1978). The efforts of the Warsaw centre to establish the domain of glottodidactics were summarised by Maria Dakowska in her article 'Glottodidactics as a Science' (cf. Dakowska 1994; see also Dakowska 1995 and her other works on this subject listed there). Further information can be found in the works by Bar­ bara Sadownik (1991, 1997) and Barbara Skowronek (1997). The Poznan periodical Glottodidactica and studies at the Poznań centre made a significant contribution not only to the further development of glotto­ didactic thought, but also to the recognition of glottodidactics as an au­ tonomous domain in Poland. The key contributor was Waldemar Pfeiffer who, after 1970, became Zabrocki's main intellectual successor in Poznan. By participating in a number of conferences in Warsaw, he can be credited with building a bridge between the original Poznan conception and the ideas in Warsaw. At the same time, he was developing his own glottodidactic views and has articulated them in a certain coherent whole in his recent monograph (cf. Pfeiffer 2001). It was thanks to him that, in 1987, the first in­ dependent Department of Glottodidactics was created at Poznan (in 1998 its name was changed to the "Department of Glottodidactics and Translation

80

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

Studies") and that glottodidactics began to exist as an independent pro­ gramme of university studies. Polish glottodidactics owes much to Pfeiffer and he has tirelessly promoted it at various international forums. For the past few years he has continued these efforts at Viadrina University in Frankfurton-Oder. Even though he did not use the word 'glottodidactics' in the title of his last book, its first chapter is entitled 'Glottodidactics as a Science'. It is beyond doubt that Pfeiffer is among those who, from the beginning, regarded glottodidactics as the main field of their academic interest. The sec­ ond scholar from Poznan who devoted his studies to glottodidactics was Waldemar Marton. He contributed significantly to the popularisation of both the term 'glottodidactics' and the 'Warsaw efforts' to provide it with the sta­ tus of a (relatively) independent academic domain. His monograph Selected Issues of Didactics of Foreign Languages in Schools published in 1979 be­ came quite well-known (cf. Marton 1979). However, after he moved to Nor­ way, his role in Polish applied linguistics became less significant than before. In the meantime Wladyslaw Woźniewicz grew to be an influential represen­ tative of glottodidactics in Poznań. He is a specialist in Russian studies and the author of two important monographs in this area (cf. Wozniewicz 1987, 1991). As far as Warsaw is concerned, we should add that there are several scholars who have been dealing with issues of learning and teaching foreign languages for a long time but who, nevertheless, are not formally connected with the Institute of Applied Linguistics. Both Hanna Komorowska and Elżbieta Zawadzka, for example, have made remarkable contributions to the development of Polish glottodidactics, even though only the latter uses the term 'glottodidactics'. Both have actively participated in many conferences organised by the Institute and many of their papers can be found in the mate­ rials from these conferences. Here, I shall only mention a book published by Komorowska entitled Methodology of Foreign Language Teaching (Komo­ rowska 1999), which contains a list of her other major works in this area. In connection with the Warsaw Institute, we should mention the glottodi­ dactics of the Polish language, that is glottodidactics dealing with the teach­ ing of Polish as a foreign language, which has been developing for some time, both at the Institute in Warsaw and beyond. The University of Lodz has traditionally been a centre for the teaching of Polish as a foreign language and, in tandem with these activities it has published an series of the Acta Universitatis Lodziensis containing articles devoted to the subject. Considerable efforts were also expended at many Polish Universities in publishing Polish language textbooks for foreigners and, in this respect, the pioneering work of

APPLIED LINGUISTICS IN POLAND

81

Maria Grala at Poznan deserves to be mentioned (Grala 1974, 1978, 1981, 1982). A similar initiative at the Catholic University of Lublin resulted in the publication of Polish language textbooks through the combined efforts of the anglicist Brygida Rudzka and the polonist Zofia Goczolowa who later be­ came associated with the University of Leuven in Belgium (Rudzka 1988; Rudzka & Goczolowa 1988). The Jagiellonian University in Cracow has been an important academic centre where the methodological ideas of Zabrocki were dealt with fairly in­ tensively. Aleksander S zulc, whom we have already mentioned, has been the main promoter of these ideas here. In 1979 he published a book entitled Die Fremdsprachendidaktik: Konzeptionen — Methoden — Theorien, which achieved widespread recognition, not only in Poland, but also internationally (Szulc 1979). His Dictionary of the Didactics of Foreign Languages (1994) leads the reader to suspect that he has not broken away from the tradition of treating this domain as a part of didactics rather than linguistics. Yet it may also lead to quite a different assumption, that he still treats glottodidactics as part of applied linguistics. Glottodidactics of Polish for foreigners has devel­ oped favourably in Cracow at the The Polonia Institute at the Jagiellonian University and a specific concept of glottodidactics, named 'educational lin­ guistics' has been developed in Cracow by Teodozja Rittel (1993, 1994). Polish specialists in Russian studies seem to stick to the term 'methodol­ ogy', though some also refer to the discipline as 'linguodidactics'. In this re­ spect it should be added that it is not true that all specialists in German, Rus­ sian and French studies use the term "glottodidactics". Generally speaking, Polish glottodidactics has a significant number of 'habilitated' university teachers. Many Polish universities now have profes­ sors who have received their habilitation in this field and who treat it as their major object of academic interest. It is impossible to quote all the names, so I shall mention only some of them. The following are engaged primarily in glottodidactics at the University of Warsaw: Elzbieta Zawadzka (1987), Maria Dakowska (1987, 1995), Wladyslaw Figarski (2001); in Poznan: Bar­ bara Skowronek (1997) and Kazimiera Myczko (1995); Janusz Arabski at the University of Silesia (1985, 1996); Barbara Sadownik at the Maria CurieSklodowska University in Lublin (1991, 1997); Marian Szczodrowski (2001) and H. Stasiak (2000) both at Gdansk University. Elsewhere I have presented the early achievements of Polish glottodidactics (cf. Grucza 1979) and Sad­ ownik, among others, have attempted to recapitulate the present situation of this discipline in Poland (cf. Sadownik 1998). I also refer the reader to some

82

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

earlier articles by Dakowska and Skowronek and to what was written about Polish glottodidactics by Bausch & Krumm (1989). 9.3 Translation studies Issues of translating non-literary texts emerged in this country on a large scale in the 1960s, and were dealt with in linguistic terms. The earliest in­ stances of a linguistic approach to translation were noted at the Formal Lin­ guistics Section (Warsaw University), headed by Olgierd Wojtasiewicz. This subject was taken up extensively by a special, non-academic higher school founded in 1963 and named, quite inaccurately, "Wyższe Studium Języków Obcych" (WSJO), i.e., the Higher School of Foreign Languages. In fact, its statutory objective was not to teach certain foreign languages, but to train translators and interpreters of non-literary texts. The team of the Formal Lin­ guistics Section dealt mainly with theoretical aspects of translation, partly those of machine translation. Wojtasiewicz wrote the first Polish university handbook on the theory of translation (Wojtasiewicz 1957). Its second edition was published by TEPiS in 1996. The Higher School of Modern Languages designed solid curricula for training translators and interpreters, yet these were not curricula of academic, scientifically based studies. Throughout its relatively short existence the school had the status of a professionally-oriented higher school training translators and interpreters. The decision to close the school was made before 1970 and by 1975 it had closed down altogether. The task of reviving the training of translators and interpreters was taken up after 1973 by the Institute in Warsaw. I used the word 'reviving' as the then academic authorities had decided to close the Higher School of Foreign Languages on the pretext of an alleged lack of job offers for translators and interpreters on the labour market. Yet, soon after the closure of the School, it turned out that there was a genuine demand for professionally educated trans­ lators and interpreters of non-literary texts, in spite of Poland's limited inter­ national contacts at that time, The work aimed at devising the curricula at the Institute was accompa­ nied by a theoretical study of translation as an interpersonal linguistic activ­ ity, on the one hand, and by the training of translators/interpreters, on the other hand. Several conferences were devoted to issues in translation, initially linked with glottodidactic topics, and later focussing exclusively on translation studies. The first such conference was held in 1976 (cf. Grucza 1981). I continued to refine the concept of translatorics (cf. Grucza 1990, 1993) and some of my colleagues contributed to its further development. Barbara Z. Kielar published a monograph (1988), in which she demonstrated

APPLIED LINGUISTICS IN POLAND

83

that it was the translational chain (and not what I called the translatoric chain) that was the object of translatoric research. At the next conference devoted to translation studies in November 1982 I presented a more precisely formulated concept of translatorics (Grucza 1986a). The next conference, organised by the Institute in December 1983 focussed the training of translators (Grucza 1986b). During discussions at this conference and in articles which appeared during that period (e. g., Grucza 1984), my aim was to lay the foundations for translator training, or for a rationalisation of such training. These were also the objectives of two other conferences organised by the Institute; the papers from the first of these conferences, in 1990, were published as Przyczynki do teorii i metodyki kształcenia nauczycieli języków obcych i tłumaczy w perspektywie wspólnej Europy [Contributions to a theory and methodology of the training of foreign language teachers and translators in the prospect of a Common Europe] (Grucza 1993), while the papers from the other conference in 1996 were published as Podejscie kognitywne w lingwistyce, translatoryce i glottodydaktyce [A cognitive approach in linguistics, translatorics and glottodidactics] (Grucza & Dakowska 1997). Since 1990 the Institute of Applied Linguistics has been broadly engaged in the development of translatorics to the point where the field has now achieved the status of an autonomous academic discipline. It was here that the first doctoral and 'habilitation' dissertation in translatorics were written as was the first monograph in translatorics for the degree of a full professor: Kielar's book, Tlumaczenia i koncepcje translatoryczne [Translation and translatoric concepts] (Kielar 1988). This book was a first attempt to summa­ rize the translatoric thought developed at the Institute, a subject which was also dealt with later in a number of articles (cf. Grucza 1996, Zmudzki 1998). Today translation studies is represented in many Polish universities and the range of issues which are studied in this field has been growing rapidly. Some researchers have been investigating linguistic aspects of literary trans­ lation while others have focussed attention on interpretation. The first trend has been discussed by Maria Krysztofiak (1996), the other by Jerzy Zmudzki, (1995). According to Jan Lewandowski, 'the last five years of the twentieth cen­ tury, shortly after the establishment of the said centres, saw a tremendous in­ crease in publications on translation studies [...]. In those five years, the number of publications was the same as the number registered by Kielar in her bibliography for the previous 25 years, so one can say that the pace of development of Polish studies on translation and teaching translation was

84

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

five times as fast' (cf. Lewandowski 2001, Kielar 1996). Lewandowski has described the earlier achievements of Polish translation studies (Lewan­ dowski 1996), while Kielar has presented a more summarised version of them (cf. Kielar 1996). Perhaps one of the most consistent publishing effort in recent years in the field of literary translation studies in Poland has been an extensive series of anthologies edited by Piotr Fast at the University of Silesia between 1991 and 1997. Increasing interest in issues in translation studies is undoubtedly one of the very positive effects of the political changes which occurred in Poland in 1989. In any case, as a result of the opening of Polish frontiers, the need for literary and non-literary translators and interpreters rose dramatically. How­ ever, these facts had some negative consequences too. Soon they led to a per­ ceivable lowering of the level of translation and interpreting in all fields ow­ ing to insufficiently prepared individuals starting to work as translators and interpreters. The professional environment of translators also started to feel the negative effects of this phenomenon. It provoked anxiety in both the As­ sociation of Polish Translators and Interpreters and the Polish Society of Economic, Legal and Court Translators (Polish acronym TEPiS). Both organisations became involved in publishing and organising conferences in an effort to encourage translators to observe adequate professional standards. The second organisation is particularly active in the field of disseminating knowledge and raising the level of the translational competence of translators. To these ends it publishes two periodicals — TEPIS Bulletin and Lingua Legis — and a special series of monographs. At the same time, it contributes to the formal constitution of the professions of translating and interpreting in Poland. 10. Logopaedics and linguistic aphasiology As far as Polish logopaedics is concerned, the work of Leon Kaczmarek led to Lublin becoming arguably the main Polish centre for research in the area. We should remember, however, that he started his work in Poznan in co-operation with Zabrocki and that it was there that he wrote the first Polish study after World War II about the development of speech in children (cf. Kaczmarek 1953). He followed this up with further studies (notably Kacz­ marek 1966) and his work was consolidated by that of another researcher, Pawel Smoczynski (1955) During his time in Poznan, Kaczmarek was for a period the head of the Phonographic Section of the University, established on the initiative of Zabrocki. The publishing organ of the Section was a periodical called Phono­ graphic Bulletin first published in 1953. The Section conducted research in

APPLIED LINGUISTICS IN POLAND

85

various areas, including research on aphasia. In Lublin, Kaczmarek launched the periodical Logopaedics: Issues of the Culture of the Spoken Word (1958) and later founded the Polish Logopaedic Society (1962). In 1965 he pub­ lished a Polish Logopaedic Bibliography together with his students Zdzislaw Dobrzański and Józef Kania. While in Lublin, he also started linguistic re­ search on aphasia and Kania and Stanislaw Grabias devoted particular atten­ tion to this area. In 1990 Grabias took over the post of head of the Lublin Section of Logopaedics from Kaczmarek and in 1991 he began publishing a series of works under the common title 'Linguistic Communication and Its Disorders'. Over a dozen original studies in this field have been published in the series so far. However, it was not only in Lublin that issues of logopaedics and aphasiology were studied. In Warsaw the most important research was conducted Maria Zarçbina and Maria Przetacznikowa, while in Cracow the main re­ searchers were Halina Mierzejewska and, later, Mariuz Maruszewski (note, in particular, Zarçbina 1973 and Mierzejewska 1971; Maruszewski 1966). A summary of logopaedics written by Irena Styczek was published in 1970. The history of Polish logopaedics between the end of World War II and 1980 was presented by Kaczmarek in 1980 in a volume edited by Janusz Rieger and Mieczyslaw Szymczak. 11. Applied phonetics Much of the research in phonetics in Poland is closely related to issues of orthoepy or orthophony, as well as to logopaedics and aphasiology. Some re­ searchers engaged in phonetic research mainly to support their work in or­ thoepy, logopaedics or aphasiology. This was, for example, the case with Tytus Benni, whom we have already mentioned, and the same can be said for the work of Halina Koneczna (Cracow), Maria Dluska (Warsaw), Stanislaw Skorupka (Warsaw) or, a little later, Bozena Wierzchowska (Warsaw, Poz­ nan, Lublin). Wierzchowska acknowledges that many studies by these au­ thors were devoted at the same time to finding new methods and/or develop­ ing and testing the efficiency of new research instruments. In the early post-war period, apart from the Section of Phonetics at the University of Warsaw which was established during the interwar period and reactivated after the war, a new centre, the Phonographic Archive, was opened in Poznan in 1946 and transformed into the Phonographic Institute five years later. Within this Institute, Wiktor Jassem, later a leading phoneti­ cian in Poland, started his work and, with his efforts, the Institute became the main Polish centre in this field.

86

POLISH LINGUISTICS : ORIGINS AND TRENDS

Unfortunately, in the late 1970s, the Institute of Phonetics was closed and attempts to create a Section of Phonetics at the Institute of Applied Linguis­ tics in Warsaw also failed. Indeed the second half of the post-war period was not favourable for the development of Polish phonetics and even the Poznan centre of Polish phonetics has encountered serious difficulties in recent decades. Nevertheless, phonetics still has quite a good representation at this centre, particularly through the work of Leokadia Dukiewiczowa and Maria Steffen, among others. Unlike the other, older centres of Polish phonetics which work focussing mainly on problems of orthoepy, orthophony, logopaedics, etc., the Poznan centre, thanks to Jassem, included more technical questions in the scope of its interests and started to study issues relating to automatic speech analysis and synthesis. It should be noted that almost all the Polish neophilologies devoted con­ siderable attention to applied phonetics and didactic phonology in the post­ war period, thereby continuing the efforts of Tytus Benni (1877-1935). At the end of the 1960s contrastive aspects started to be included in these studies and particular attention was devoted to the issue of interlingual interference. It is impossible to list here all the Polish studies concerning this issue but some of the most important are those by Szulc (1974), Jassem (1962), Morciniec (1990), Morciniec & Prędota (1973, 1982); Prędota (1979), Guss­ mann (1978), Krzeszowski (1968), and Kopczyński (1977). 12. Orthography and orthoepy (orthophony) Immediately after the end of World War II, the discussion on Polish spelling was reopened. Many still did not accept the orthography approved and adopted in 1936 and insisted on simplifying it. The discussion was inter­ rupted in 1948 by a regulation issued by the authorities, which obliged every­ body to follow the rules put forward in 1936. Even though the acceptance of this regulation was imposed by force, its results must be assessed as positive, because from then on, as Zdzisław Stieber put it (1980:246), 'spelling has been absolutely uniform throughout the whole country'. In principle it has been so until today, because the amendments introduced in 1956 concerned only a few details. Robert Rothstein has outlined the story of Polish orthogra­ phy, and especially the discussion conducted in the years 1918-1936 (cf. Rothstein 1977). A detailed account in Polish was written by Stanislaw Jodiowski (1979). A much more difficult issue was the standardisation of Polish pronuncia­ tion, in other words, the practical implementation of the rules of Polish or-

APPLIED LINGUISTICS IN POLAND

87

thoepy developed by linguists. These rules were first presented in 1904 by Jan Rozwadowski and the second project was submitted in 1915 by Tytus Benni. The former used as his model the pronunciation of the Cracow intelli­ gentsia, while the latter chose the pronunciation of the Warsaw intelligentsia. After World War I, this problem was dealt with mainly by the Society of the Friends of the Polish Language. Under its auspices, a new orthoepic com­ promise was reached, based on mutual concessions. This was published in 1930 entitled Rules of Correct Pronunciation and the following years saw ef­ forts to make them commonly known and accepted. These efforts were inter­ rupted by the outbreak of World War II. After the war ended, work on this issue resumed. As early as in 1947 two authors — Witold Doroszewski and Bronisław Wieczorkiewicz — developed and published Principles of Correct Pronunciation (Doroszewski & Wie­ czorkiewicz 1947). Twenty years later, in 1977, the first Dictionary of Polish Pronunciation was published, developed by a team at the Jagiellonian Uni­ versity. All these efforts contributed greatly to standardising Polish pronun­ ciation at a national level. In the late 1970s, Zdzislaw Stieber (1980:247-248) gave the following evaluation of the state of affairs in this field in Poland: The work of Polish linguists in determining correct pronunciation produced better results than could have been expected. Today even linguists find it difficult to deter­ mine, on the basis of pronunciation, what part of Poland his or her interlocutor comes from. This applies, above all, to persons with higher education, though it is also true that those with a secondary education, or even only an elementary edu­ cation, use a relatively highly uniform pronunciation throughout the country.

13. Terminology — languages for special uses The beginnings of terminological interests and particularly in technical vocabulary in Polish linguistics go back to the first years of the interwar pe­ riod when they were initiated by K. Stadtmüller (1922). In this text, the au­ thor shows how terms can be created in accordance with the rules of word formation in Polish. Apart from technical terminology, the nomenclature of maritime terminology was a topic of considerable interest in this early period. It also received much attention after World War II (cf. Grabowski & Wójcicki, 1969; Grabowska & Grabowska 1971; Brocki 1961, 1964, 1969). An­ other area of interest concerned the different variants of military language (cf. Marciniak 1987). The first strictly linguistic post-war work devoted to terminology is an article by Mieczyslaw Szymczak (1961). The same year also saw the publi­ cation of the first major terminological study written by a non-linguist

88

POLISH LINGUISTICS : ORIGINS AND TRENDS

(Mazur 1961). Since then, studies on various terminological issues — de­ tailed and general, practical and theoretical — have more numerous (cf. Zbierski 1964; Szymczak 1978). From the beginning of the 1970s, greater attention was paid to the termi­ nologies of various sciences. These interests started with an article by Teresa Skubalanka (1969). The article was innovative in the way it went beyond terminology in its narrow sense and to speak about certain specialist dis­ courses. The author was among the first to clearly cover non-lexical aspects of scientific discourse in the scope of her interests though, the issue had al­ ready been touched on by Karel Hausenblas (1962). Gajda described Polish achievements in the field of the language of science up to 1990 (cf. Gajda 1990a, 1990b). Since the early 1980s, Polish neophilologies have also been showing greater interest in specialist discourses. Their interest was connected, on the one hand, with various issues in translation, and on the other, with various glottodidactic concerns. One of the results of the first type of interest is a monograph by Kielar (1977), entitled 'Language of the Law in the Aspect of Translation'. As an example of a study from the second group we can men­ tion the work of Wojnicki (1979) and further information on this topic can be found in a collection of studies which I edited in 1991 (Grucza 1991). This volume contains my study Terminology: Its object, status and significance', in which I give an outline of my conception of terminology as a certain rela­ tively independent field of academic interest not only for linguists. A little earlier two other books presenting terminology as a whole were published (Nowicki 1986, Gajda 1982). In 1992 the Institute of Applied Linguistics organised a special confer­ ence devoted to specialist discourses (cf. Grucza & Kozlowska 1994). The studies included in this volume are devoted to both translatoric and glottodi­ dactic aspects of various specialist discourses. Kielar's article (2000) de­ serves special attention, since it is the first attempt in Poland to provide theo­ retical foundations for both analytic reflections and practical remarks on this subject. The author also dealt with various aspects of the translation of spe­ cialist texts — including teaching this kind of translation — in her earlier works (e.g., Kielar 1981). In conclusion, one should add that in 2000 the first independent Chair of Foreign Languages for Special Purposes was created at the Faculty of Ap­ plied Linguistics and East-Slavonic Philologies at the University of Warsaw. The Department is engaged both in teaching and research activities, and has started a series of its own publications entitled Specialist Languages. The

APPLIED LINGUISTICS IN POLAND

89

first volume in the series is devoted to the metalanguage of linguistics (cf. Lukszyn 2001). 14. Conclusion In an account of the present length, it is impossible to fully do justice to all the work which has been done in the field of applied linguistics in Poland. Certain areas (such as lexicography) have been omitted as they are dealt with more thoroughly in other contributions to the present volume (see Chapters 3 and 5). Other areas, such as the extensive efforts which have been expended on standardising Polish for educational and sociolinguistic purposes, might be better dealt with in other publications devoted more exclusively to those respective disciplines. Moreover, the reader should not be led into thinking that those subjects which this paper has attempted to deal with have been rep­ resented in their full breadth. Ultimately, the author's ambition will have been fulfilled if this work serves merely as a signpost of the diversity and range of investigations in applied linguistics in this country. REFERENCES Arabski, Janusz. 1985. O przyswajaniu jezyka drugiego (obcego). Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne. Arabski, Janusz. 1997. Przyswajanie języka obcego i pamięć werbalna. Katowice: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Śląskiego. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1871. "Nekotorye obscie zamečania o jazykovedenii i jazyke [Some general remarks about linguistics and language]". Žumal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveščenija 153.279-316 (Feb. 1871). (Repr. in Dzielawybrane [Selected works] by J. Baudouin de Courtenay, vol.IV.35-64. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1990; English transl, in Baudouin de Cour­ tenay 1972.49-80.) Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1889. "O zadaniach językoznawstwa [On the tasks of linguistics]". Prace filologiczne (Warsaw) 3:1.92-115. (Repr. in Baudouin 1904: 24-49.) Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1902. Sravnitel' naja grammatika slavjanskix jazykov v svjazi z drugimi indoevropejskimi jazykami. St. Petersburg: no publisher. (Ex­ cerpts in English in A Baudouin de Courtenay Anthology ed. by Edward Stankiewicz, 319-322. Bloomington & London: Indiana University Press, 1972.) Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1904. Szkice językoznawcze [Linguistic sketches]. Vol. I. Warsaw: Piotr Laskauer. [Repr. as Dziela Wybrane, vol.1 (1974).] Boduèn de Kurtenè, I. A. 1963. Izbrannye trudy po obščemujazykoznaniju [Selected works in general linguistics]. Ed. by V[iktor] P. Grigor'ev & A[leksej] A. Leont'ev. 2 vols. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1974, 1976, 1989, 1990, 1983. Dziela Wybrane [Selected works], volumes I-II-III-IV-V-VI [in that order]. Warszawa: PWN.

90

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

Bausch, Karl-Richard, Herbert Christ & K.-H. Krumm. 1989. "Das Lehren und Lernen von fremden Sprachen: Wissenschaftskonzepte im internationalen Ver­ gleich", Handbuch Fremdsprachenunterricht ed. by K.-R. Bausch et al. Bern & Tübingen: Francke. Benni, Tytus. 1915. "Opis fonetyczny jçzyka polskiego". Encyklopedia Polska, vol. II, section III, part I, 227-268. Kraków. Bernhardi, August Friedrich. 1801, 1803. Sprachlehre. Vol. I: Reine Sprachlehre; vol. II: Angewandte Sprachlehre. Berlin: Frölich. Blicharski, Michal, ed. 1980. Semantyka w badaniach konfrontatywnych języka rosyjskiego i polskiego. Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski. Brocki, Zygmunt. 1961. Kot i kotwica. Historyek z zycia terminów morskich zbiorek pierwszy. Gdynia: Wydawnictwo Morskie. Brocki, Zygmunt. 1964. Morze na oku: Historyjek z zycia terminów morskich zbiorek drugi. Gdynia: Wydawnictwo Morskie. Brocki, Zygmunt. 1969. Morze pije rzekç. Historyjek z zycia terminów morskich zbiorek trzeci. Gdansk: Wydawnictwo Morskie. Buttler, Danuta, Halina Kurkowska & Halina Satkiewicz . 1969. Kultura języka pol­ skiego: Zagadnienia poprawnosci gramatycznej. 2 vols. Warszawa: PWN. Ciesielska-Borkowska, S. 1930. "Wartosc wychowawcza nauki języków nowozytnych". Neofilolog 2. Ciesla, Michal. 1965. "Edmunda Erdmana swoista koncepcja lingwistyki stosowanej". Języki obce w szkole 2.94. Ciesla, Michał. 1974. Dzieje nauki języków obcych w zarysie. Warszawa: PWN. Coseriu, Eugenio. 1970. "Zusammenfassung der Ergebnisse". Probleme der kon­ trastiven Grammatik ed. by Hugo Moser, 175-177. Düsseldorf: Schwann. Cygan, Jan. 1965. "On the System of Negation in English and Polish". Language Learning 15.17-28, Czochralski, Jan. 1966. "Grundsätzliches zur Theorie der kontrastiven Grammatik", Linguistics 24.17-28. Czochralski, Jan. 1975. Verbalaspekt und Tempussystem im Deutschen und Pol­ nischen: Eine konfrontative Darstellung. Warszawa: PWN. Dakowska, Maria. 1987. Funkcje lingwistyki w modelach i procesach glottodydaktycznych. Warszawa: PWN. Dakowska, Maria. 1994. "Glottodydaktyka jako nauka". Polska szkola lingwistyki stosowanej ed. by B. Z. Kielar, L. Bartoszewicz & J. Lewandowski, 65-79. War­ szawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Dakowska, Maria. 1995, Models of Language Use and Language Learning in the Theory of Language Didactics. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Dluska, Maria. 1981[1950]. Fonetyka polska. 2nd ed. Krakow & Warszawa: PWN. Doroszewski, Witold & Bronislaw Wieczorkiewicz. 1947. Zasady poprawnej wymowy polskiej (ze slowniczkiem). Warszawa: Państwowy Zakład Wydawnictwo Szkolnych. Dukiewicz, Leokadia. 1978. Intonacja wypowiedzi polskich. Warszawa: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich.

APPLIED LINGUISTICS IN POLAND

91

Engel, Ulrich, Danuta Rytel-Kuc et al. 2000. Deutsch-polnische kontrastive Gram­ matik. 2 vols.Warszawa: PWN; Heidelberg: C. Winter Figarski, Wladyslaw. 2001. "O korelacjach w procesie glottodydaktycznym". Teoría i praktyka nauczania jçzyka rosyjskiego, literatury i kultwy Rosji u progu XXI wieku. Kielce. Fisiak, Jacek. 1973. 'The Polish-English Contrastive Project". Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics. Poznan: UAM; Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. Fisiak, Jacek, ed. 1984. Contrastive Linguistics: Prospects and Problems. The Hague: Mouton. Fisiak, Jacek, ed. 1990. Further Insights into Contrastive Analysis. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Fisiak, Jacek, ed. 1981. Contrastive Linguistics and the Language Teacher. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Fisiak, Jacek. 1982. "English-Polish Contrastive Linguistics in Poland: A brief sur­ vey". Nordlyd: Troms0 University Working Papers on Languages and Linguistics 6.37-68. Fisiak, Jacek, Maria Lipińska-Grzegorek & Tadeusz Zabrocki. 1978. An Intro­ ductory English-Polish Contrastive Grammar. Warszawa: PWN. (2nd ed., 1987.) Fries, Charles C. 1945. Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan. Gajda, Stanislaw. 1982. Podstawy badań stylistycznych nad językiem naukowym. Warszawa: PWN. Gajda, Stanislaw. 1990a. Wprowadzenie do teorii terminu. Opole: WSP. Gajda, Stanislaw. 1990b. Wspólczesna polszczyzna naukowa: Język czy ¿argon?. Opole: Instytut Śląski Wydawniczy. Gnutzmann, Claus, ed. 1990. Kontrastive Linguistik. Frankfurt/Main. Gottlieb, Wojciech. 1932. "Germanistyka a wychowanie obywatelskie". Neofilolog 1.13-22. Grabowska, Iwana & Malgorzata Grabowska. 1971. "Uwagi o 'żargonie' marynarzy". Językoznawca. Lublin. Grabowski, Zygmunt & Józef Wójcicki. 1969. 1000 slow o morzu i okręcie. War­ szawa: Wydawnictwo Ministerstwa Obrony Narodowej. Grala, Maria. 1974. Język polski dla srednio-zaawansowanych [Polish for inter­ mediate students]. Kraków: Jagellonian University, 1974 (English version); Poz­ nan: Adam Mickiewicz University, 1975 (French version). Grala, Maria & Wanda Przywarska. 1978. Z polskim. na co dzien: Intermediate Polish for English speakers. Poznan: PWN. Grala, Maria & Wanda Przywarska. 1981. W Polsce po polsku: Beginning Polish for English Speakers. Poznan: PWN. Grala, Maria. 1982. Say it in Polish: An intensive course for beginners. Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna. Grucza, Franciszek. 1968. "Metasprachen, Kodematik, Fremdsprachenunterricht". Glottodidactica 2.11-20. Grucza, Franciszek. 1971. "Językoznawstwo stosowane a tzw. Tingwistyka komputerowa'". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 29.47'-61.

92

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

Grucza, Franciszek. 1976. "Fehlerlinguistik, Lapsologie und kontrastive Forschun­ gen". KwartalnikNeofilologiczny 23:3.237-247. Grucza, Franciszek, ed. 1976a. Lingwistyka stosowana i glottodydaktyka. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Grucza, Franciszek, ed. 1976b. Glottodydaktyka a lingwistyka. Warszawa: Wyda­ wnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Grucza, Franciszek. 1978. "Ogólne zagadnienia lapsologii". Zproblematyki blędow obcojęzycznych ed. by F. Grucza, 9-59. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne. Grucza, Franciszek, ed. 1978. Teoria komunikacji językowej a glottodydaktyka. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Grucza, Franciszek, ed. 1979. Polska myśl glottodydaktyczna 1945-1975. War­ szawa: PWN. Grucza, Franciszek, ed. 1981. Glottodydaktyka a trans latoryka. Warszawa: PWN. Grucza, Franciszek. 1983, Zagadnienia metalingwistyki: Lingwistyka - jej przedmiot, lingwistyka stosowana. Warszawa: PWN. Grucza, Franciszek. 1984. "Translatorik und Translationsdidaktik: Versuch einer formalen Bestimmung und Abgrenzung ihrer Gegenstände". Die Theorie des Übersetzens und ihr Auf schlußwert für die Übersetzungs- und Dolmetschdidaktik ed. by Wolfram Wilss & G. Thome, 28-36. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Grucza, Franciszek, ed. 1985. Lingwistyka, glottodydaktyka, translatoryka. War­ szawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Grucza, Franciszek, ed. 1986. Problemy translatoryki i dydaktyki translatorycznej. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Grucza, Franciszek. 1986a. "Tlumaczenie, teoria tłumaczeń, translatoryka". Pro­ blemy translatoryki i dydaktyki translatorycznej ed. by F. Grucza, 9-27. War­ szawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Grucza, Franciszek. 1986b. "Applied Contrastive Linguistics: A misconception?". Language Acquisition and Multilingualism. Festschrift für Els Oksaar zum 60. Geburtstag ed. by Brigitte Narr & H. Wittje, 235-249. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Grucza, Franciszek, ed. 1989. Bilingwizm, bikulturyzm - implikacje glottodydaktyczne. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Grucza, Franciszek. 1990. "Zum Forschungsgegenstand und -ziel der Übersetzungs­ wissenschaft". Übersetzungswissenschaft: Ergebnisse und Perspektiven. Fest­ schriftfür Wolfram Wilss zum 65 Geburtstag, ed. by Reiner Arntz & G. Thome, 918. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Grucza, Franciszek, ed. 1991. Teoretyczne podstawy terminologii. Wrocław-Warszawa - Kraków: Zakiad Narodowy im. Ossoliiiskich. Grucza, Franciszek. 1991. "Terminología - j e j przedmiot, status i znaczenie". Teoretyczne podstawy terminologii ed. by F. Grucza. Wroclaw-WarszawaKraków: Zakiad Narodowy im. Ossoliińskich. Grucza, Franciszek, ed. 1992. Język, kultura - kompetencja kulturowa. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Grucza, Franciszek. 1993. "Ansätze zu einer Theorie der Ausbildung von Fremd­ sprachenlehrern". Beiträge zur wissenschaftlichen Fundierung der Ausbildung von

APPLIED LINGUISTICS IN POLAND

93

Fremdsprachenlehrern ed. by F. Grucza, H.-J. Krumm & B. Grucza, 7-96. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Grucza, Franciszek, ed. 1993. Przyczynki do teorii i metodyki ksztalcenia nauczycieli języków obcych i ttumaczy w perspektywie wspólnej Europy. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Grucza, Franciszek. 1996. "Wyodrębnienie się, stan aktualny i perspektywy świata translacji i translateryki", Tlumaczenie - rzemioslo i sztuka ed. by Jerzy Snopek, 10-45. Warszawa: Węgierski Instytut Kultury. (Repr. in Lingua Legis 1998:6.212.) Grucza, Franciszek & Zofia Kozlowska, eds. 1994. Języki specjalistyczne. War­ szawa: Akapit PTP. Grucza, Franciszek & Krystyna Chomicz-Jung, eds, 1996. Problemy komunikacji interkulturowej: Jedna Europa - wielejęzyków i wiele kultur. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Grucza, Franciszek & Maria Dakowska. eds. 1997. Podejscie kognitywne w lingwistyce, translatoryce i glottodydaktyce. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Grucza, Franciszek, ed. 1998. Deutsch und Auslandsgermanistik in Mitteleuropa: Geschichte - Stand-Ausblicke. Warszawa. Gussmann, Edmund. 1978. Contrastive Polish-English: Consonantal Phonology, Warszawa.: PWN. Handke, Kwiryna & Ewa Rzetelska-Fleszko. 1977. Przewodnik po językoznawstwie polskim. Wroclaw-Warszawa-Kraków-Gdańsk: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. Haugen, Einar. 1951. "Directions in Modern Linguistics". Language 27.211-222. Hausenblas, Karel. 1962. "Terminología a kompozycja tekstu". Poradnik Językowy 9/10 (204/205).400-408„ Heinz, Adam. 1978. Dzieje językoznawstwa w zarysie. Warszawa: PWN. Ippoldt, Juliusz. 1925. Dydaktyka języka niemieckiego. Warszawa: Kziążnica Atlas. Iwan, Krystyna. 1972. Nauczanie języków obcych nowozytnych w polsce w latach 1919-1939: Koncepcje organizacyjno-programowa [Teaching foreign modern languages in Poland in the years 1919-1939: Organizational-programmatic con­ ceptions]. Poznan: UAM. Jakobson, Roman. 1958. "Morfologiceskie nabljudenija nad slavjankim skloneniem [Morphological observations on Slavonic inflection]". American Contributions to the Fourth International Congress of Slavists, 127-156. The Hague: Mouton. Janicki, Karol. 1986. "Tertium comparationis in Contrastive Sociolinguistics". Lin­ guistics across Historical and Geographical Boundaries: In honour of Jacek Fisiak ed. by Dieter Kastovsky & Aleksander Szwedek, 1233-1246, Berlin-New York-Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. Jassem, Wiktor. 1962. Podrçcznik wymowy angielskiej. Warszawa: PWN. Jodiowski, Stanislaw. 1979. Losy polskiej ortografii. Warszawa: PWN, Jodlowski, Stanislaw & Witold Taszycki. 1946. Slownik ortograficzny i prawidla pisowni polskiej. Toruń: T, Szczęsny. Kaczmarek, Leon. 1953. Ksztaltowanie się mowy dziecka. Poznan: Nakladem Poznańskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciól Nauk.

94

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

Kaczmarek, Leon. 1962. "O przedmiocie i zadaniach logopedii". Logopedia 2.3-7. Kaczmarek, Leon. 1966. Nasze dziecko uczy się mowy. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Lubelskie. Kaczmarek, Leon. 1980. "O polskiej logopedii". Język polski i językoznawstwo polskie w sześćdziesiçcioleciu niepodleglosci (1918-1978) ed. by J. Rieger & M. Szymczak. Wroclaw: Zaklad narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. Kaczmarek, Leon, Zdzisław Dobrzañski & Józef Kania. 1965. Polska bibliografía logopedyczna. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Lubelskie. Kalisz, Roman. 1986. "More on Pragmatic Equivalence", Linguistics across His­ torical and Geographical Boundaries: In honour of Jacek Fisiak ed. by Dieter Kastovsky & Aleksander Szwedek, 1247-1255. Berlin-New York-Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. Kątny, Andrzej. 1989. "Bibliographie zum deutsch-polnischen Sprachvergleich". Studien zur kontrastiven Linguistik und literarischen Übersetzung ed. by A. Kcątny, 65-84. Frankfurt/Main. Kielar, Barbara Z. 1977. Language of the Law in the Aspect of Translation. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.. Kielar, Barbara Z. 1981. "Nauczanie tłumaczenia w zakresie języka specjalistycznego". Glottodydaktyka a translatoryka ed. by F. Grucza, 111-125. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Kielar, Barbara Z. 1988. Tiumaczenia i koncepcje translatoryczne. Wrodaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. Kielar, Barbara Z. 1996. "Kierunki rozwoju translatoryki w okresie 1970-1995" Lingua Legis 4.20-27. Kielar, Barbara Z. 2000. "O tłumaczeniu tekstów specjalistycznych". Problemy Komunikacji miçdzykulturowej ed. by B. Z. Kielar, T. P. Krzeszowski, J. Lukszyn & T. Namowicz, 235-246. Warszawa: Grafpunkt. Kielar, Barbara Z., Lidia Bartoszewicz & Jan Lewandowski, eds. 1994. Polska szkola lingwistyki stosowanej. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszaw­ skiego. Kielar, Barbara Z., Tomasz P. Krzeszowski, Jurij Lukszyn & Tadeusz Namowicz, eds. 2000. Problemy Komunikacji miçdzykulturowej'. Warszawa: Grafpunkt. Kielski, Boleslaw. 1927. "Lektura 'wypisów' czy calosci utworów przy nauce języków nowozytnych w klasach wyzszych". Przeglqd Pedagogiczny 2.39-40. [Sum­ mary of a paper given in the Modern Languages Section of the Warsaw T.N.S.W. Circle.] Kielski, Boleslaw. 1957-1960. Struktur a języków francuskiego i polskiego w świetle analizy porównawczej. 2 vols. Łódź: Łódzkie Towarzystwo Naukowe. Kleczkowski, Adam. 1935. "Die deutsch-polnischen Beziehungen in sprachlicher und literarischer Hinsicht", Bulletin de l'Académie Polonaise des Sciences et Lettres; Classe de philologie, vol. 86. Cracovie. Kleczkowski, Adam. 1948. Germanistyka, anglistyka i skandynawistyka w Polsce. Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności. Kleczkowski, Adam. 1980. Nauczanie gramatyki języka obcego a interfer eneja. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne.

APPLIED LINGUISTICS IN POLAND

95

Kleczkowski, Adam. 1993. Podstawy metodyki nauczania języków ohcych. Warszawa: EDE - Poland. Kleczkowski, Adam. 1999. Metodyka nauczania języków obcych. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne. Koerner, E. F. K[onrad]. 1972. "Jan Baudouin de Courtenay: His place in the his­ tory of linguistic science". Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue canadienne des Slavistes 14:4.663-682. Koneczna, Halina. 1914. Studium eksperymentalne glosek polskich. (= Prace Filolologiczne, 16.) Warszawa. Kopczyński, Andrzej. 1977. Polish and American English Consonantal Phonemes. Warszawa: PWN. Kozlowska, Zofia. 1985. "Badania przekladowe i badania konfrontatywne". Lingwistyka, glottodydaktyka, translatoryka ed. by F. Grucza, 239-252. Warsza­ wa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Krysztofiak, Maria. 1996. Przeklad literacki we współczesnej transíatoryce. Poznań: Wydawnictwa Naukowe UAM. Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. 1967. 'Fundamental Principles of Structural Contrastive Studies". Glottodidactica 2.33-39. Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. 1968. An Outline of American English Phonetics. War­ szawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. 1970. Teaching English to Polish Learners. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. 1971. "Equivalence, Congruence and Deep Structure". Papers in Contrastive Linguistics ed. by Gerhard Nickel, 37-48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. 1974a. "The So-alled Deep Structure and a Foreign Lan­ guage Learner". Linguistic Insights in Applied linguistics ed. by S. Pit Corder & Eddie Roulet, 77-87. Bruxelles: AIMAY; Paris: Didier. Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. 1974b. Contrastive Generative Grammar: Theoretical foundations. Lodz: Uniwersytet Łódzki. (Repr., Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 1979.) Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. 1976. "On Some Linguistic Limitations of Classical Con­ trastive Analyses". PSiCL 4.89-95. Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. 1980. Gramatyka angielska dla Polakôw [English grammar for Poles]. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. 1984. "Tertium comparationis". Contrastive Linguistics: Prospects and problems ed. by Jacek Fisiak, 301-312. The Hague: Mouton. Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. 1990. Contrasting Languages. The scope of contrastive linguistics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Kuczyñski, K. A. 1991. "Zygmunt Łempicki i polska germanistyka okresu międzywojennego", Z dziejow germanistyki historyczno-literackiej w Polsce ed. by K. A. Kuczyński. Łódź: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego. Kwiatkowski, Stefan. 1921. Dydaktyka i metodyka nauczania jçzyk ów nowożytnych. Lwow: Kziążnica Polskiego Towarzystwa Nauczania Szkół Wyąszych; Warsza­wa.: Lado, Robert. 1972. "Meine Perspektive der kontrastiven Linguistik". Reader zur kontrastiven Linguistik ed. by Gerhard Nickel, 15-20. Frankfurt/M.: Athenäum.

96

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

Leder, Albert. 1922. Deutsche Grammatik: Etymologie, Orthographie und Syntax. Lodz: Ludwik Fiszer. Leder, Andrzej. 1922. Gramatyka niemiecka: Etymologja, ortografía i skladnia. Lodz: Ludwik Fiszer. Lewandowski, Jan. 1976, Bibliografía dydaktyki języków obcych 1971-1975. Warszawa: PWN. Lewandowski, Jan. 1979. "Bibliografía glottodydaktyki polskiej za rok 1976". Przeglqd glottodydaktyczny vol. 3. Lewandowski, Jan. 1979. "Bibliografía glottodydaktyki polskiej za lata 19771978". Przeglqd glottodydaktyczny vol. 4. Lewandowski, Jan. 1980. "Bibliografía glottodydaktyki polskiej za rok 1979". Przeglqd glottodydaktyczny vol. 5. Lewandowski, Jan. 1984. "Bibliografía glottodydaktyki polskiej za rok 1980". Prze­ glqd glottodydaktyczny vol. 6. Lewandowski, Jan. 1996. "Bibliografía przekladoznawstwa polskiego za lata 19551977" Lingua Legis 3. Lewandowski, Jan. 2001. "Bibliografía przekladoznawstwa polskiego za lata 19962000". Lingua Legis 9. Lewandowski, Jan. 2001. "Bibliografía prac z zakresu nauczania języka polskiego jako obcego za lata 1996-2000 (wybór)" Przeglqd glottodydaktyczny vol. 17. Lipińska-Grzegorek, Maria. 1977. Some Problems of Contrastive Analysis: Sen­ tences with nouns and verbs of sensual perception in English and Polish. Edmon­ ton, Alberta: Linguistic Research, Inc. Lukszyn, Jurij, ed. 2001. Języki specjalistyczne metajęzyk lingwistyki: Systemowy stownik terminologii lingwistycznej. Warszawa. Malachowska, Ewelina. 1973. "Jan Baudouin de Courtenay w zyciu prywatnym [Jan Baudouin de Courtenay in private]". Przegląd Humanistyczny 5.92-104, 119-131. Marciniak, Stanislaw. 1987. Język wojskowy.Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Ministerstwa Obrony Narodowej. Marton, Waldemar. 1968. "Equivalence and Congruence in Transformational Con­ trastive Studies". SAP 1.53-62. Marton, Waldemar. 1979. Optymalizacja nauczania języków obcych w szkole. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne. Maruszewski, Mariusz. 1966. Afazja: Zagadnienia teorii i terapii. Warszawa: PAN. Mazur, Marian. 1961. Terminología techniczna. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Naukowo-Techniczne. Miemietz, Bärbel. 1981 Kontrastive Linguistik Deutsch-Polnisch 1965-1980. Gießen: Schmitz. Mierzejewska, Halina. 1971. Zaburzenia polskiego systemu fonetycznego w niektórych wypadkach afazji. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolińskich; Warszawa: Wydawnictwo PAN. Morciniec, Norbert. 1990. Das Lautsystem des Deutschen und Polnischen. Heidel­ berg: C. Winter. Morciniec, Norbert & S. Prędota. 1973. Fonetyka kontrastywna języka niemieckiego. Warszawa: PWN.

APPLIED LINGUISTICS IN POLAND

97

Morciniec, Norbert & Stanislaw Prędota. 1982. Podręcznik wymowy niemieckiej. Warszawa: PWN. Moulton, William G. 1962. The Sounds of English and German: A systematic anal­ ysis of the contrasts between the sound systems, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Myczko, Kazimiera. 1995. Die Entwicklung des Hörverstehens auf der Fortge­ schrittenenstufe des Fremdsprachenunterrichts unter besonderer Berücksichti­ gung des Germanistikstudiums. Poznań: Wydawnictwa Naukowe UAM. Nakao, M. et ał., eds. 2000. Selected Papers from AILA'99, Tokyo: Plenary ad­ dresses, keynote addresses, special lectures, special symposia, invited symposia of the 12th World Congress of Applied Linguistics. Tokyo: Waseda University Press Nowicki, Witold. 1986. Podstawy terminologii. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. Pfeiffer, Waldemar. 1979. Teoretyczne podstawy preparacji materiałów glottodydaktycznych. Warszawa: PWN. Pfeiffer, Waldemar, 2001. Nauka języków obcych. Od praktyki do praktyki. Poznan: Wagros. Piatek, Jan. 1929. "Czy nalezy prowadzić naukę dwóch języków obcych?". Języki nowożytne, Księga pamiqtkowa I-ego Zjazdu Nauczycieli Języki Języków Nowożytnych w Warszawie w dniach 2-4 luty 1929. Warszawa. Płocińska, Barbara. 1982. "Bibliography of English-Polish Contrastive Studies in Poland". Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 15.163-192. Prędota, Stanislaw. 1979. Die polnisch-deutsche Interferenz im Bereich der Aus­ sprache. Wroclaw. Rieger, Janusz & Mieczyslaw Szymczak, eds. 1980. Językpolski i językoznawstwo polskie w sześćdziesięcioleciu niepodleglości (1918-1978). Wroclaw. Rittel, Teodozja. 1993. Podstawy lingwistyki edukacyjnej. Nabywanie i ksztalcenie języka. Kraków: Wydawnictwa Naukowe WSP. Rittel, Teodozja. 1994. Metodología lingwistyki edukacyjnej. Kraków: Wydawnict­ wa Naukowe WSP. Rothstein, Robert. 1977. Spelling and Society: The Polish orthographic controversy of 1930's . (= Papers in Slavic Philology, 1.) Ann Arbor, Mich. Rozwadowski, Jan M. 1904. "Szkic wymowy (fonety) polskiej", Materialy i Prace Komisji Językowej AU. Kraków. Rudzka, Brygida. 1988. WśróclPolaków: Polish for Foreign Students. Part 2. Lub­ lin: Katolicki UniwersytetLubelski. Rudzka, Brygida & Zofia Goczolowa. 1988. Wśród Polaków: Polish for Foreign Students. Part 1. Lublin: Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski. Sadownik, Barbara. 1991. Implikationen der Zweitsprachenerwerbsforschung für die Glottodidaktik. Lublin: Wydawnictwa Uczelniane Uniwersytetu Maria Curie Sklodowskiej. Sadownik, Barbara. 1997. Glottodidaktische und psycholinguistische Aspekte des Fremdsprachenerwebs. Lernerperspektive. Lublin: Wydawnictwa Uczelniane Uniwersytetu M. Curie-Skłodowskiej. Sadownik, Barbara. 1998. "Ansätze, Forschungsmethoden und Interdisziplinarität der polnischen Glottodidaktik". Deutsch und Auslands germanistik in Mittel-

98

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

europa: Geschichte - Stand - Ausblicke ed. by F. Grucza et al., 432-445. Warszawa. Skowronek, Barbara. 1997. Methodologische Rekonstruktion glotto-didaktischer Theorien. Poznań: Wydawnictwa Naukowe UAM. Smoczyński, Pawel. 1955. Przyswajanie przez dziecko podstaw systemu językowego. Łódź: Zakład im. Ossolińskich. Łódźkie Towarzystwo Naukowe Wydział I. Stadtmüller, K. 1922. "Slowotwórstwo tecnniczne". Poradnik Językowy 33/39.49-58 Stanislawski, Jan. 1950-1951. Gramatyka angielska dla zaawansowanych: Szczególowa analiza rozbieżności zachodzących między gramatyką angielską ipolską. 2 vols. Warszawa: Książka i Wiedza. Stankiewicz, Edward, ed. 1972. A Baudouin de Courtenay Anthology: The be­ ginnings of structural linguistics. Ed. with an introduction. Bloomington & Lon­ don: Indiana University Press. Stasiak, H. 2000. Frühbeginn im Fremdsprachenunterricht: Potenziale und Pro­ bleme. Flensburg. Stieber, Zdzislaw. 1980. "Pisownia i poprawna wymowa w Polsce niepodleglej". Rieger & Szymczak 1980.245-248. Styczek, Irena. 1970. Zarys logopedii. Warszawa: PWN. Szczodrowski, Marian. 2001. Steuerung fremdsprachlicher Kommunikation. Gdansk: Uniwersytet Gdański. Szulc, Aleksander. 1974. Praktyczna fonetyka i fonología języka niemieckiego. War­ szawa: Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne. Szulc, Aleksander. 1979. Die Fremdsprachendidaktik: Konzeptionen -Methoden Theorien. Warszawa: PWN. Szulc, Aleksander. 1994. Slownik dydaktyki języków obcych, Warszawa: PWN, Szulc, Aleksander. 1998. "Gestalten und Gestalter der polnischen Germanistik von den Anfängen bis 1960". Deutsch und Auslandsgermanistik in Mitteleuropa: Ge­ schichte - Stand - Ausblicke ed. by F. Grucza, 334-352. Warszawa. Szwedek, Aleksander. 1974. "Some Aspects of Definiteness and Indefiniteness of Nouns in Polish and English". PSiCL 2.203-211. Szwedek, Aleksander. 1973. "A Note on the Relation Between the Articles in English and Word Order in Polish (Part 1 and 2)". PSiCL 2.213-225. Szwedek, Aleksander. 1976. Word Order, Sentence Stress and Reference in English and Polish. Edmonton, Alberta: Linguistic Research, Inc. Szymczak, Mieczyslaw. 1961. "Uwagi slowotwórcze o polskim wspólczesnym slownictwie technicznym". Poradnik Językowy 1961.269-278. Szymczak, Mieczyslaw. 1978. "Rola i miejsce terminologii w języku ogólnonarodowym". Zagadnienia Naukoznawstwa 4.513-521. Tarski, Alfred. 1933. "Pojęcie prawdy w językach nauk dedukcyjnych [The concept of truth in language of deductive sciences]". Prace Towarzystwa Naukowego Warszawskiego. Wydz. Ill: Nauk Matematyczno-Fizycznych, 3. Trenklerówna, K. 1929. "Jeden czy dwa języki nowozytne w szkole średniej". Języki nowożytne. Księga pamiątkowa I-ego Zjazdu Nauczycieli Języki Języków Nowozytnych w Warszawie w dniach 2-4 luty 1929. Warszawa.

APPLIED LINGUISTICS IN POLAND

99

Urbańczyk, Stanislaw & Marian Kucala, eds. 1999. Encyklopedia języka polskiego. 3rd ed. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolinskich. Wawrzyńczyk, Jan, ed. 1978. Polsko-rosyjskie językoznawstwo konfrontatywne: Wybór materiałów. Łódź: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Whorf, Benjamin Lee. 1941. "Languages and Logic". Technology Review (M.I.T.) 43.250-252, 6, 268, 272. (Reprinted in Language, Thought, and Reality ed. by John B. Carroll, 233-245. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1956.) Wojnicki, Stanislaw. 1979. "Cele specjalne w glottodydaktyce i ich wpływ na kryteria doboru materiału językowego". Przeglqd Glottodydaktyczny 4.43-56. Wojtasiewicz, Olgierd. 1957. Wstęp do teorii tlumaczenia. Warszawa: Ossolineum. Woźniakowski, Waldemar, ed. 1992. Modele komunikacji miçdzyludzkiej. Warsza­ wa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Woźniewicz, Wladysław. 1987. Kierowamie procesem glottodydaktycznym. War­ szawa: PWN. Woźniewicz, Wladyslaw. 1991. Metodyka lekcji języka rosyjskiego. Warszawa: Wy­ dawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne. Zabrocki, Ludwik. 1966. Językoznawcze podstawy metodyki nauczania języków obcych. Warszawa: PWN. Zabrocki, Ludwik. 1966. "The Institute of Applied Linguistics at the Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan". Glottodidactica 1.131-135. Zabrocki, Ludwik. 1970. "Grundfragen der konfrontativen Grammatik". Probleme der kontrastiven Grammatik, ed. by Hugo Moser, 31-51. Düsseldorf: Schwann. (Repr. in Zabrocki 1980.254-270.) Zabrocki, Ludwik. 1975. "Zur Theorie der konfrontativen Sprachwissenschaft" Glottodidactica 7.3-9. Zabrocki, Ludwik. 1977. Grundlagen des Deutschunterrichts in fremdsprachlicher Umgebung. Warszawa: PWN. Zabrocki, Ludwik. 1980. U podstaw struktuy i rozw'oju języka [At the foundation of language structure and development]. Warszawa & Poznań: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Zagajewski, Karol. 1927. Gramatyka języka niemieckiego. Lwów & Warszawa: Kziążnica Atlas. Zagajewski, Karol. 1931. "Czy i jak uczeń poznaje kulturę obcego narodu?". Neofilolog. Zagajewski, Karol & Wojciech Gottlieb. 1939. Deutsche Arbeit, Podrçcznik jçzyka niemieckiego. [No other details available.] Zarębina, Maria. 1973. Rozbicie systemu językowego w afazji: Na materiale polskim. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolinskich. Zawadzka, Elzbieta. 1987. Percepcja audialna w kształceniu nauczycieli jçzyków obcych. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Zbierski, Karol. 1964. Poradnik językowy dia technika. Warszawa Ziemnowicz, Mieczyslaw. 1918. "Dydaktyka jçzyka niemieckiego w szkole sredniej". Dydaktyka przedmiotow w szkole sredniej 4/5: Języki nowożytne. Lwów. Zmudzki, Jerzy. 1998. "Zum Stand der Translatorik in Polen". Deutsch und Aus­ landsgermanistik in Mitteleuropa: Geschichte - Stand - Ausblicke ed. by Franciszek Grucza, 487-498. Warszawa.

100

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

Zmudzki, Jerzy. 1995. Konsekutivdolmetschen: Handlungen, Operationen, Strate­ gien. Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS.

CHAPTER 3 LEXICOGRAPHY IN POLAND EARLY BEGINNINGS — 1997*

TADEUSZ PIOTROWSKI University of Wroclaw 1. Introductory observations This chapter attempts to trace the development of the monolingual dictio­ nary of the Polish language until the present time. Additionally, it will endeav­ our to cover some of the more interesting or characteristic lexicographic publi­ cations in Poland, including bi- and multilingual ones. The history of lexicog­ raphy in Poland will be divided into the following periods: from the early be­ ginnings until 1795 (2.1), 1795-1939 (2.2), and 1945-1997 (2.3). The 20th century, in particular its later years, will be discussed in greater detail. There are several reasons for this decision: first, it was in this century that the most important dictionaries of Polish were published; second, the end of the 20th century marks a turning point for lexicography, when it ceases to be a philol­ ogical enterprise, being subsumed under computational linguistics; and third, there have been far-reaching changes in dictionary publishing in Poland, which have not been described elsewhere. Thus the focus will be on recent develop­ ments, shown in the context of the lexicographic traditions in Poland. The dates given above to subdivide the paper are related to political events; indeed, in contrast to many other linguistic enterprises, lexicography is particu­ larly sensitive to such events, as it can be situated at the interface of scholarship (philologists and linguists), industry (publishers and printers), and society (buyers and users). Dictionary making is highly labour-intensive and hence re­ quires considerable monetary investments. As a result, lexicography is closely related to complex economic forces, dependent in turn on political conditions. These factors will be taken into account in this survey. There exists no scholarly survey of the history of lexicography in Poland. Publications attempting to cover its whole history are in general dated (e.g., Doroszewski 1954, influential but biased), and often cursory, aimed at non* This chapter first appeared as an article in Historioagraphia Linguistica 25:1/2.1-24 (1998). The author thanks John Kearns, Zygmunt Saloni, and the editors for their help in preparing the final text.

102

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

specialist readers (Urbañczyk 1991[1964], Kania & Tokarski 1984), or treat only selected issues in detail (Piotrowski 1994). Two recent papers accessible for the non-Polish reader are by Urbañczyk (1991; in German) and by Pio­ trowski (1986; in English), Walczak (1991) discusses the Słownik wilenski ('Wilno Dictionary' from 1861) with regard to a wide background of methods and approaches used in Polish lexicography. His book is also valuable for the numerous bibliographic references. There are a number of studies of particular dictionaries, lexicographers, or dictionary projects (cf. their bibliography until 1980 in Bukowcowa & Kucała 1981), and two dictionaries that have been de­ scribed in great detail are those compiled by Linde in the early 19th century (SJPLind) and the one edited by Witold Doroszewski in the mid-20th century (SJPDor). There are no detailed studies of the largest dictionary of Polish, edited by Kariowicz and others in the early 20th century (SW). The best bibli­ ography that describes the majority of known dictionaries dealing with the Polish language, both mono-, bi- and multilingual, published until the early 1960s, is that by Grzegorczyk (1967). A valuable annotated bibliography in English was compiled by Stankiewicz (1984). Finally, a series of bibliogra­ phies that cover the years 1945-1978 was published by Rymsza-Zalewska et al. (1965-1981). There is no bibliography of recent dictionaries. 2. The development of lexicography in Poland 2.1 From the beginnings until 1795 The development of Polish lexicography is analogous to that in other Euro­ pean countries and the first lexicographic works are glosses, glossaries, as well as vocabularies, for the learning or teaching of Latin (cf. Plezia 1959), which were compiled during the Middle Ages. One of the earliest, probably from 1424, in Latin and Polish is Wokabularz trydencki ('Dictionary from Trento') and it contains 600 entries.1 The earliest printed dictionary, from 1526 or 1528, listing Polish words, also with Latin and German, is that by Jan Murmeliusz (also Myrmeling, 1479-1527), a Dutch author: Dictionarius Murmelii variarum rerum (from 1526 or 1528). It was based on a collection of proverbs, and included around 2,600 Polish entries in the typical thematic arrangement; it is not known who was the author of the Polish entries. From the same period, several other similar dictionaries are known, similar in size, for example by a certain Franciszek Mymer (Mymerus) from 1528, with Latin, German and Polish, containing 2,300 entries. 1

The number of entries has to be treated with caution, as there are no standard counting methods. The numbers in this paper were taken from the relevant descriptions, but there are often discrepancies between them.

LEXICOGRAPHY IN POLAND

103

One of the largest Latin-Polish dictionaries, with 1,000 pages, compiled by Jan Maczyński (c.l520-c.l587), Lexicon Latino-Polonicum (1564), included 20,500 entries. The macro structure was already alphabetical, but etymological nesting was used as well, a feature that re-appears in later Polish dictionaries. The dictionary was notable for its inclusion of colloquial vocabulary and for the care taken to provide adequate equivalents. Unfortunately, published by a non-Catholic, expensive and with a limited number of copies (500), it did not exert any lasting influence. Polish, along with Hungarian, was also included in the Basel edition of the famous dictionary by Ambrogio Calepino (c.14351511) from 1590. It is not known who provided the Polish equivalents (it was believed that it was Mączyński, either Piotr, or Jan himself), which, however, were often badly printed and distorted beyond recognition. The Polish material is very valuable, however, as the author did not feel constrained by linguistic appropriateness. The most important Renaissance dictionary is the three-volume dictionary, published 1621-1632, by Grzegorz Knapski (c.1564-1639), a Jesuit, entitled Thesaurus Polono-Latino-Graecus, The first volume, with over 1,500 pages, was Polish-Latin-Greek, the second provided a Latin index to the first volume (840 pages), and the third was a collection of idiomatic and proverbial phrases (over 1,300 entries). By use of what were, by Polish standards, novel meth­ ods, the publication was important for further development of Polish lexicog­ raphy (this account follows Puzynina 1961). In its methodology the dictionary was probably based on foreign sources from the preceding century, most no­ tably on the bilingual dictionaries with Latin and French by Robert and Henri Estienne (1539/1549, 1565, respectively). The dictionaiy provides also some information on translation problems between Latin and Polish. Furthermore, it includes a large amount of encyclopedic information. The number of the entries is believed to be 40,000. The macro structure is consistently alphabetical, and idioms as well as in­ flectional forms and even individual senses are given separate entries. Within the entries there are well-developed cross-references; the entries also regularly include synonyms. Occasionally definitions could be found. The arrangement of particular senses was from general to specialized. Knapski provided both examples of usage and references to acknowledged literary authorities (43 in number). Interestingly, he also included collocations, The dictionary uses some 150 labels as well. Most of these features were new in Poland at the time. In contrast to Mączyński (1564), Knapski made a selection of the words to be included in the dictionary, omitting those considered to lie outside the sphere of literary language (which he called dialectos maxime communis): bar'-

104

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

barisms (even those in widespread use), colloquialisms, vulgarisms and marked dialectal forms. In his view language — and this includes its descrip­ tion in a dictionary — should be governed by principles (norms), and in par­ ticular be devoid of foreign influences. Knapski therefore included a number of vernacular neologisms, to replace foreign words, which he coined on the basis of Czech. The Knapski Thesaurus exerted enormous influence on successive dictionaries, including those with Latvian and Lithuanian, up till the mid-nine­ teenth century, and some of Knapski's methods can be found in even later dic­ tionaries. It was also frequently reprinted (particularly the second volume), or abbreviated (the first volume proved to be too expensive). The material from the Knapski dictionary was extensively used and ex­ panded in the trilingual (French, German and Polish) Nouveau Dictionnaire François, Allemand et Polonais... in three volumes by Michał Abraham Troc (Trotz; c. 1689-1769), whose third volume, with over 1,500 pages, PolishFrench-German, appeared in 1764. This dictionary shows the decline of Latin as a medium of communication, and the growth of importance of French and German. Troc was a university teacher of Polish in Leipzig, and there he pub­ lished his work. To the words taken from Knapski he added technical and sci­ entific terminology, numerous derivatives, foreign words — new or omitted by Knapski, as well as slang. Troc was the first in Poland to group the mean­ ings of words into one entry and to number them. He also used labels on a large scale. Although the number of entries is not known, it is significantly higher than that of Knapski's book (some pages have twice as many). 2.2 The years 1795-1939 Another interesting large dictionary, bilingual, with Polish and German, was that by Jerzy Samuel Bandtkie (1768-1835) from 1806, with perhaps as many as 100,000 entries. Many of them, however, were lexical derivatives created by the lexicographer himself. Description of potential words in Polish, which, though not encountered in texts, can be easily formed, constitutes a real problem for a lexicographer, and this type of solution will be used again in Słownik warszawski (SW). The Bandtkie dictionary was published in Wroc­ law (German: Breslau, since the 14th century outside of Poland) in Lower Si­ lesia, and in 1835 another important Polish-German dictionary appeared out­ side the former territory of Poland in Eastern Prussia, in Królewiec (German: Königsberg), compiled by Krzysztof Celestyn Mrongowiusz (Mrongovius; 1764-1855); the German-Polish volume came out in Gdańsk in 1820). The dictionary contained some dialect words as well as colloquialisms.

LEXICOGRAPHY IN POLAND

105

The creator of the first monolingual dictionary of Polish, Samuel Bogumil Linde (1771-1841), was of Swedish-German descent.2 The dictionary was printed in six large-size volumes, and went through two editions (1807-1814, 1854-1860). This was a difficult time for Poland, which had lost its statehood after being partitioned a third time by Austria, Russia, and Prussia in 1795. In accordance with Enlightenment views it was believed that the loss of statehood would be equivalent to a loss of national identity and national language. Linde was given support, both intellectual and financial, to produce a dictionary that would be in line with the ideas of Knapski, but also with those of the Enlight­ enment: an authoritative dictionary that would set patterns for the speakers of Polish, showing how individual words should be properly used, thus helping to envigorate the language. Though Linde was deeply influenced by Knapski (at first he had only wanted to produce a supplement to his dictionary), he re­ jected these ideals and, supported by his aristocratic benefactors, produced a dictionary in the vein of Mączyński or Troc: a non-prescriptive dictionary whose aim was to include the Polish language in its totality — Polish was to be enshrined in this work, and in years to come the prospective user of Polish would have an opportunity to see how it was used in its multiform functions earlier. Linde was also influenced by Bandtkie, despite a strong critical attitude towards his work. The dictionary is very interesting not only in that it contains Polish material but in that it can also be used as a translation dictionary, for it has German equivalents for the meanings, as well as numerous Slavic equivalents (about 250,000 in number). It has 60,000 entries, and it is the only general Polish dictionary that includes also 2,000 proper names, as well as prefixes. It covers the Polish vocabulary from the 16th century until the beginning of the 19th. Similar to Mączyński in the macrostructure adopted, Linde used alphabetical arrangement with etymologically related words nested in one large entry, However, the etymologies given by Linde were backward even for his times: he still believed that Hebrew was the original language. The structure of the entry in Linde's work was as follows: the entry word in capital letters, spelling valiants, grammatical information, Slavic equivalents, Polish definition, Ger­ man equivalents, senses (with citations), and derivatives. Multiword lexical units, idioms and proverbs, are inside the entries, and often have Slavic equi­ valents as well. Like the earlier dictionaries, Linde's work is essentially ahistorical (even though in Poland it is often called a historical dictionary): neither the senses nor the citation forms are arranged in chronological order. The arrangement of the senses is logical, from primary and concrete meanings, to 2

On Linde's biography and achievement, see now Adamska-Salaciak (2001).

106

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

derivative, figurative and technical ones. The senses are usually set off by a graphic sign, or numbered. The selection of material is truly unauthoritarian: the word list includes di­ alect words, colloquial and vulgar vocabulary. Like Knapski, Linde also in­ cluded neologisms, usually words that he coined himself. There are about 5,000 such words, formed on the basis of other Slavic languages, most often Russian (while Knapski used Czech). The neologisms were to fill in the gaps in the Polish language (though often they are names of abstruse objects), and, more importantly, to make Polish more like other Slavic languages. Linde in fact believed that, with time, Polish could be adopted as the most important of the Slavic languages (or dialects in his view) and used as a Slavic lingua fran­ ca. What is interesting is that at the end of his life he entertained similar views with regard to Russian. Actually, there were other Polish scholars who held similar views concerning the importance of the Polish language, for example the famous grammarian, Onufry Kopczyński (1735-1817), who thought that Polish is the closest to the nature of human speech. It can be supposed that this was a sort of compensation for the loss of independence and the likely effects of this on national identity. Linde also used a large number of citations, some several hundred thou­ sand, from about 400 authors. This was a remarkable feat, as Linde worked on his own on the dictionary. The citations span three hundred years, but the fo­ cus was on those writers who were active during what was considered the Golden Age of Polish literature, i.e., 1550-1630, the age of the Renaissance, for example on works of Jan Kochanowski, the foremost Polish poet in that period. The choice of the sources of citations was thus subtly didactic. What is very interesting about the citations is that Linde often ameliorated them: he modernized the spellings and inflection, made them more clearly understood by abbreviating them and by emphasizing the main idea in the citation, even though that often resulted in their distortion. Linde won great esteem, as SJPLind was the first scholarly dictionary of one Slavic language while also being the first comparative dictionary of the Slavic languages. During the 19th century most dictionaries published in Poland were derived from SJPLind, and some of them even used Linde's old spellings. Linde was also followed by other lexicographers in Slavic-speaking countries, especially Josef Jungmann (1773-1847) in Bohemia, who modelled entries in his dictionary on SJPLind but also included words borrowed from Polish to revive the Czech language, which was falling into disuse at the time. If we were to summarize some of the chief features of the dictionaries in Poland up until the early 19th century, then perhaps one of the most typical

LEXICOGRAPHY IN POLAND

Statue of Samuel Bogumil Linde (1771-1841) in front of the City Museum of his birthplace, Torun

107

108

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

features was the unauthoritarian approach to selection of entries in dictionaries: the lexicographers generally chose to follow Mączyńiski rather than Knapski. Another feature was the ahistorical approach to linguistic data. These two fea­ tures are also true of Polish dictionaries published until 1945 and again after 1989. Linde's dictionary was published in Warsaw. Another significant dictio­ nary was compiled and printed in Vilnius (Wilno) in Lithuania, which in the 19th century was a significant centre of Polish culture, connected with the most important Romantic poets in Poland; therefore the dictionary is called Slownik wileński (SJPWil). Its chief editor was Aleksander Zdanowicz (1808-1868), and it was published in two volumes in 1861. SJPWil has a large number of entries (some 110,000), but it was meant to be a desk dictionary. The entries are arranged strictly alphabetically, and numerous labels are used; their list is given at the beginning of the dictionary, a method that had not been used be­ fore. The word list includes nearly all the items found in SJPLind — excluded were some of those labelled dated — and in Mrongowiusz (1835). Nearly 2,000 words were labelled as dialectal, and the dictionary included a number of items from the eastern territories of Poland and from Lithuania (where Polish was also commonly spoken at the time), as well as colloquial words and many scientific and technical terms. Thus, on the one hand, the dictionary derived from the Romantic interest in folk speech, while, on the other, the editors were clearly aware of the importance of technical terminology. The entries have a very clear structure, with all the senses numbered. The dictionary also includes numerous examples, either based on those in SJPLind, or written by the edi­ tors themselves. Noteworthy is the inclusion of numerous collocates and the regulai' use of Latin names to identify plants and animals. In fact, SJPWil was probably the model for the format of most other shorter dictionaries in Poland, and in recent research it appears as one of the more important Polish dictio­ naries. The largest general dictionary of Polish was, and still is, Sîownik jçzyka polskiego edited by Jan Karłowicz (1836-1903), Adam Kryński (1844-1932), and Wladysław Niedzwiedzki (1849-1930).3 The spiritus movens of the dic­ tionary was Kariowicz. Thoroughly educated in Germany, France and Russia, Kariowicz knew well the trends in lexicography of his time. He knew the Ro­ mantic ideas of the national historical dictionary, and in his detailed plan for a great dictionary of Polish was aware of the historical principle (Kariowicz 1876). The dictionary that was finally published under his editorship was, however, as ahistorical as the earlier dictionaries in approach, though not in the 3

Published in Warsaw, it is most often called Sîownik warszawski.

LEXICOGRAPHY IN POLAND

109

Title-page of Volume I (1807) of Linde's monolingual Polish dictionary

scope of the material. Conceptually it is similar to SJPWil in that it attempts to bring together all words of Polish in one dictionary, and that practical needs of a general user were taken into account. The eight-volume dictionary, published between 1900 and 1927, is the lar­ gest dictionary in Poland, with perhaps as many as 280,000 entries. In gen­ eral, it encompasses all the items found in SJPLind, but supplements that ma­ terial, also including Polish words from the medieval sources (in selection), which were not used by Linde; the editors did not shy from including low speech, colloquial and obscene words. Dialect vocabulary is also copiously

110

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

represented, as SW absorbed words from Kariowicz's other dictionary of Polish dialects (Kariowicz 1900-1911). The dictionary was unauthoritarian, including all words and their forms, even those considered ungrammatical, that the editors found. In accordance with the practical nature of the dictionary the user was advised on disputed points of usage by means of typographic sym­ bols, which served to indicate a word to be avoided, e.g., a dialect word, ar­ chaism, etc. A controversial point was inclusion of words unattested in the sources, resulting from very productive word-formation processes (gerunds or prefixai verbs). The microstructure is typical of Polish lexicography: the headword is fol­ lowed by variants, and the senses are arranged from concrete (and basic) to metaphoric or marked (technical etc.) ones. The first sense usually also shows numerous collocates and idioms. Some senses are also described by means of syntactic frames. The citations, as might be expected in a popular dictionary, are shown in a simplified manner: there is no exact localization given, only the author's name. At the end of the entry suffixal derivatives are provided. The entries also have numerous synonyms. Definitions are very simple, and quite often there is no definition proper, especially in adjectival entries, only a string of synonyms to show the meaning of the word in question. In this way the dictionary was supposed to enrich the vocabulary of the user as well. SW is uneven in quality. It also uncritically relied on SJPLind and thus in­ herited its shortcomings. Yet it is still extremely valuable, because it records most of the words used in the 19th century, and it is commonly used in studies of the literature of that period. Though derived from Romantic ideas, concep­ tually it belongs to the so-called Positivist movement in Poland, which strived to preserve Polish culture against Russification and Germanization by wide­ spread education and stimulation of national consciousness. Like SJPLind, SW was to show the richness of the Polish language, but at the same time it aimed at helping the user in employing the language to the maximum effect. During that period, other valuable lexicographic enterprises produced in the same spirit were large encyclopedias and encyclopedic dictionaries, some of which are still unsurpassed in quality and size. SW was also positivistic in the philosophical sense of the word, which derives from a kind of empiricism in its striving at completeness of the available data and strict separation between observation and evaluation. Kariowicz was also the author of a dictionary of Polish dialects, Slownik gwar polskich, which attempts to bring together the material known from ear­ lier publications and cover all Polish dialects (Kariowicz 1900-1911). His dic­ tionary was the first in the Slavic countries to group words from all dialects of

LEXICOGRAPHY IN POLAND

111

a single language, and it is still the most comprehensive dialect dictionary in Poland. It was in the 19th century also that the first dictionaries were published which proved extremely influential in the 20th century. These were dictionaries of spelling and so-called dictionaries of foreign words. Both types of dictio­ nary were perhaps modelled on the influential German Rechtschreibung (1880) by Konrad Duden (1829-1911), which appeals to have been followed by Antoni Jerzykowski (1821-1889) in his 1887 Siownik ortograficzny z dodatkiem niepolskich wyrazów i wyrazerí. In Poland, a spelling dictionary is usually treated as a sort of grammatical dictionary, as it shows not only the proper or­ thography but also inflectional endings of words, while a dictionary of foreign words continues the Renaissance tradition of 'hard word' lexicons, i.e., including usually foreign derived or learned words, and it explains in fact only those borrowed words which can be incomprehensible to the average educated user. That such dictionaries belong to an older tradition can be also seen in their method: they do not offer any information on the use of a word, for example illustrative material. On the other hand, in Poland dictionaries of foreign words are the only type of general dictionary that provide detailed etymologies. They also supplement general dictionaries with valuable data on relatively rare items. There were many editions of these dictionaries, such as for example, Siownik wyrazów obcych M. Arcta from 1885 which was repub­ lished until 1950.4 In 1918 Poland regained her independence. The dictionaries published in the period between the two world wars in Poland did not swerve from the di­ rection established by the great 19th century publications in their unauthoritarian attitude and attention to lexical detail. The only novel feature of that period was the use of illustrations in the otherwise inferior dictionary M. Arcta siow­ nik ilustrowany języka polskiego ['Arct's illustrated dictionary of Polish'] (1916-1925),5 a feature that cannot be found in any other monolingual Polish dictionary. There were also plans to produce a supplement to SW, and about 60,000 new items were collected. The material was, however, destroyed in Warsaw during the Second World War. New dictionaries of foreign words appeared during that period. The largest ever such dictionary, still useful for older words, was Trzaski, Everta i Michalskiego encyklopedyczny siownik 4

It is difficult to establish in what extent the publisher Michał Arct (1840-1916), or his sons, was/were indeed the authors of the dictionaries bearing their family name. In the first edition of the above-mentioned dictionary, the publisher was assisted by Henryk Wernic (1828-1905) and a certain J. Glinski, not identical with Jozef Glinski (1817-1866). 5 Arct was assisted by Henryk Galle (1872-1948) in this project.

112

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

wyrazów obcych (Lam 1939). 1927 saw the publication of the first dictionary of Polish etymology, Słownik etymologiczny jçzyka polskiego, by Aleksander Brückner (1856-1939), a professor of Slavic philology at the University of Berlin. It has been frequently reprinted as it is the only complete etymological dictionary of Polish, being also the first dictionary of etymology to be pub­ lished for any Slavic language. It was also in that period that work started on the first period dictionary of Polish, the dictionary of Old Polish. 23 The years 1945-1997 From the point of view of the development of lexicography, the period 1945-1997 can be divided into three shorter ones: the years 1945 to 1970, 1970 to 1989, and 1989 to the 1997. This periodization again coincides to a large degree with political events: in 1945 Poland found itself in the sphere of influence of the USSR, which resulted in the abolishment of the majority of political, cultural and economic structures and the start of new ones, often im­ ported from the USSR, or modelled on those found there, and ill-adjusted to Polish traditions. In 1989 Poland in turn ceased to be a satellite nation and won complete independence, after which there was a re-emergence of structures and institutions typical of capitalist democracy, and, in general, Poland opened up to the world. It was in the period 1945-1970 that the most important monolingual and bilingual dictionaries, which form the foundations for the modem lexicography of Polish, were published. There were several reasons for this blossoming of lexicography. One of them was the wish of the Communist authorities to pro­ duce tools useful in ideological education, and dictionaries and encyclopedias were treated as the most important of these tools. Related to this was the State support that lexicography received. As, however, profit analysis or feasibility studies were not used, it was possible to produce many dictionaries which, in tenus of cost effectiveness, could not be otherwise published without this sup­ port because, expensive to produce, they could be accessed only by a highly select audience. It has also to be said that the majority of lexicographers were trained and matured in the preceding period, and thus this investment in human resources bore fruit in the years 1945-1970. On the whole, the needs of the general public were disregarded in that period, and dictionaries were produced because of the ideological requirements or because of research interests of lexi­ cographers and linguists; indeed it is remarkable that there were very few dic­ tionary makers who were not trained linguists, in particular when compared with earlier periods. One of the non-linguistic lexicographers, Władysíaw Kopaliñski (b.l907), author of numerous linguistic and encyclopedic dictio-

LEXICOGRAPHY IN POLAND

113

naries, won popular acclaim perhaps because of his non-technical style of presentation and wide erudition. The most important general dictionary published in that period was Słownik języka polskiego (SJPDor) edited by Witold Doroszewski (1899— 1976). Methodologically it is the best general Polish monolingual dictionary, and it has exerted — and still does — an enormous influence on other dictiona­ ries, both monolingual and bilingual, which are usually derived from SJPDor or from one of its abbreviated versions. Work on it started in the early 1950s, and the first volume appeared in 1958. SJPDor has ten volumes and one vol­ ume with the supplement, which was published immediately after the tenth volume in 1969. SJPDor has about 125,000 entries and was based on some 6,500,000 slips with citations from 3,200 publications. It covers the period from the mid-18th to mid-20th centuries, though the items from the 18th cen­ tury are included very selectively. In its methodology SJPDor is the first modern general documentation dic­ tionary (though the editors could use the documentation period dictionaries, which started to appear in 1953, as their models), and the citations are appro­ priately referred to the sources. The most important shortcoming of the docu­ mentation is that the editors did not use the first editions of the sources, and spellings were modernized. The most important innovative feature was the grammatical description. For the first time in Poland an attempt was made to include information that would allow the user to produce adequately all the in­ flectional forms of a given word. The first volume includes tables with stems and inflectional suffixes, and all the entries are referred, by means of a system of codes, to the tables. Unfortunately, this system has its disadvantages: for example it is not economic with 58.3% of the examined nouns not declining in accordance with the system embodied in the tables (Gruszczyński 1989:87). Also function words were described far more exhaustively than in previous dictionaries. The grammatical description in the dictionary, on the other hand, does not show valiant inflections, but only those that are believed (or were, in the 1950s and 1960s) to be standard. This approach stems from the general approach of the editors, and in particular of Doroszewski, who chose to follow Knapski in their work, and produced a 'normative' dictionary, whose primary aim was not to document the use of lexical items but to shape the language (and the be­ haviour of the users) by including only those items that the editors felt to be appropriate. This model of lexicographic work was used in all general-purpose dictionaries from 1945 until 1992. This all-pervasive normativeness of Polish dictionaries, which was at odds with the traditions in Poland, was perhaps also

114

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

modelled on that in Soviet lexicography, which was strictly authoritarian. The appropriateness of a word could be either linguistic, i.e., only standard forms and meanings were included, or political: the editors excluded items felt not to be politically correct. Many of the precepts of the editors coincided with the at­ tempts at linguistic engineering typical of communists, and some of the entries on key words of communist propaganda are in fact propaganda pieces. Reli­ gious vocabulary (Christian, Hebrew, etc.) too was covered, albeit very selec­ tively. Interestingly, many theoretical tenets of Doroszewski did not actually agree with their practical use in the dictionary, which also employs methods typical of earlier dictionaries, which Doroszewski condemned, in particular the methods of defining the entries. Because of the great speed of compilation the editors quite often used the descriptions found in earlier dictionaries, in particu­ lar in SW (Karlowicz et al. 1900-1927). Unfortunately SJPDor does not provide adequate information on Polish used in the 19th and 20th centuries. In fact it could not do so because of the theoretical commitment of the editor, who applied an approach justified in a small and practical dictionary to a large documentation dictionary, one that is primarily used by specialists. As a result, this makes the dictionary unreliable as a source on the modern Polish lexicon. The microstructure was typically ahistorical: the senses, numbered, were arranged from general and concrete (which, according to Doroszewski, were closest to reality) to figurative and technical. The citations are usually (but not always) arranged in inversely chronological order. Though SJPDor did not show synonyms on a regular basis, it showed a great number of fixed phrases and collocations. The material from SJPDor and SW was used in a two-volume dictionary of fixed phrases (Skorupka 1967-1968), which also includes frequent typical collocations. Stanislaw Skorupka (1906-1988) edited also a standard dictionary of syno­ nyms in Polish (Skorupka 1957) It was at that time that the first volumes of the historical period dictionaries were published: the dictionary of Old Polish (Urbanczyk 1953-1996), on which work had been begun at the start of the 20th century, and a dictionary of Polish in the 16th century (Mayenowa & Peplowski 1966-1995), begun in 1949. The former uses material from Polish medieval manuscripts, predomi­ nantly those published. The entries are headed by their modern-spelling names, and have two main parts: grammatical, with variant spellings, and semantic, with definitions and Polish and Latin synonyms, after which citations follow. The latter dictionary is the most ambitious dictionary produced in Poland; it is not strictly a historical dictionary but actually a synchronic dictionary of one period. Initially the editors attempted to include all words found in texts from

LEXICOGRAPHY IN POLAND

115

the century and collected 8,000,000 citation slips. This undertaking proved to be unfeasible: the 35 most frequent words have more than 15,000 citation slips each, and one large-size volume of the dictionary includes about 1,150 entries (Karpluk 1993:345-346); therefore the attempted completeness has been aban­ doned and the dictionary now uses a very broad reading programme. The entry includes variants, definitions as well as synonyms to particular senses, and shows recurrent word combinations, classified semantically and syntactically, with copious citations. The dictionary is the first in Poland to show the fre­ quency of words and their senses in texts. It is interesting, however, that even those two scholarly dictionaries are not based on the historical principle: the senses are not arranged chronologically, and the dates of citations are not supplied very consistently. The vocabulary of later periods is not described in these dictionaries, and the general all-purpose dictionaries have to be used. To some degree this lack is made up for in the dictionaries of important writers: the largest is that of the language of Adam Mickiewicz, the foremost Polish Romantic writer (Górski & Hrabec 1962-1983) in eleven volumes, which lists all the words and all their contexts, with semantic description, from Polish-lan­ guage texts by Mickiewicz. Another ambitious undertaking in the period was the detailed multi-volume dictionary of Polish etymology (unfortunately unfin­ ished; publication began in 1952) by Franciszek Sławski (b. 1916). The period 1970-1989 was relatively barren for general lexicography, and during those twenty years the foremost publisher of monolingual dictionaries in Poland, PWN, prepared only three new dictionaries. These were: a threevolume abridgement of SJPDor, Siownik jçzyka polskiego (SJP PWN: Szymczak 1978-1981), a highly popular dictionary of foreign words Słownik wyrazow obcych (SWO PWN: Tokarski 1971), and a dictionary of spelling Ortograficzny słownik jçzyka polskiego (Szymczak 1975). These three dictionaries were reprinted many times, and they are probably the best known modern monolingual dictionaries in Poland. Unfortunately SJP PWN further exac­ erbated the shortcomings of SJPDor, and the editors for example excluded from it even those politically sensitive items that were included in the bigger dictionary. The Tokarski dictionary of foreign words could be used as a sup­ plement to SJPDor, as it added data from earlier dictionaries of this type, not included in SJPDor, and included some recent words as well Another influen­ tial dictionary of foreign words, Siownik wyrazów obcych by Kopaliński, with less technical definitions, has been competing favourably with the SWO PWN since 1967. For specialist dictionaries, on the other hand, the period under review was very rich, as there appeared important dialect dictionaries, first of all the first

116

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

volumes of Slownik: gwar polskich (Karas & Reichan 1977-1996), which will include dialect vocabulary from the 19th and 20th centuries. At the statt of the publication the editors had 3,000,000 citation slips documenting over 100,000 entries. Two monumental multi-volume dialect dictionaries (encyclopedic in scope) were prepared by Bernard Sychta (1907-1982): of Kashubian (which in Poland is traditionally considered a dialect of Polish), published during 1967-1976, and of the speech of Kociewie (Sychta 1980-1985). Also there were numerous smaller dialect dictionaries of particular regions or villages. In the next and most recent period, 1989-1997, there were profound changes in the structure of the publishing industry generally: a rapid decline of many established publishing houses, in particular those bringing out scholarly dictionaries (Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich in Wroclaw), and the emer­ gence of new ones, most often focused predominantly on profit, with little re­ gard for quality. As a result, there was a sudden growth in the number of newtitles, which were usually only derivative, based on material in previous tradi­ tional dictionaries. This is unfortunately true also of the multi-volume general dictionary edited by Zgólkowa (1994- ). In the period two facts were most re­ markable: one was the steady growth in technological sophistication and a widespread use of computers in the preparation of dictionaries, as well as the emergence of electronic dictionaries; the other was a widening of the range of vocabulary included in dictionaries for the standard user. As to the former, in a period of barely several years electronic spellers have developed from curiosities to fully useful tools (cf. Piotrowski 1997); Polish is heavily inflected, and programatically and linguistically such spellers have to be quite sophisticated, as they have to be based on a morphological analysis. The development of electronic tools culminated in the production of the first serious monolingual electronic dictionary, Komputerowy slownik języka polskiego, based on two publications of PWN: SJP PWN and SWO PWN. As an application it competes favourably with the best products of this type. The dic­ tionary also uses morphological analysis, al-though not quite successfully. In 1994 there also appeared a CD-ROM with the full text of SJPDor in a graphic (TIF) format. As regards the entry of new areas of vocabulary into dictionaries, this re­ lates first of all to marked lexical items: slang, colloquial and obscene words. The first standard dictionary for the general user after 1945 that included such words was the supplement to SJP PWN from 1992. After its publication the major gaps in this area were quickly filled, and the most important of these dictionaries is now the dictionary of colloquial Polish (Anusiewicz & Skawiński 1996), with the material based on extensive collections of citations (also

LEXICOGRAPHY IN POLAND

117

from speech), and the dictionary of obscenities by Grochowski (1995), with the examples largely invented by the editor. There are also dictionaries of slang of various social groups. Thus the unauthoritarian traditions of Polish lexicography are in evidence again after a period of some 40 years. There are also changes in the methodology of description, which can be characterised as a move towards greater user-friendliness and towards descrip­ tion of pragmatic features. These are best shown in the interesting new onevolume dictionary by Dunaj (1996), which uses a simpler and more effective defining style than found in the earlier dictionaries of Polish. It also attempts to cover new vocabulary in Polish. Unfortunately, this dictionary is based on traditional dictionary slips, as are the publications of PWN, Indeed, this is the most important shortcoming of dictionaries produced at present in Poland, and because of this the description of general vocabulary is inadequate as it is based on slip collections, mostly not recent. Regrettably, there is no large-scale cor­ pus of Polish that could be used by the linguists and lexicographers; what is worse, there seems to be little interest in corpora in the linguistic community in Poland. The changes in methodology have not affected the traditional types of dictionary, of foreign words and of spelling, which remain steadfastly anti­ quated, reminiscent of dictionaries from the 17th century. There appeared in­ novative dictionaries of synonyms (Dąbrówka, Geller & Turczyn 1993) and antonyms (Dąbrówka & Geller 1995). 3.

Outlook The future of lexicography in Poland appeal's to be bound to technological development, as elsewhere in Europe. There are deep changes both in the form and use of dictionaries, whose medium becomes abstract, intangible in form, and the efficiency of the use of dictionaries will no longer depend on a special type of literacy — knowledge of lexicographic and linguistic conventions — but rather on computer literacy: on a more general skill to use computer appli­ cations and to conduct complex searches across databases. This process is also related to the fact that dictionaries in general are no longer treated with the tra­ ditional veneration and are approached as a commodity by the sellers, and simply as tools by the users. SJPDor will, for some time in the future, continue to be the most important Polish dictionary, as there are no large corpora of Polish, nor tools to analyse them, nor skilled staff, required to produce a new large documentation dictio­ nary of modern Polish. In Poland preparation and publication of scholarly dic­ tionaries will perhaps be even more difficult than in other countries, not only because commercialism dominates, and there is no adequate system of financial support for the arts, but also because there are fewer and fewer highly qualified

118

POLISH LINGUISTICS : ORIGINS AND TRENDS

people willing to undertake the painstaking work on a historical or specialist dictionary. Unfortunately, the specialist lexicographers seem not to have their successors, and several valuable dictionaries most probably will not be fin­ ished. It has also to be said that commercialism has its good features. It is thanks to competition that monolingual dictionaries are being revised at a brisk pace, and that the user now has a wider choice of various general dictionaries, even though they are in fact based on the same material from SJPDor. Thus it seems certain that general dictionaries will flourish. Unfortunately, the schol­ arly community, or the mass media, does not help the users avoid — through critical reviews — those publications that are devoid of any value. All this, however, is related to complex cultural transformations taking place in Poland at the moment, in which the traditional highly literary culture is becoming rapidly obsolete. REFERENCES A. Dictionaries Anusiewicz, Janusz & Jacek Skawiński. 1996. Siownik polszczyzny potocznej [Dictionary of colloquial Polish]. Warszawa: PWN.6 Bandtkie, Jerzy Samuel. 1806. Słownik dokiadny języka polskiego i niemieckiego [...] [Complete dictionary of Polish and Gemían]. 2 vols. Breslau [Wroclaw]: Wilhelm Gottlieb Korn. Brückner, Aleksander. 1927. Síownik etymologiczny jçzyka polskiego [Etym­ ological dictionary of the Polish language]. Krakow: Krakowska Spółka Wydawnicza. [Since 1957 published in Warszawa by Wiedza Powszechna. Nu­ merous impressions.] Calepino, Ambrogio (Calepinus). 1590. Dictionarium undecim linguarum [...]. Basilae: per Sebastianum Henricpetri. Dąbrówka, Andrzej & Ewa Geller. 1995. Słownik antonimów [Dictionary of Antonyms]. Warszawa: MCR. Dąbrówka, Andrzej, Ewa Geller & Ryszard Turczyn. 1993. Słownik synonimów [Dictionary of synonyms]. Warszawa: MCR. Doroszewski, Witold, ed.-in-chief. 1958-1969. Siownik jçzyka polskiego [Dictio­ nary of Polish]. 11 vols. Warszawa: PIW7/PWN. (Repr., Warszawa: PWN, 1997; also available in CD-ROM format.) [Vol. XI is a supplement.] Duden, Konrad. 1880. Duden. (Vollständiges) orthographisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institut. Dunaj, Bogusiaw, ed.-in-chief. 1996. Siownik jçzyka polskiego [Dictionary of Polish]. Warszawa: Wilga.

6 PWN is the regular siglum for Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, which since 1991 has been called Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. 7 PIW is the regular siglum for Panstwowy Instytut Wydawniczy.

LEXICOGRAPHY IN POLAND

119

Estienne, Henri. 1565. De la conformité du langage françois avec le grec. No place: no publisher given. Estienne, Robert. 1539/1549. Dictionnaire franc ois-latin. Paris: R. Estienne. Górski, Konrad & Stanislaw Hrabec, eds.-in-chief. 1962-1983. Sîownik języka Adama Mickiewicza [Dictionary of Adam Mickiewicz's language]. 11 vols. Wroclaw: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.8 Grochowski, Maciej. 1995. Sîownik polskich przekleństw i wulgaryzmów [Dic­ tionary of Polish swearwords and obscenities]. Warszawa: PWN. Jerzykowski, Antoni. 1885. Sîownik ortograficzny z dodatkiem niepolskich wyrazów i wyrazeń [Spelling dictionary with non-Polish words and expres­ sions]. Poznan: Nakladem Autora i Fr. Chociezyñskiego. Jungmann, Josef. 1835-1839. Slovník cesko-némecky [Czech-German dic­ tionary]. 5 vols. Praha: R. W. Spinsky. Karaś, Mieczysław & Jerzy Reichan, eds. 1977-1996, Slownik gwar polskich [Dictionary of Polish dialects]. 5 vols. (A-Dcera). Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. (From Fasc. 10 (1992) onwards published by Instytut Języka Polskiego, PAN, Krakow.) Karlowicz, Jan. 1900-1911. Sîownik gwar polskich [Dictionary of Polish dia­ lects]. 9 vols. Kraków: Akademia Umiejçtnosci. (Repr., Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Artystyczne i Filmowe, 1974.) Karlowicz, Jan, Adam Kryński & Władyslaw Niedźwiedzki, eds. 1900-1927. Sîownik języka polskiego [Dictionary of Polish]. Warszawa: Nakladem Prenumeratorów i Kasy Mianowskiego [by the Subscribers and the Mianowski Foundation]. (Repr., Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 1952-1953.) Knapski, Grzegorz (Gregorius Cnapius). 1621-1632. Thesaurus Polono-LatinoGraecus [...] 3 vols. Cracoviae: F. Caesario. Komputerowy slownik jçzyka polskiego [Computer dictionary of Polish]. 1996. Warszawa: PWN. Kopaliński, Wladyslaw. 1967. Sîownik wyrazów obcych [Dictionary of foreign words]. Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna. (Numerous further enlarged editions.) Lam, Stanislaw, ed. 1939. Trzaski, Everta i Michalskiego encyklopedyczny sîownik wyrazów obcych [Encyclopedic dictionary of foreign words]. Warszawa: Trzaska, Evert & Michalski. Linde, Samuel Bogumil. 1807-1814. Sîownik języka polskiego [Dictionary of Polish]. Vols.I-VI. Warszawa: Author. (2nd ed., Lwow: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich, 1854-1860; repr., Warszawa: PIW, 1951; Warszawa: Gutenberg Print, 1994.) M. Arcta sîownik ilustrowany jçzyka polskiego [Arct's illustrated dictionary of Polish]. 3 vols. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo M. Arcta, 1916. (2nd ed, 1925; 3rd ed., 2 vols., 1929-1930.) Mayenowa, Maria Renata & Franciszek Peplowski, eds.-in-chief, 1966-1995. Sîownik polszczyzny XVI wieku [Dictionary of Polish in the 16th century.]. 13 vols. (A-Phy). Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich, [From 1995 onward published by Instytut Badań Literackich, PAN, Warszawa.] 8

The full name of Ossolineum is Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, Wydawnictwo.

120

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

Mączyński, Jan (Ioannes Maczińsky). 1564. Lexicon Latino-Polonicum ex optimis Latinae linguae scriptoribus concinnatum [...]. Regiomonti Borussiae [= Königsberg]: Ioannes Daubmannus. (Repr., Köln & Wien: Böhlau, 1973.) Mrongowiusz (Mrongovius), Krzysztof Celestyn. 1835. Sîownik P olsko-niemiecki [...] Ausführliches polnisch-deutsches Wörterbuch. Koenigsberg: Xięgarz Nikolovius. Murmeliusz, Jan (Murmelius). 1526. Dictionarius Murmeln variarum rerum, tum pueris, tum adultis utilissimus, cum Germanica atque Polonica interpretatione[...]. Cracoviae: Vietor. Mymer, Franciszek (Mymerus). 1528. Diccionarius trium linguarum: Latinae, Teutonicae et Polonicae [...]. Cracoviae: Vietor. SJPDor = Doroszewski 1958-1969 SJPLind = Linde 1807-1814 SJP PWN = Szymczak 1978-1981 SJPWil = Zdanowicz 1861 Skorupka, Stanislaw, ed. 1957. Siownik wyrazów bliskoznacznych [Dictionary of synonymous words]. Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna. [Numerous further im­ pressions.] Skorupka, Stanislaw. 1967-1968. Siownik frazeologiczny języka polskiego [Dic­ tionary of Polish idioms and fixed phrases]. Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna. [Numerous further impressions.] Slawski, Franciszek. 1952- . Sîownik etymologiczny języka polskiego [Etym­ ological dictionary of Polish]. 5 vols. (A-Lzywy). Krak6w: Towarzystwo Miłośników Języka Polskiego. Siowniczek wyrazów obcych [...] [Dictionary of foreign words]. 1885. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo M. Arcta. (4th ed. Sîownik wyrazów obcych M. Arcta, 1904; 19th ed., 1947.) SW= Karłowicz, Kryński & Niedzwiedzki 1900-1927 SWO PWN = Tokarski 1971 Sychta, Bernard. 1967-1976. Sîownik gwar kaszubskich na tle kultury ludowej [Dictionary of Kashubian dialects on the background of folk culture]. 7 vols. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. ----------. 1980-1985. Słownictwo kociewskie na tle kultury ludowej [Dictionary of the Kociewie lexicon on the background of folk culture]. 3 vols. Wrocław: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. Szymczak, Mieczyslaw, ed. 1975. Ortograficzny siownik jçzyka polskiego [...] [Spelling dictionary of Polish]. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. [Numerous further impressions until 1996; name of the publisher from 1991: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.] Szymczak, Mieczyslaw, ed. 1978-1981. Siownik jçzyka polskiego [Dictionary of Polish]. 3 vols. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. [Numerous further impressions, Supplement, 1992; name of the publisher from 1991: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.] Tokarski, Jan, ed. 1971. Siownik wyrazów obcych [Dictionary of foreign words]. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. (2nd ed. prepared by Elzbieta Sobol, 1995.) [Publisher's name from 1991: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.]

LEXICOGRAPHY IN POLAND

121

Trotz (Troc), Michał Abraham. 1744-1747. Nouveau dictionnaire françois, allemand et polonais [...]. Vol.I-II, Nowy dykcyonarz, to jest mownik polskofrancuski-niemiecki [...]: Vol.III (1764). Leipzig: Jean Frederic Gleditsch. (2nd ed., prepared by Stanislaw Nałęz-Moszczeński, 1779; 3rd ed., 1822-1824; 4th ed., Breslau [Wroclaw]: G. T. Korn, 1832.) Urbańczyk, Stanislaw, ed.-in-chief. 1953-1996. Siownik staropolski [Dictionary of Old Polish]. 11 vols. (A-Zagwnnie). Wroclaw: Zakład Narodowy im. Osso­ liñskich. [From Fasc.64 (1991) onward published by Instytut Jçzyka Polskiego PAN, Krakow.) Zdanowicz, Aleksander, ed.-in-chief. 1861. Słownik jçzyka polskiego [...] [Dic­ tionary of Polish]. Wilno: Maurycy Orgelbrand. (Repr. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Artystyczne i Filmowe, 1986). Zgólkowa, Halina, ed.-in-chief. 1994- . Praktyczny siownik wspóíczesnej polszczyzny [Practical dictionary of contemporary Polish]. Poznan: Wydawnictwo Kurpisz. [10 vols. (A-D) published thus far.] B. Secondary literature Adamska-Salaciak, Arleta. 2001. "Linde's Dictionary: A landmark in Polish lexicography". Historiographia Linguistica 28:1/2.65-84. Bukowcowa, Zofia & Marian Kucala, comps. 1981. Bibliografía podrçczna gramatyki historycznej i historii jçzyka polskiego. Part II: Slownictwo. Kontakty językowe. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. Doroszewski, Witold. 1954. Z zagadnien leksykografii polskiej. Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy. Gruszczyński, Wiodzimierz. 1989. Fleksja rzeczowników pospolitych we wspó­­ czesnej polszczyznie pisanej. Na materiale 'Słownika jçzyka polskiego' PAN pod redakcjq W. Doroszewskiego. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. Grzegorczyk, Piotr, comp. 1967. Index lexicorum Poloniae: Bibliografía słowników polskich. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Hartmann, Reinhard R. K., ed. 1986. The History of Lexicography. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hausmann, Franz-Josef, Oskar Reichmann, Herbert E. Wiegand & Ladislav Zgusta, eds. 1989-1991. Wörterbücher. Dictionaries. Dictionnaires: Interna­ tionales Handbuch der Lexikographie. International Encyclopedia of Lexico­ graphy. 3 vols. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Kania, Stanislaw & Jan Tokarski. 1984. Zarys leksykologii i leksykografii polskiej. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne. Karlowicz, Jan. 1876. "Przyczynki do projektu wielkiego słownika jęz, pols­ kiego". Rozprawy i Sprawozdania Wydziaiu Filologicznego Akademii Umiejçtnosci 4.14-94. Karpluk, Maria. 1993. "Pracownia Siownika Polszczyzny XIV wieku IBL PAN w Krakowie (1.XI.49-31.VIII.93)". Język Polski 83:4/5.345-346. Plezia, Marian. 1959. "Dzieje leksykografii laciñsko-polskiej w Polsce". Siownik iacihsko-polski ed. by M. Plezia, Vol.1, 5-39. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydaw­ nictwo Naukowe.

122

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

Piotrowski, Tadeusz. 1986. 'The Development of the General Monolingual Dic­ tionary in Poland". Hartmann 1986.185-195, Piotrowski, Tadeusz. 1994. Z zagadnien leksykografii. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Piotrowski, Tadeusz. 1997. "Elektroniczny polonista: Przegląd narzędzi korektorskich". Chip: Magazyn komputerowy 2.86-92. Puzynina, Jadwiga. 1961. 'Thesaurus' Grzegorza Knapiusza. Wroclaw: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. Rymsza-Zalewska, Danuta et al., comps. 1965-1981. Bibliografía síowników wydanych w Niemieckiej Republice Niemieckiej, Rumuńskiej Republice Ludowej, [...] Polskiej Rzeczpospolitej Ludowej [...] w latach 1945-1961. 9 vols. War­ szawa: Wydawnictwa Naukowo-Techniczne. [Covers the years 1945-1978.] Stankiewicz, Edward, 1984. Grammars and Dictionaries of the Slavic Languages from the Middle Ages up to 1850. Berlin-New York-Amsterdam: Mouton, Urbanczyk, Stanislaw. 1991 [1964]. Słowniki, ich rodzaje i uzyteczność. 3rd ed. Krakow: Towarzystwo Miłosników Języka Polskiego. Urbañczyk, Stanisław. 1991/'Polnische Lexikographie". Hausmann et al. 1989— 1991, vol.II, 2268-2274. Walczak, Bogdan. 1991. Słownik wileñski na tle dziejów polskiej leksykografii. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza.

CHAPTER 4 DIALECTOLOGY IN POLAND, 1873-1997* STANISLAW GOGOLEWSKI University of Lodz

123

0. Defining the subject matter Dialect, as a regionally delimited system of communication used by an ethnic group, is older than a national language, which is established only after state-founding structures have been developed. The Polish literary language was shaped between the 14th and 16th centuries. Speakers of Polish were aware of its dialectal variations for several centuries (cf. Zwoliński 1952:375 et passim), but it was as late as the 19th century that more or less scientific at­ tempts to deal with this issue began to appear. 1. The early stage of Polish dialectology Conventionally, the year 1873 has been taken as the date marking the be­ ginning of Polish dialectology, with the publication of the first study of a Polish dialect written by Lucjan Malinowski (1839-1898), Beiträge zur slavischen Dialektologie: I. Über die oppelnsche Mundart in Oberschlesien: 1.Lautund Formenlehre. Some fifty years after Malinowski's death, his student, Kazimierz Nitsch (1874-1958) wrote: The most brilliant was his dissertation entitled broadly Beiträge [...], of which, un­ fortunately, only the first paper on phonetics was published. Nevertheless, it provided grounds for a series of studies and critical analyses on dialectology. (Nitsch 1960: 166)

It is no accident that both the date and the place of the publication of the monograph are connected with the Junggrammatiker School whose meticulous research also included the speech of common people. According to their positivistic doctrine the greatest emphasis in any research was to be placed on the discovery of linguistic facts and the penetrating study of data. More often than not minute detail was regarded as more important than the whole, an element was more significant than the system, analyses were valued more than syntheThis chapter first appeared as a contribution to Historiographia Linguistica 25:1/2.115-140 (1998). The original English translation was prepared by Ariadna Drozdowicz.

124

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

ses, and every fact, however modest it might have been, was worth examin­ ing. It was believed that there were no problems of greater or lesser importance in science, as there were no better, or worse ways of speaking — the speech of peasants was in no respect worse than that of gentlemen, and since the latter had been studied for a long time, various dialects spoken by villagers now be­ came a source of new observations. Scientific, in linguistic investigation, was only what was historically justified, and every phone or morpheme had to be accurately placed in the chain of evolutionary transformations from the protolanguage onwards. 19th-century Poland was not an independent state, and the possibilities of using the Polish language in offices and schools varied across the sectors of partitioned Poland. Silesia, Wielkopolska (Great Poland), Pomerania, Warmia and Mazuria had been annexed by Prussia, and active measures were taken to Germanise the Polish people. Thus the use of the mother tongue for the major­ ity of Poles living there meant speaking their regional dialect. Similarly, an anti-Polish policy was imposed in the regions of Mazovia, the north-eastern borderland and central and northern Małopolska (Little Poland, the Russian sector of partitioned Poland), where, particularly after the suppression of the January Uprising in 1863, the pressure of compulsory Russification increased. It was only in the lands annexed by Austria (Southern Malopolska and the south-eastern borderland) that after the 1860s, Polish began to be less discrim­ inated against and was accorded the status of a language of instruction in pri­ mary and secondary education. After 1870, Polish was introduced as language of instruction at the Jagiellonian University, and several years later the same process occurred at the University of Lvov. It was in Galician Krakow where one of the first Polish dialectologists, Lucjan Malinowski was working. Previously he had studied in Prague and Jena where he met August Schleicher (1821-1868), one of the most eminent experts in Indo-European studies. There followed a period in Leipzig, where he came into contact with the Slavist and Indo-Europeanist, August Leskien (1840-1916), one of the chief founders of the Neogrammarian School. In­ fluenced by these two scholars, Malinowski went to Silesia in order to under­ take research there. In 1877 he was appointed Chair of Slavonic Philology at the Jagiellonian University and was secretary of the Languages Committee and the Philological Faculty at the Academy of Learning. He organised the first lin­ guistic seminar in Poland, participants of which conducted their own research during the following decades. Among them were Roman Zawilinski (18551932), the author of a (1880) study of the dialect spoken in the region of Pod-

DIALECTOLOGY IN POLAND, 1873-1997

125

karpacie (sub-Carpathians, Outer Western Carpathians), Gwara brzezinska w starostwie ropczyckim [The Brzezina dialect in the district of Ropczyce], Jan Bystron (1860-1902), the author of O mowie polskiej w dorzeczu Stonawki i Łucyny w Księstwie Cieszyńskim (On the Polish language in the estuary of the Stonawka and Lucyna rivers in the Duchy of Cieszyn [1887]), and several oth­ ers of the first generation of Malinowski's students. Malinowski's youngest pupil was Kazimierz Nitsch, who turned out to be his most outstanding student. His achievements surpassed those of his teacher, and it was he who is commonly recognised as the founder of Polish dialectol­ ogy. He was the author (Nitsch 1915) of the first scientific synthesis in the field: Dialekty języka polskiego [Dialects of the Polish language]. As a man of enormous assiduity, Nitsch travelled on foot, as well as by bicycle, all over the territory in which Polish was spoken, reaching as far as the borderlands of all three sectors of partitioned Poland. Nitsch completed his Polish and Slavonic education at the Jagiellonian University, where he was taught not only by Lucjan Malinowski, but also by Jan Baudouin de Courtenay (1845-1929), an Indo-Europeanist and Slavist, and creator of the foundations of historical grammar of the Polish language. Being an eminent and versatile scholar, Baudouin de Courtenay also took an interest in dialectology, particularly in the dialects of Slavonic minorities scat­ tered all over ethnically non-Slavonic territories. In discussing the beginnings of Polish dialectology, one must not forget his important study of 1897 on '"Kasubskij jazyk', 'kasubskij narod' i 'kasubskij vopros'" ['Kashubian lan­ guage', 'Kashubian nation' and the 'Kashubian issue']. In it Baudouin claimed that some typical characteristics and particular tendencies of the Polish lan­ guage, were, in the Kashubian territory, far more recognisable than in Polish itself. It was this 'magnification' of linguistic traits which led him to assert that in many respects Kashubian was 'plus polonais que le polonais même' (Bau­ douin de Courtenay 1897:92). Kazimierz Nitsch earned his doctorate in 1898 and then worked for several years as a grammar school teacher. On receiving his D.Lit. degree in 1911, he became an associate professor (professor extraordinarius), and in 1920, a full professor (professor ordinarius) at the Jagiellonian University. He maintained constant contact with this university during the following years, except the pe­ riod from 1917 to 1920, which he spent as a profesor at the University of Lvov. Contrary to his predecessors, whose research, as a matter of principle, was confined to monographic descriptions of one dialect used by inhabitants of one village, or a small area, Nitsch devoted considerable efforts to the portrayal of

126

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

the entirety of the Polish dialects. In order to achieve his goal, he relied on his own field work, in which he used a questionnaire which enabled a comparison of the profuse varieties of Polish dialects within one methodological approach. Exploiting his extensive knowledge of the history of Poland and the Polish language, Nitsch investigated conditions underlying centuries-long relations between separate regions, and sought to discover the course of the formation of borderlines between them. He began his field work with the examination of the Polish dialects spoken in the Kingdom of Prussia, which was where the so-called 'hakata' operated, 1 its plan being to remove Polish from schools, courts of law, and offices. Nitsch started his work in Pomerania, Mazuria, and Silesia in his 1907 paper "Dialekty polskie Prus Zachodnich" (Polish dialects of Western Prussia), published in the same year as "Dialekty polskie Prus Wschodnich" [Polish dialects of Eastern Prussia], and followed in 1909 by "Dialekty polskie Śląska" [Polish dialects of Silesia]. In 1911, the first popular synthesis on dialectal variations of Polish, Mowa ludu polskiego [The speech of the Polish people], was published in Cracow (Nitsch 1911). The work includes a survey of problems connected with dialec­ tal variations of Polish, a definition of folk speech, a review of the methods and results of research, a description of phonetic features, foundations of mor­ phology, and notes on folk vocabulary and etymology. The study clearly specifies the relationship between dialects and the 'cultural dialect'. The author claims that 'refreshing the common language with dialectal elements combines the idea of democracy with the idea of beauty' (Nitsch 1911:160). The year 1915 saw the first publication of Nitsch's wider compendium Dialekty jçzyka polskiego [Dialects of the Polish language]. In the preface the author writes that the book is a survey of phenomena relating to folk speech. The analysis of the most prominent dialects and geographical groups, with particular regard to the most distinct one, Kashubian, has been carried out on phonetic, mor­ phological, and to a certain degree, lexicographic bases. At the same time, they have been arranged both genetically and historically, with the borders shifting due to the development of the whole nation and language. The relation of the dialects to the standard form has also been referred to. (Nitsch 1957:8-9) To define the Polish language territorially, the author concentrates mainly on the ethnographically indigenous part of the country. His discussion of ex­ ternal borders, which separated Polish from Gemían, Czech, Slovak, Ukraini­ an, White Russian, and Lithuanian, also includes borderland, both transitional 1 As the Deutscher Ostmarkenverein, a German nationalistic organization, founded in Poznan in 1894, was popularly called among Poles after the names of its three founders: Hannemann, Kennemann, and Tiedemann.

DIALECTOLOGY IN POLAND, 1873-1997

127

and mixed, dialects. He makes a clear distinction between two major branches: Polish in the strict sense of the word (continental), and Kashubian (Pomera­ nian-Polish). He also includes in his discussion the dying dialects of Slovincians and Kabateks to the north and west of the homogenous Kashubian ter­ ritory. The above-mentioned internal division is a result of a different development of the Kashubian dialect in relation to continental dialects, but [...] undeniable similarities are also visible: on the one hand, the clear absence of a boundary between Kashubian and the Great Poland-Krajna dialect, and on the other hand, the presence of a number of later phenomena embracing both the Kashubian re­ gion and the whole of northern Poland. (Nitsch 1957:74)

In his characterisation of the genuinely Polish dialects, Nitsch presents vowels in sequence, taking into consideration the Old Polish vowel quantity and a later distinction between contracted and bright vowels, as well as nasal vowels with regard to their oral articulation and the strength of nasal reso­ nance. Consonants are arranged according to the place of articulation: hard and palatal labial consonants, front tongue consonants — with the fricatives and af­ fricates so important for Polish dialectology: sibilants [s, z, c, 3], fricatives (alveolar) and whisper-sounds back tongue consonants, and consonantal groups. The chapter on inflection offers, among other things, a detailed discussion of conjugation. Characteristic features of separate classes of praesentis màpraeteriti themes are also mentioned. Less attention is devoted to declension, as its dialectal variations are less regular. Similarly, only a cur­ sory description is given of the vocabulary, since [...] although the number and meanings of words all over Poland are no less uniform than the sound and inflectional systems, major misunderstandings might arise during an interaction/encounter of speakers of two different dialects. (Nitsch 1915:72)

The features of the Kashubian dialects are organised in a slightly different order, depending on the degree of their differences and similarities in relation to the continental territory. Exclusively Kashubian features are discussed first, such as, for example, the different development of the earlier tort group, or relatively new features, like kaszubienie — the hard articulation of the formerly palatal t', d'], the introduction of a medial [ë] in place of older short high : cicho "softly", [ls] lis "fox", rzucić "throw". Secondary properties are presented separately, for example, the abundance of vowel nuances, the loss of the difference between [1] and in Slovincian and Bylak dialects, the tendency to replace [vo] with or Among the morphological features the author distinguishes between iso­ lated archaisms (for example, the old inflection of the auxiliary jestem

128

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

"I am"), neologisms and forms created under a foreign influence, for example, the German-patterned perfecturn with its auxiliary words [bc] być "be", [m ec] mieć "have": [ten ten męźczyzna szed "this man was gone", [ å måm ten budink postavoni] postawi em "I have built this house". The second part of Kazimierz Nitsch's synthesis surveys and groups the dialects. It describes the relations between the Kashubian region and indige­ nous Poland as follows: The northern Kashubian region - the central Kashubian region - Zaborze - Bory Krajna - Great Poland, all exhibit a continuous series of language types gradually and smoothly evolving one into another over a long period of time [...]. Later, when the northern type, and perhaps more accurately the north-east-Polish (Mazovian) type was being formed, the Kashubian region came under its influence, which was why the newer northern features came to dominate the old western ones to a certain extent. (Nitsch 1957:86) The author proceeds to discuss the grouping of purely Polish dialects. The most important dialectal isophones, which are taken as a basis for the dialect division are, firstly, the mazurzenie isophone, and, secondly, the voicingdevoicing opposition. Mazurzenie is a pronunciation of the series of spirants and affricates (alveolar) as sibilants [s, z, c, 3]: szyja [syja] "neck", możesz [mozes] "you can", czekać [cekać] "wait", j e ż d ż ę [jez3e] "I ride, travel". The voicing-devoicing boundary is more important, and as no other, divides Poland into two parts and [...] never in its whole course is it isolated, but is always accompanied by one of the more important isophones, and very often two or three of them; consequently, one deals with undoubtedly different dialects on its both sides, (Nitsch 1957:89) The former consists in the voicing of the ultima of the preceding word before vowels or sonorants, for example, brad matki, brzeg równy, kodˇalbo pies. In the devoicing articulation, the ultima of the preceding word becomes voiceless, e.g., bratjnatki, brzekˇówny, kotˇalbo pies. The boundary of mazurzenie runs from north-east to south-west, and of voicing from north-west to south-east. The boundary lines intersect and divide Poland into four large areas: (1) Wielkopolska (absence of mazurzenie, presence of voicing), (2) non-Kashubian Pomerania, the Chelmno-Dobrzyn re­ gion, Warmia (absence of mazurzenie, presence of devoicing), (3) Silesia, Malopolska (Little Poland), and the region of Sieradz and Łęczyca (presence of mazurzenie, except for the south of Silesia, presence of voicing), (4) Mazovia (presence of both mazurzenie and devoicing). This situation roughly reflects historical facts. This basic division of the Polish continental dialects allows one to clearly distinguish four major territories — Wielkopolska, Silesia, Ma opol-

DIALECTOLOGY IN POLAND, 1873-1997

129

ska, and Mazovia, as well as transitional areas connected with them by a num­ ber of important features. A significant element making the description of the Polish dialects com­ plete, is Nitsch's Wybór polskich tekstów gwarowych (A selection of Polish dialectal texts), published in 1929. In the preface to the first edition we read: Undertaking the task of compiling the first selection of Polish dialectal texts, I re­ alised that it would neither be complete nor uniform. My aim was simply to provide what can be provided in the present state of affairs/under the present circumstances. (Nitsch 1926:15)

In addition to the texts collected by the author himself, the selection con­ tains reprints from thirty-eight other scholars' works (beginning with Malinowski's notes from 1869) as well as new texts. A map of all the places in which notes were taken is also included. Besides the above-mentioned studies which deal with all Polish dialects, Nitsch left several dozen monographs on different dialectal areas, which are included in his Wybór pism polonistycznych [A selection of Polish studies] of 1958. Since the beginnings of Polish dialectology, one of the most important is­ sues has been the Kashubian dialect and the question of its distinction from all other dialects. A firm stand on this issue was taken by Stefan Ramult (1859– 1913), the author of the highly influential Sîownik języka pomorskiego, czyli kaszubskiego [Dictionary of the Pomeranian language, that is Kashubian] of 1893, The title itself explicitly indicates that Kashubian is not a regional variant of Polish, This opinion, in view of the specific geopolitical situation of Poland, created a great controversy. Ramult was scolded for his lack of patriotism, and his enabling the Prussian authorities to conduct an anti-Polish campaign di­ rected against the integration of Kashubs; even insinuations about high treason were made. The greatest contribution to a scientific examination of Pomeranian was made by a German scholar, Friedlich Lorentz (1870-1937). He presented the Slovincian dialects in full detail in Slovinzische Grammatik (1903), Slovinzische Texte (1905), and Slovinzisches Wörterbuch (2 vols., 1908, 1912). His achievements are even greater in view of the fact that he managed to record and analyse the speech of the dying ethnic group of Slovincians in the last moment before Germanisation, when the dialect was used exclusively by old people. He, too, put a tremendous effort in writing down and fully describing Kashu­ bian. Lorentz labelled it pomoranische Sprache and regarded it as a system in­ dependent, not only of Polish, but also of the Slovincian dialects. In 1924, he published Teksty pomorskie (kaszubskie), a wide selection of Pomeranian

130

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

(Kashubian) texts, and wrote a detailed Gramatyka pomorska (1927-1937). Lorentz's work, in retrospect, can be regarded as the most precise analysis of such a vast dialectal territory in Europe. In consonance with neogrammarian principles he gave a diachronic description of all the elements of the dialects since pre-Polish times; he was familiar with the absolute quality of all the sounds, but as Nitsch remarked: [...] he overestimated the phones taken separately, consequently sometimes failing to notice their basis: phonemes. This is why in his presentation, the Slovincian dialect appears to be unusually distinct, while in reality, in many (though not all) cases, one deals with the primarily Polish basis, but in a somewhat different realisation. (Nitsch 1960:240)

2. The period between the world wars When, in 1918, the Republic of Poland was formed, it included the major­ ity of ethnically Polish territories (excluding some areas in which the dialects of Silesia, Warmia, and Mazuria were spoken; they remained within the German territory), but also vast areas with ethnically foreign dialects, in particular, those of the eastern borderland — Lithuanian, White Russian, Ukrainian. Nitsch's and Lorentz's in ter-war publications have already been men­ tioned. The latter, despite German nationality, lived in the Kashubian region to the end of his life; he also learnt Polish. The years 1918-1939 did not bring any new synthesis in the description of the Polish dialects. Nitsch's work remained the absolute authority on the sub­ ject. Now individual scholars focused their interest on separate regions of the country, and the language of Poles living abroad. The dialect of Wielkopolska (Great Poland) was described, for instance, by Adam Tomaszewski (1895— 1945). In addition to monographic studies, he also published, in 1934, a more general analysis Mowa ludu wielkopolskiego [The speech of the people of Great Poland]. In Silesia, Feliks Steuer produced an analysis of Dialekt sulkowski [The Sulków dialect] in 1934 and Narzecze baborowskie [The Baborów dialect] several years later (Steuer 1937). In 1939 Stanislaw Bak: pub­ lished Teksty gwarowe z polskiego Śląska [Dialectal texts of Polish Silesia]. His theoretical works were published only after the Second World War. The dialects of Mazovia were also the subject of, for instance, Halina Świderska's "Dialekt Księstwa Lowickiego" [The dialect of the Duchy of Łowicz] of 1929, and Henryk Friedrich's Studio, nad nosowością w gwarach Mazowsza [Studies on nasality in the Mazovian dialects] of 1937. The dialects of central Poland, which is where the influences of the four continental dialects overlap, were studied by Zdzislaw Stieber (1903-1980) in his 1933 study Izoglosy gwarowe na obszarze downych województw Łęczyckiego i Sieradzkiego

DIALECTOLOGY IN POLAND, 1873–1997

131

[Dialectal isoglosses in the former Łęczyca and Sieradz provinces]. One of Stieber's greatest achievements from the time when Poland was a multi-ethnic country was Sposoby powstawania s owiańskich gwar przejściowych [The rise of the Slavonic transitional dialects] of 1938, devoted mostly to the PolishRussian borderlands, where people driven by various motives adopted, con­ sciously or unconsciously, features of a foreign language. The Byelorussified Polish dialects and the Polonised East Slavic dialects may, in the light of synchronic studies, turn out to have been almost identical, and conclusions as to the ethnic affiliations of the speakers should be drawn on the basis of research on the history of colonisation of a given area. Problems of the Polish borderland dialects were also examined by Mieczys aw Ma scki (1903–1946) who published, among other works, a popular study Język polski na po udnie od Karpat [The Polish language in the area south of the Carpathians] published in 1938), which dealt with the Malopolska dialects in Slovakia. 3. The period after the Second World War After the Yalta conference in 1945, the Polish borders changed. A huge part of the eastern territory of Poland was annexed by the Soviet Union, and almost 1.2 million Poles were removed from this area. In the west, the former German area inhabited before the war by Germans and remnants of Polish groups, was annexed by Poland. Those who were not displaced to Germany in view of their conscious national identity, but had largely preserved the Polish dialects of Silesia, Warmia or Mazuria, remained, and four million displaced Germans were replaced by Polish settlers especially from the east. All this cre­ ated conditions for the development of new mixed dialects. The situation of all Polish dialects changed owing to the conditions of gen­ eral development of civilisation, migration of people, and unrestricted access to primary education. The process of dialectal disintegration, which had begun in the previous decades, now accelerated. At new and old universities, which re­ opened after the war, Polish linguists started to evince more and more intensive interest in what happened to the remaining dialects. In the first years after the war, dozens of monographs were written (many of them based on the data collected earlier). Quite important was research of the dialects of the Regained Territories (Silesia, Warmia, and Mazuria). Even those only minimally acquainted with the situation emerging in the regions, where the Polish elements still subsisted, knew very well that the dialects were bound to die out soon — some of the inhabitants would be assimilated with the new­ comers from other regions, while others would become conscious of being

132

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

Geman at heart, and would leave as a result of poor policy planning of local as well as higher administrative authorities. In Silesia, Stanislaw Bąk was still active. In 1956 he published a treatise Gwary ludowe na Dolnym Śląsku [The folk dialects of Lower Silesia], and, eight years later Zróznicowanie narzecza śląskiego [The diversity of the Silesian dialect] (Bąk 1964). Karol Dejna (b. 1911) studied Polsko-laskie pogranicze językowe na terenie Polski [The Polish-Lach linguistic borderland in Poland], the origin of the di­ alects of this area and their current situation (Dejna 1951-1953). In the north­ eastern area, a group of scholars from Warsaw (Anna Basara, Jan Basara, Janina Wójtowicz, and Helena Zduńska) carried out studies in phonetics, and in 1959 Studia fonetyczne z Warmii i Mazur [Phonetic studies of Warmia and Mazuria] was published. Work on a new dialectological synthesis was initiated. In 1953, Stanislaw Urbanczyk (b.1909) published his Zarys dialektologii polskiej [An outline of Polish dialectology]; an enlarged edition appeared in 1962. This college text­ book was based on earlier research, and to a considerable degree, on Nitsch's work. The organisation of the book resembles Dialekty jçzyka polskiego (Nitsch 1957). In the chapter on dialect grouping, the author applied an inter­ esting didactic format — description of each dialect is preceded by short texts in the given dialect, which serve as a basis for a survey of the most important features of the designated areas. Also new in the work were the chapters on word-formation and syntax. Word formation had not been described earlier, 'therefore, out of necessity, we limited ourselves to a number of informal re­ marks' (Urbanczyk 1962:32). The general conclusion of these deliberations was as follows: 'certain formants are used with particular intensity in some regions, while in other regions they are unproductive, though known' (Urban­ czyk, p.41). In the chapter on syntax the author draws attention to the relations between the ways of sentence formation in dialects and in everyday Polish — for example, the predominance of parataxis over hypotaxis. He deals with the indicators of cohesion, different in dialectal syntax, and also with different functions of some prepositions, problems of concord, different linguistic prag­ matics, and different ranges of word order freedom. Another interesting attempt at a synthetic description of the Polish dialects was undertaken by Zdzislaw Stieber in Zarys dialektologii języków zachodnioslowianskich [An outline of dialectology of West Slavonic languages], published in 1956. The Polish language is discussed in the chapter "Grupa lechicka i jej wewnętrzne rozczlonkowanie" [The Lechitic group and its internal division]. The discussion focuses on, among other things, the major features

DIALECTOLOGY IN POLAND, 1873–1997

133

Map 1: Schematic distribution of Polish dialects. 1 (marked by slant lines): Pre-Piast tribal communities: a) the Pomorzanie; b) the Mazowszanie; c) the Polanie; d) the Wislanie; e) the Ślęzanie. 2 (marked by broken lines): Range and schematic borderlines of dialects: a) Kashubian, b) Mazovian, c) Great Polish, d) Little Polish, e) Silesian. External to them: new dialects or dialect mixtures of various origins. 3 (marked by dotted lines): More important cultural centres: a) Kashubia-Bory, b) Mazovia, c) Great Poland, d) Little Poland, e) Silesia (after Dejna [1973:86], Map XVI; with permission of the author)

134

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

of the west Lechitic region (Polabian) and the east Lechitic region (Polish, or more precisely, south Polish), as well as the central Lechitic nucleus (Pomera­ nian and north Polish). Pomeranian is treated here as a kind of 'large transi­ tional zone in which the farther to the west, the fewer genuinely Polish fea­ tures, and the more typically Polabian features were found' (Stieber 1956:24). Such treatment readdresses the perennial problem of whether Pomeranian (together with Kashubian) is affiliated more closely with West Polabian, or whether it is an integral part of the Polish dialectal territory. A completely new dialectological synthesis in Polish linguistics was of­ fered by Karol Dejna's (1973) study Dialekty polskie [Polish dialects], which was based on the current state of knowledge (cf. Map 1). The study introduces a clear distinction between two related, though different, fields: dialectography and dialectology. The former is 'a descriptive and data-based compilation of knowledge of phonetic, grammatical, and lexicographic features of individual dialects' (Dejna 1973:12). The latter, on the other hand, is a study of dialects as language types distinguishable by a complex of dialectal features, which in­ clude not just 'any dialectal feature, but only those diachronically considered innovations which have generated, or are in the process of, or are capable of generating a certain language type' (p. 14). According to this methodological assumption, the notion of a linguistic in­ novation as one of the basic features giving rise to separate dialects (and lan­ guages, since a dialect can, under favourable circumstances, become a lan­ guage, and a group of dialects can become a linguistic family), can be viewed as linking comparative grammar with dialectology of individual languages and their families. In the introduction the author writes that he intends to consider [...] Polish dialects against the background of the process and results of differentia­ tion of the languages spoken in ethnically Slavonic territory, in order to outline the relations of kinship between them, and the course of their separation from other dialectal groups. Further discussion will focus on the most important linguistic processes which brought about the creation/formation of dialectal groups, whose properties laid the foundations for standard Polish. The intention to draw a synthetic outline of Polish dialects understood as sets of innovations which developed in separate human communities and did not manage to spread over the whole territory [...], explains the limitations of our argument/reasoning. (Dejna 1973:9)

The subsequent chapters of the book discuss Indo-European dialectal fea­ tures, Balto-Slavonic innovations, the formation and differentiation of ProtoSlavonic languages, and, finally, innovations of the Lechitic group. This com­ parative-historical introduction is followed by a description of the Polish dialectal features exhibited by the East and Central Lechitic groups, united,

DIALECTOLOGY IN POLAND, 1873-1997

135

from the second half of the 10th century, within the political borders of the Piast state. The description of the Polish dialects includes an analysis of a hundred di­ alectal features (innovations), altogether 67 of which are phonetic properties, for example, the effect of metathesis, mazurzenie, the development of old short and long vowels, and the pronunciation of earlier palatal labial consonants. The remaining 33 features are connected with inflection and word-formation. The features under discussion are illustrated with 69 maps of selected innovations. The last chapter of the book, "Dialekty polskie", presents a list of dialectal features of each group, taking into consideration geographical regions, analo­ gies and differences among separate dialects or dialectal groups. Naturally, also after the war, specific monographic studies were carried out in various areas of the country. Published papers, books, or articles appealing in various linguistic periodicals, are too numerous to be itemised at length. An extensive bibliography of dialectological works was published in Przewodnik po językoznawstwie polskim [A guide to Polish linguistics] by Kwiryna Handke & Ewa Rzetelska-Feleszko (1977). 4. Remarks on methodology Since Lucjan Malinowski's research, it was the neogrammarian method which has been used most widely up to the present. As Witold Doroszewski (1899-1976) maintains: [...] a characteristic feature of the Neogrammarian doctrine was to conceive of phon­ etic language data as consisting of isolated segments-sounds, which are, on the one hand, subject to physiological regularities; on the other, however, they are regarded as psychologically real constituents of word structure. (Doroszewski 1962:449)

The most eminent representative of the Polish dialectological tradition, Kazimierz Nitsch, despite a relatively critical attitude towards Neo-grammarians, adhered to their method in the preparation of his textbook, as well as in most of his monographic studies. This methodology was employed by Polish dialectology at least up to the 1950s. A breakthrough in linguistic thought came with structuralism and the post­ humous publication of Ferdinand de Saussure's Cours de linguistique générale in 1916. This caused linguists to break with the canonical tenet of obligatory historicism, and direct their attention to language as a structure, a system of abstract elements functioning within a given synchronic frame. One must not forget that the definition of language as a system of conventional elements of limited social range also holds true of the national (standard) language, as well

136

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

as of any dialect. All are cases of an autonomous structure with its own idio­ syncratic network of oppositions and interrelations. The first Polish dialectological study to employ the principles of structural analysis was Dejna's extensive treatise Polsko-laskie pogranicze językowe na terenie Polski [The Polish-Lach linguistic borderland in Poland] published 1951-1953. In this opus the reader is certain to find a complete, functional de­ scription of current phonological structures of the examined dialects, with re­ gard to vocalic and consonantal phonemes. A programmatic structural approach was proposed by Mieczyslaw Karas (1924-1977) in his 1965 monograph Polskie dialekty Orawy [Polish dialects of Orawa], in which the author stipulates that the study 'will consciously leave out of account any processes which had taken place in those dialects, either as a result of their independent internal development, or under the influence of external factors' (Karas 1965 I, p.24). An interesting attempt to produce a phonological synthesis of the Polish dialects was undertaken by Edward Stankiewicz (b.1920), a one-time student of Roman Jakobson, in his article 'The Phonemic Patterns of the Polish Di­ alects: A study in structural dialectology" (1956). In the following years, many other dialectal analyses were published, based, at least partially, upon the principles of structuralism. A different methodological approach in dialectological research was adopted by Witold Doroszewski. Having first shown his critical attitude to­ wards the Neogrammarian legacy as early as before the war (neither did he join the structuralist camp), Doroszewski formulated his own theory of interpreta­ tion of dialectal facts from the point of view of statistics. Disregard for quantitative factors excludes the possibility of understanding the evolu­ tionary processes taking place throughout the history of a language; equally impossi­ ble is an adequate account of what appears in our sight, if we direct our attention to a given stage in the history of a language and attempt to give a statistical analysis of facts symptomatic of that given period. (Doroszewski 1962:456).

The same principle was adopted by Doroszewski even in geolinguistic cartography. In the article quoted above, he gives an example of a statistical table showing the frequency of occurrence of various oral and nasal vowels corresponding to the standard Polish vowel [ę] in specific positions. The au­ thor argues that this facilitates a comparison of data from different places of the area under examination, as well as a collation with other dialects and the gen­ eral standard. He postulates the necessity to collect the greatest possible amount of dialectal data from the greatest possible number of texts; he also suggests the use of a questionnaire designed in a way that would ensure a ca-

DIALECTOLOGY IN POLAND, 1873-1997

137

sual style of interviews with informants, but would also allow the recording of every crucial systemic fact. Dialectal phenomena were analysed in their static aspect, without excluding the possibility of their evolutionary interpretation. Field research conducted by dialectologists was to record all observed dialectal elements in order to preserve them for future scholarship, in spite of advancing integration of the Polish lan­ guage. Doroszewski's method of laborious and comprehensive statistical anal­ yses was rarely used in scholarly practice. Some examples are: Doroszewski's Studiafonetyczne z kilku wsi mazowieckich [Phonetic studies of selected Mazovian villages] of 1955, Anna Basara's Studia nad wokalizmem w gwarach Mazowsza (samogloski ustne) [Studies of vocalism in Mazovian dialects (oral vowels)], and Zduńska's Studia nadfonetykq gwar mazowieckich: Konsonantyzm [Studies in the phonetics of the Mazovian dialects: Consonantism], both dating from 1965. 5. Dialectology and other branches of linguistics Dictionaries define the term 'dialect' as [...] a variety of the standard language which is used in a particular area by rural in­ habitants, primarily distinguishable by its idiosyncratic, phonetic and lexicographic, features. (Polański 1993:110) Such a general interpretation of the term tempts one to treat a dialect as something inferior to the standard language, as a phenomenon of secondary nature. A danger of an ahistorical approach to this issue is imminent here. It is well known that it is the standard national form of a language that is a sec­ ondary phenomenon, and dialects were undoubtedly primary. At this point a very important task of dialectology emerges — the definition of a historical relation between individual dialects and the standard language. In many European civilisations the rise of the general national language was con­ nected with a particular region, most often with the centre of government (for example, Paris in France, or Moscow in Russia before the court was moved to St. Petersburg). Less frequently, other factors were at work — for example, Florence's literary strength in early Renaissance Italy, Martin Luther's reli­ gious and publicistic activities in Germany in the area of the High German di­ alect. In this respect, the situation of the Polish language presents itself less clearly, The Polish state was being formed in two regions — first in Wielkopolska, and later, as early as in Casimir the Restorer's times (1016-1058), the centre of the royal government moved to Cracow in Malopolska. Hence the

138

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

long-lasting dispute over the cradle of the Polish language or the dialectal ori­ gin of the literary (standard) language. 5.1 The dialectal origin of the Polish literary language Whilst the traditional dialectology of the late 19th century dealt mainly with the contemporary state of the Polish dialects, taking into consideration basic historical phenomena, the new approach — historical dialectology developing most intensively in the 1930s, primarily on the initiative of Nitsch and Witold Taszycki (1898-1979) — was to establish the chronology and territorial range of dialectal phenomena on the basis of the oldest written records. Although some of those phenomena are still present in many dialects today, their range, as well as their place in language systems in various periods may vary quite significantly. Hence the fundamental dilemma, over what is more important in the history of dialectal phenomena: results of a philological analysis of pre­ served texts, or examination of dialects that have died out only relatively re­ cently. Amongst adherents to the first approach was Taszycki, who endorsed the hypothesis that the roots of literary Polish are to be traced to Malopolska (Little Poland). This conviction was also shared by Aleksander Brückner (1856— 1939), Tadeusz Milewski (1906-1966), and Stanislaw Szober. The theory of the Wielkopolska (Great Poland) origin of Polish was favoured by Kazimierz Nitsch, as well as Tadeusz Lehr-Sp awinski (1891–1965) Jan Los (18601928), Stanislaw Urbańczyk, and Mikolaj Rudnicki (1881–1978). The principal argument for the Wielkopolska hypothesis rests on the ques­ tion of mazurzenie. It is worth noting that both in general national Polish and the Wielkopolska dialect, mazurzenie does not occur. What strongly supports this hypothesis is the fact that at the time when the Polish state was being formed, Wielkopolska, with Gniezno as the first capital of the country, played the dominant role. The immediate conclusion was that it was from there that the language of the ruler and his court radiated on the closer and farther neigh­ bourhood as a model of correct Polish. This standard was learned by mission­ aries and representatives of administration, and spoken when they did not use Latin. The advocates of the Wielkopolska (Great Poland) hypothesis claimed that mazurzenie is a very old phenomenon, perhaps connected with a foreign sub­ strate, for instance, Finnish or Celtic, and it developed only in some regions, mainly in Mazovia and Malopolska. The proponents of the Malopolska hypothesis countered that, although the first capital of Poland, Gniezno, was, indeed, situated in Wielkopolska, and

DIALECTOLOGY IN POLAND, 1873–1997

139

Poland was baptised there in 966, already in the 11th century, when the Polish state was consolidating and new centres of culture were emerging, the royal court moved to Cracow (Malopolska) with its enormously influential schools and missionary centres. The key argument in favour of the Malopolska hy­ pothesis was a linguistic one: mazurzenie was a phenomenon considerably younger than had been surmised; it may have originated in Mazovia as late as the end of the Middle Ages, and even later (perhaps in the 16th century) it ap­ peared in Malopolska, where the earlier variety of Polish without mazurzenie had already become a permanent element of the linguistic norm. Another crucial argument voiced by the scholars turned out to be the issue of nasal vowels. The followers of the Wielkopolska hypothesis pointed out that in this region, the rules of pronunciation of historical nasals resemble the standard Polish pronunciation — the vocalic nasal resonance is preserved in front of spirants, whereas, before stops and affricates, an independent nasal consonant is formed. In Malopolska the problem was of a different nature — the nasal pronunciation disappeared altogether in all positions in a large area of the region, The reasoning did not seem convincing to the defenders of the Malopolska hypothesis, who claimed that the pronunciation of nasals in individual dialects can be relatively unstable, and therefore it is difficult to clearly ascertain what their articulation was in the past. Old Polish and Middle Polish records were characterised by inconsistencies of scribes and printers in both regions — the oral articulation of phones, as well as their nasal resonance were marked, not so much on the basis of observation of actual pronunciation, as according to various waves and caprices of changing printers' customs. In view of the above, the value of the argument of the true pronunciation of nasals is next to none. In the course of time, the written form of Polish began to be influenced by other regions, besides Wielkopolska and Cracow, for example, since the 17th century, by Mazovia, with the new capital of Poland, Warsaw. After the suc­ cessive unions with Lithuania, the Polish language of the eastern borderland also played a prominent role, formed on the East-Slavonic substrate influenced by Belorussian and Ukrainian. One should also remember that, towards the end of the Middle Ages and throughout the whole 16th century, Czech, which is similar to Polish (but with a longer literary tradition by some hundred years), was treated as a specific arbiter in matters relating to the written Polish lan­ guage. Although it could not have affected the pronunciation of nasals, it may have contributed to the avoidance of the phenomena absent in Czech, for ex­ ample, mazurzenie,

140

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

In view of the serious difficulties making impossible a definitive and un­ equivocal solution of the dispute over the dialectal origins of standard Polish, a majority of linguists assumed that, at the present state of knowledge, it is nec­ essary to adopt a compromise: the process under discussion was definitely in­ fluenced by both the Wielkopolska and Malopolska dialects, and in modern times it has been affected by other dialects, especially Mazovian. 5.2 Dialectology and linguistic geography There is a close connection between dialectology and linguistic geography, that is, a branch of linguistics that examines and cartographically presents the territorial distribution of linguistic phenomena. Linguistic maps depict various strata of phonetic (isophones) and grammatical (among others, isomorphs) structure, and they illustrate lexical and phraseological dialectal variations. Such maps prove invaluable for all approaches to dialectology, both syn­ chronic and historical. Since they have been mentioned earlier during the dis­ cussion of different compendia and monographs, we will focus here on dialec­ tal atlases. The first, Atlas językowy polskiego Podkarpacia (A linguistic atlas of the Polish sub-Carpathians) by Mieczys aw Ma ecki (1903–1946) and Kazimierz Nitsch, was published in Cracow in 1934, and at that time, it was the only at­ las of a large region of Slavonic dialects. Already, in the inter-war period these two scholars prepared a publication covering the whole Polish territory Ma y atlas gwar polskich [A small atlas of Polish dialects], but it was published only after the war and Malecki's death. The caitographic synthesis of knowledge of the Polish dialects consists of twelve large-format volumes and was published in Wroclaw between the years 1957-1970. The 13th volume contains indices, a list of sources and a recapitulating article, which discusses the assumptions on which the atlas has been based, and justification of its structure. The net­ work of points was based on data from a hundred villages fairly regularly dis­ tributed over the surveyed area. Where possible, current records are compared with the earlier data. Kazimierz Nitsch edited the first two volumes. In 1959, Mieczyslaw Karas was nominated head of Pracownia Dialektologiczna Instytutu Językoznawstwa PAN [Dialectological Department of the Institute of Lin­ guistics, Polish Academy of Sciences] and he edited the remaining volumes of the atlas. In the years 1962–1968, six volumes of Karol Dejna's Atlas gwarowy województwa kieleckiego [Dialectal atlas of the Kielce province] were pub­ lished. The work was meticulously prepared, and it offers an interesting ac­ count of dialectal variations of northern Malopolska and neighbouring areas.

DIALECTOLOGY IN POLAND, 1873-–997

141

The author administered questionnaires, particularly to the oldest inhabitants of the region in order to record those features which were disappearing fastest. Zenon Sobierajski's Atlas polskich gwar spiskich na terenie Polski i Czechoslowacji [The atlas of the Polish dialects of Spisz spoken in Poland and Czechoslovakia] began to appeal' in Poznań in 1966. It focuses on the Polish dialects spoken on the Polish-Slovak borderland, which are particularly inter­ esting because of numerous linguistic interferences, both Polish-Slovak and Polish inerdialectal, as Spisz borders with interesting sub-Carpathian and Nowy Sącz dialects. A completely new cartographic elaboration of the already well- described Kashubian region was offered in Atlas językowy kaszubszczyzny i dialektów sqsiednich [A linguistic atlas of Kashubian and neighbouring dialects], whose publishing began in Wroclaw in 1964. The first editor was Zdzis aw Stieber, but in 1970 Hanna Popowska-Taborska took over the responsibility. The entire atlas consists of 16 volumes, each containing 50 maps and monographic analyses. The distinct character of Kashubian required special measures — in­ dividual issues are described monographically within descriptions of words and grammatical phenomena, with extensive comparative references in relation to Polish, as well as general Slavic background. Of the neighbouring areas, the maps include the dialects of Kociewie, Bory Tucholskie, and Krajna, The ma­ jority of the cartographic and monographic analyses are devoted to lexical problems and word-formation; a considerable number of the analyses are de­ voted to inflection and phonetics. In the years 1971-1992 Halina Horodyjska-Gadkowska and Alina Strzyzewska-Zaremba published Atlas gwar mazowieckich [An atlas of the Mazovian dialects], which was initiated much earlier by Witold Doroszewski. The work contains phonetic, morphological, and lexical maps covering Mazovia and adjacent northern parts of the country. Atlas języka i kultury ludowej Wielkopolski [An atlas of the language and folk culture of Wielkopolska] edited by Zenon Sobierajski and Józef Burszta (vols I-IV) was published by Ossolineum in Wroclaw in 1979-1989. New cartographic study of all Polish dialects has recently been initiated in Lodz, where Karol Dejna is preparing Atlas gwar polskich [An atlas of Polish dialects], based on a much denser network of points — every twenty kilome­ tres — than in Maty atlas gwar polskich (1957-1970). In 1987 the author had already published a questionnaire — a notebook to the atlas — which con­ tained almost 2 000 questions. Following the guidelines of Atlas gwar pols­ kich, S awomir Gala prepared and published (1994) a two-volume monograph Maiopolsko-slqsko-wielkopolskie pogranicze językowe [Ma opolska-Silesia-

142

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

Wielkopolska linguistic borderland). The first volume contains two hundred maps, the second commentaries and an index. 5.3 Dialectology and lexicography The only fairly complete dialectal dictionary remains the six-volume S ownik gwar polskich [Dictionary of Polish Dialects] of 1900-1911 by Jan Karlowicz (1836-1903), based on data from before 1890 taken from collec­ tions of texts, tales and folk songs. At present, the assumptions on which the dictionary was based have become archaic, and they can be criticised first of all for the absence of precise geolinguistic locations, imperfection of linguistichistorical perspective, and the author's inadequate knowledge of Polish dialects in general. Criteria of word selection have not been clearly defined, the oldest written records have been ignored, and too many entries have been included which we would now consider non-dialectal. Nevertheless, despite frequently expressed reservations, we must remember that no other complete and exten­ sive publication of this sort is yet available in Polish dialectology. A number of lexicographic analyses appeared both in the inter-war period and after the war, but all confined themselves mainly to one dialect or, at best one region. Besides the dictionaries of Kashubian mentioned above, the vo­ cabulary of those regions was also presented (their monographs have been dis­ cussed earlier in the present paper). Apart from that, the following lexicons were published: Marcin Kuca a's Porównawczy s. ownik trzech wsi ma. opolskich [A comparative dictionary of three villages in Ma opolska] of 1957, and Mieczys aw Szymczak's (1927–1985) eight-volume S ownik gwary Domaniewka wpowiecie ęczyckim [Dictionary of Domaniewka dialect in the District of Łęczyca] published 1962-1973. Work on the new Słownik gwar polskich [Dictionary of Polish dialects] is still in progress. Its experimental fascicle was published in 1964. The initiator of the project was Kazimierz Nitsch, and the data collected by himself as early as before the First World War, have become the basis of the dictionary. In 1953 Pracownia Atlasu i Słownika Gwar Polskich PAN (Department of Atlas and Dictionary of Polish Dialect, Polish Academy of Sciences) was set up in Cracow, headed by Nitsch, and then, from 1958, by Mieczyslaw Karas. After his death in 1977 Jerzy Reichan took over, The files contain approximately three million index cards attesting the existence of a hundred thousand entries. The files are arranged alphabetically and access to them is facilitated by a uni­ form system of formal and semantic cross-references. The year 1994 saw the first fascicle of the fifth volume (czarny - czupirad, o) published by Instytut Języka Polskiego PAN [Institute of the Polish Language, Polish Academy of Sciences] in Cracow.

DIALECTOLOGY IN POLAND, 1873-1997

143

The chronological range of the dictionary extends over the 19th and 20th centuries, and geographically relates to all Polish dialects, including those spo­ ken outside Poland's territory. Mieczysław Karaś wrote that [...] a characteristic feature of Słownik gwar polskich [Dictionary of Polish dialects] is its distinctive character, which means that it does not contain all words appealing in Polish dialects, but only that layer of folk vocabulary which is typical of dialects. (Karas 1979:xiv) The authors of the dictionary emphasise that they treat the concept of dif­ ferentiation very broadly, taking into consideration not only lexical distinc­ tions, but also semantic differences (when a dialectal word has a different meaning than a word of a similar phonetic form in literary Polish), as well as different semantic scopes in particular dialects. The dictionary also records di­ alectal phraseological constructions different from those in standard Polish, word-formation and inflectional idiosyncrasies, all words related to folklore, and also those encountered in standard Polish. Prospects of Polish dialectology should now be perceived from the point of view of the present state of dialectal variations, which are being obliterated with the development of civilisation. Fading territorial differences are, to a considerable extent, being replaced by all kinds of professional and social idi­ olects occurring over the whole territory of the country, regardless of the tradi­ tional dialectal divisions, though they may overlap. In such conditions, the role of the contemporary dialectologist must consist in registering disappearing features of the folk speech, its vocabulary and phraseology, as well as making exact phonographic and film recordings. The dialectologist must broaden his research methodology, including sociolinguistic factors which take into consideration social stratification in all possible as­ pects, and relations between the influence of extralinguistic phenomena and processes of disappearance of the dialects at their various levels. It is essential to carry out further diachronic linguistic research, to analyse newly discovered old texts, and to systematically revise materials left to us by past scholars.

REFERENCES Basara, Anna. 1965. Studia nad wokalizmem w gwar ach Mazowsza (samo głos ki ustne) [Studies on the vocalism in Masovian dialects (oral vowels)]. Wrocław: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. Basara, Anna, Jan Basara, Janina Wójtowicz & Helena Zduńska. 1959. Studia fonetyczne z Warmii i Mazur [Phonetic studies from Warmia and Mazurian regions]. Wrocław; Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan Niecislaw. 1897. 'Kašubskij jazyk', 'kašubskij narod' i 'kašubskij vopros' [The 'Kashubian language', the 'Kashubian people',

144

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

and the 'Kashubian question']. St. Petersburg: Tipografija V. S. Valaseva i K. Fontanka. Bąk, Stanislaw. 1939. Teksty gwarowe z polskiego Śląska [Dialect texts from the Lower Silesia]. Kraków. Polska Akademia Umiejętności. Bąk, Stanislaw. 1956. Gwary ludowe na Dolnym Śląsku [Folk/rural dialects in Lower Silesia]. Poznan: Poznańskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk. Bąk, Stanislaw. 1964. "Zróznicowanie narzecza śląskiego [Differentiation of the Silesian dialect]". Prace i Materialy Etnograficzne 23.401-523. Bystroń, Jan. 1887. O mowie polskiej w dorzeczu Stonawki i Łucyny w Księstwie Cieszyńskim [About the Polish tongue in the basin of the rivers Stonawka and Lucyna in the Cieszyn Duchy] Krakow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności. Dejna, Karol. 1951-1953. Polsko-laskie pogranicze językowe na terenie Polski. 2 vols. Łódź: Łódzkie Towarzystwo Naukowe. Dejna, Karol. 1962-1968. Atlas gwarowy województwa kieleckiego [A dialect atlas of the Kielce voivodship]. 6 vols. Łódź: Łódzkie Towarzystwo Naukowe. Dejna, Karol. 1973. Dialekty polskie. Wroclaw: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. Dejna, Karol. 1985. Kwestionariusz do badań gwarowych zróznicowań Polski [A questionnaire for studies of dialectal differentiations in Poland]. Lodz: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Dejna, Karol. 1988. "Załozenia organizacji badań przygotowawczych do opracowania Atlasu gwar polskich [Principles of organization of preparatory studies for the Atlas of Polish dialects]". Sprawozdania z Czynności i Posiedzeń Naukowych ŁTN 49:7.8-23. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego. Doroszewski, Witold. 1955. Studia fonetyczne z kilku wsi mazowieckich [Phonetic studies of several Mazovian villages]. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narod. im. Ossolińskich. Dejna, Karol. 1962. Studia i szkice językoznawcze. Warszawa: Państwowe Wyda­ wnictwo Naukowe. Encyklopedia Polska. Akademia Umiejętności (EPAU). 1915. Vol.III: Język pol­ ski i jego historia. Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności. Friedrich, Henryk. 1937. Studia nad nosowością w gwarach Mazowsza [Studies of nasality of Mazovian dialects]. Warszawa: Drukarnia Bankowa. Gala, Slawomir. 1994. Malopolsko-slqsko-wielkopolskie pogranicze językowe [Little Poland-Silesia-Great Poland linguistic borderland]. Lodz: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Lódzkiego. Handke, Kwiryna & Ewa Rzetelska-Feleszko. 1977. Przewodnik po językoznawstwie polskim [A guide to Polish linguistics]. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. Horodyjska-Gadkowska, Halina & Alina Strzyzewska-Zaremba. 1971-1992. Atlas gwar mazowieckich [An atlas of Mazovian dialects]. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. Karaś, Mieczysław. 1965. Polskie dialekty Orawy. Vol.1: Fonología, i fonetyka. Kraków: Uniwersytet Jagielloński. Karaś, Mieczysław. 1979. "Wstęp [Introduction]". Słownik gwar polskich [A dictionary of Polish dialects], vii-xxi. Wroclaw: Zakład Narodowy im. Osso­ liñskich.

DIALECTOLOGY IN POLAND, 1873–1997

145

Karlowicz, Jan. 1900-1911. Slownik gwar polskich [A dictionary of Polish dia­ lects]. Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności. Kucała, Marian. 1957. Porównawczy slownik trzech wsi małopolskich [A com­ parative dictionary of three Little Poland villages]. Wrocław: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. Lorentz, Friedrich. 1903. Slovinzische Grammatik. St. Petersburg: Buchdruckerei der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wisenschaften / Izd. Vtorogo Otdelenijs Imperatorskoj Akademeii Nauk. Lorentz, Friedrich. 1905. Slovinzische Texte. St. Petersburg: Buchdruckerei [etc.] Lorentz, Friedrich. 1908–1912. Slovinzisches Wörterbuch. 2 vols. St. Petersburg: Buchdruckerei der Kaiserl. Akad. der Wisenschaften / Izd. Otdelenija Russ. Jazyka i Slovesnosti Imp. Akademii Nauk. Lorentz, Friedrich. 1924. Teksty pomorskie (kaszubskie). (= Polska Akademia Umiejętności 4:3.600-836.) Kraków. Lorentz, Friedrich. 1927–1937. Gramatyka pomorska. Poznań: Instytut Zachodnio-Słowiański. (Polish ed., 3 vols., Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Osso­ lińskich, 1958–1962.). Malinowski, Lucjan. 1873. Beiträge zur slavischen Dialektologie. I. Über die oppeinsehe Mundart in Oberschlesischen 1. Laut und Formenlehre. Doctoral dissertation, Universität Leipzig. (Printed, Leipzig: Bär & Hermann, 1873.). Małecki, Mieczysław. 1938. Język polski na poludnie od Karpat. Kraków: Gebethner & Wolff. Małecki, Mieczysław & Kazimierz Nitsch. 1934. Atlas językowy polskiego Podkarpacia. Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności. Małecki, Mieczysław & Kazimierz Nitsch. 1957–1970. Maly atlas gwar polskich. Vols.I-XIII. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, Polska Akademia Nauk. Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1907. "Dialekty polskie Prus Zachodnich". Materialy i Prace Komisji Językowej PAU. 1-2:101-248, 305-395. Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności. (Repr. in Nitsch 1958 III, 47-251.) Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1907. "Dialekty polskie Prus Wschodnich". Materialy i Prace Komisji Językowej PAU 3.397-487. (Repr. in Nitsch 1958 III, 252-321.) Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1909. "Dialekty polskie Śląska". Materialy i Prace Komisji Językowej PAU 4.85-356. (Repr. in Nitsch 1958 IV, 7-115.) ' Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1911. Mowa ludu polskiego. Krakow: Leon Frommer. Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1926. Wybór polskich tekstów gwarowyeh. Lwów: K. S. Jakubowski. (2nd ed., revised by the author, Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1960.) Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1957. Dialekty języka polskiego. Wroclaw: Ossolineum. (Orig­ inally in Encyklopedia Polska. Akademia Umiejętności III, 238-343. Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejçtności, 1915.) Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1958. Wybór pism polonistycznych. 4 vols. Wroclaw: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. [Vol. IV: Pisma dialektologiczne.] Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1960. Ze wspomnień językoznawcy. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.

146

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

Polański, Kazimierz, ed. 1993. Encyklopedia językoznawstwa ogólnego. Wroclaw: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. Ramułt, Stefan. 1893. Slownik języka pomorskiego, czyli kaszubskiego. Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętnoci. Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale, Lausanne & Paris: Payot. (3rd and last corrected ed., 1931.) Slownik gwar polskich. 1964-1994. Vols.I-V. Kraków: Instytut Jçzyka Pol­ skiego PAN. Sobierajski, Zenon. 1966-1977. Atlas polskich gwar spiskich na terenie Polski i Czechosłowacji. Poznań: Poznańskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk. Sobierajski, Zenon & Józef Burszta. 1979-1989. Atlas języka i kultury ludowej Wielkopolski. Wroclaw: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. Stankiewicz, Edward. 1956. 'The Phonemic Patterns of the Polish Dialects: A study in structural dialectology". For Roman Jakobson: On the occasion of his sixtieth birthday ed. by Morris Halle, Horace G. Lunt et al., 518-530. The Hague: Mouton. Steuer, Feliks. 1934. Dialekt sulkowski. Kraków: Polska Akademia Umięjtności. Steuer, Feliks. 1937. Narzecze babor owskie. Kraków: Polska Akademia Umie­ jętności. Stieber, Zdzisław. 1933. Izoglosy gwar owe na obszarze downy ch wojewódzw Łczyckiego i Sieradzkiego. Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności. Stieber, Zdzislaw. 1938. Sposoby powstawania slowiańskich gwar przejściowych. Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności. Stieber, Zdzislaw. 1956. Zarys dialektologii języków zacho dnio slowiańskich. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Stieber, Zdzisław & Hanna Popowska-Taborska, eds. 1964-1978 Atlas językowy kaszubszczyzny i dialektów sąsiednich. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Osso­ lińskich. Sychta, Bernard. 1967-1973. Slownik gwar kaszubskich na tie kultury ludowej. 6 vols. Wroclaw: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. (Supplement, 1976). Szymczak, Mieczyslaw. 1962-1973. Słownik gwary Domaniewka w powiecie ł ęczyckim. Wroclaw: Zakiad Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. Świderska, Halina. 1929. "Dialekt KsięstwaŁomaszewski,Adam. 1934. Mowa Poznański. Urbańczyk, Stanislaw. 1953, Zarys dialektologii polskiej. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. (2nd revised ed., 1962.) Zawiliński, Roman. 1880, Gwar a brzezińska w starostwie ropczyckim. (= Rozprawy i Sprawozdania z Posiedzeń Wydzialu Filologicznego Akademii Umie­ jętnosci 8.180-234.) Kraków. Zduńska, Helena. 1965. Studia nad fonetyką gwar mazowieckich: Konsonantyzm. Wrocław: Ossolineum. Zwoliński, Przemyslaw. 1952. "Wypowiedzi gramatyków XVI i XVII wieku o dialektyzmach w ówczesnej polszczyźnie". Pamiętnik Literacki 43.395-407.

CHAPTER 5 ONOMASTICS IN POLAND FROM 19TH-CENTURY BEGINNINGS TO THE PRESENT*

S AWOMIRGALA University of 1. The subject matter The term 'onomastics' as used in Polish linguistics is derived from the Greek [onomastikos] "relating to a name" and refers to both a given lexical set comprised of proper nouns, as well as to the research disci­ pline which investigates the given set. In other words, in the former sense, onomastica means "nomina propria", i.e., proper nouns which, according to Polish orthographic convention, are spelt with a capital letter at the onset of a lexeme. In the latter sense, onomastics is a branch of linguistics implementing in­ vestigative procedures appropriate to linguistics and resulting from the charac­ ter and function of this particular category of sign. Polish onomastics as a sub­ ject deals mainly with (proto-)Slavonic, Indo-European, and the native Polish cultural heritage, while as a research discipline, it is methodologically tied up with world onomastics (cf. the Belgian periodical catering to this field Onoma). Thus, onomastic research analyses a given lexical set broadly understood, the genesis, linguistic function, and relationship to appellative language signs. The scope of research is related to the (quantitative) stock of identified ono­ mastic classes and their onomastic-linguistic function. 2. The scope of onomastic research The central problem of onomastics is to establish linguistic determinants of nomen proprium in relation to nomen appellativum. The difference emerges on the semantic plane. That is, in the process of communication, a proper noun designates, distinguishes individual entities from other entities, whereas a common word denotes, i.e., names. Entities are to be understood here as both physical objects and persons. A proper noun does not refer to an individual entity by evoking its characteristics, but by means of arbitrary convention. * This chapter first appeared as an article in Historiographia Lingüistica 25:1/2.87-114 (1998). It was translated into English by Przemysíaw Źywiczyński, revised by John Kearns.

148

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

Hence, it is empty of conceptual content and does not possess connotation in the logical sense of the word (Polański 1995, s.v. 'proper noun'). It should also be distinguished from definite descriptions which refer to individual enti­ ties, are used in the referential function and are characteristically connotative. In contrast, the lexical meaning of a common word is realised by evoking a universal concept or conceptual content as an exponent of a class of referents. It follows that common words have connotation. Considering this nature of proper nouns on the semantic level, we can say that functionally they are speech signs carrying encyclopedic information about individual entities in the process of communication (in the sense of Saussure's 'parole') From the genetic, etymological point of view, nomina propria are sec­ ondary in relation to common words. This secondary character of proper nouns in the historical sense, i.e., their dependence on, or relationship with, genetically primary common words on the one hand, and the certain autonomy, coming from the different function in the process of communication on the other hand, raises the question about the boundary between the scopes of common and distinct points, that is in fact, the question of the definition of an onomastic grammar in relation to the repertoire of grammatical mechanisms pertaining to appellative linguistic signs (in the sense of Saussure's 'langue'). The transfer of appellatives into the onomastic category, that is, the act in which a common word acquires the status of a proper noun, results in sub­ stantivisation. In consequence, the problems of an onomastic grammar are mainly confined to the category of the noun. An onomastic grammar will be defined here as a set of mechanisms and norms which govern the use of proper nouns in the system of the Polish language. A certain limited and distinct char­ acter of a proper noun is determined by its nature, its function in the process of communication, as well as its place and role in the social cultural, historical and dialectical context. In the area of inflection, for instance, besides the assign­ ment of the morphological structure of proper nouns to the paradigms of com­ mon nouns, we observe certain deviations which include: (i) a tendency to eliminate plural forms — which is to be accounted for by the individual charac­ ter of an onomastic referent; (ii) limitation in anthroponyms to use the feminine gender, compare Mrs Rudy, etc.; and (iii) neutralisation of the relationship between a declension type and the natural gender of classes of common nouns, since for cultural and judicial reasons, anthroponyms refer to individuals of masculine gender, cf. ap. (appellative) jałmuzna "alms", nm. (name) Jałmuźna "(Mr) Alms", ap. źyła "vein", nm. Źyła "(Mr) Vein", ap. źądio "sting", nm. Źądło "(Mr) Sting". It probably explains why proper nouns as transferred from

ONOMASTICS IN POLAND

149

the class of inanimate masculine common nouns assume the form of Gen. Sg. in Ace. Sg., cf. "I see ...": nm. Ace. Sg. Pasa "(Mr) Belt", ap. Ace. Sg. pas "belt", np. Ace. Sg. Wąsa "(Mr) Moustache", ap. Ace. Sg. wąs "moustache", nm. Ace. Sg. Zęba "(Mr) Tooth", ap. Ace. Sg. ząb "tooth". The reference of a proper noun to an individual masculine referent is motivated in Nominative plural by the endings characteristic of nouns of the personal-masculine cate­ gory. In contrast to their appellative counterparts, proper nouns may undergo a thematic levelling within a particular paradigm, cf. nm. Gołąb "(Mr Pidgeon)", Gen. Gołąba "(Mr) Pidgeon's": ap. gołąb "pidgeon", Gen. gołębia "(of) pid­ geon"; nm. Karp "(Mr) Carp", Gen. Karpa "(Mr) Carp's" : ap. karp "carp", Gen. karpia "(of) carp", etc. Such a transfer of a proper noun to a paradigm different from its primary one occurs as a result of neutralisation of the categorial function of a derivative morpheme, cf. Frycię, Bartoszczę which left the neutral paradigm cielę "calf, Gen. cielęcia "(of) calf', kurezę "chicken", Gen. kurczęcia "(of) chicken", and which, in consequence of the denasalized realisation of final -ę, have been as­ signed to the paradigm of neutral (gender) adjectives typified by ładne "pretty", Gen. ładnego "(of) pretty", compare Frycie, Gen. Fryciego. In the field of word-formation understood as a repertoire of formal proce­ dures and a set of mies determining derivational processes as a consequence of which word-formative elements of language perform two functions: individuallexical and categorial-grammatical, there is a difference (between nomina pro­ pria and appellatives) in the range of their categorising function. The variety and multitude of functions performed by formants of nominal appellative derivatives (cf. nomina actio nis, nomina acti, nomina instrumenti, etc.) is not matched by onomastic derivatives where a particular set of formants occurs in one function of formation of an onomastic category, e.g., oikonyms, or anthroponyms. In consequence of such a singular categorial function, subcate­ gories emerge, for example, patronyms, matronyms, toponyms in anthroponyms, or ancestral, possessive, and patronymic names in place-names. The productivity of onomastic types may be analysed from the linguistic and paralinguistic perspective: linguistic — considering the connectibility of a formant with the derivational bases, both appellative and onomastic, and par­ alinguistic — regarding social and cultural demand for a particular kind of name (onomastic category or sub-category). The criterion of onomastic pro­ ductivity, understood as the capability of a particular formant to participate in the generation of new structures, is the number of created derivatives, and not the potential character of the formant to create a given onomastic sub-category.

150

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

Syntactically, proper nouns perform the function characteristic of common nouns, their primary task being to express the Subject. An important issue arising from the genesis and functions of proper nouns is their systematics, It is based on the relation between the name of a particular class and its base of a specific lexico-etymological class. Semantically moti­ vated systematics applied to historical (Taszycki 1924, 1946b) and contempo­ rary material, so-called sets in statu nascendi (Gala 1987, Gołębiowska 1971), distinguishes between proper nouns equivalent to the base and those derived from the base. With historical, but petrified, data in which motivation is diffi­ cult or even impossible to determine, and an attempt to reveal it is done through a reconstruction of a possible name-formation process, the systematics distin­ guishes between primary and secondary names (Rospond 1964b, 1967). The notion of primary or secondary character is solely confined to the derivative structure of nomen proprium. More comprehensive systematics operating within the framework of classes seeks to delineate name-(surname-)formative models and give both synchronic and diachronic accounts of linguistic-onomastic material from which names (surnames) are ultimately derived (Borek 1978). The systematics embracing data delimited by the 19th-20th century period, adopting the crite­ rion of closeness or openness of a given onomastic class, distinguishes names with base-coequal and base-derived forms. Lexical closeness refers to a set of proper nouns which was established in the past and is unchangeable (e.g., first names), whereas morphological closeness refers to a repertoire, established in the past and unchangeable, of derivational formants appropriate to a particular onomastic class — cf. the derivational formants of oikonyms (Karaś 1970b, 1972). A proposal of a classification based on the lexico-etymological crite­ rion, more extensively taking into account the socio-linguistic aspect (Bubak 1986), or seeking to identify derivational mechanisms and processes of proper (personal) names, defines names as lexical entities analysed on the lexical plane (i.e., the plane of transfer), or on the morphological plane as derivatives (Gala 1982). Word-formative processes of proper names are accomplished on two lev­ els: the appellative-onomastic level with a common word as the base of nomen proprium, and the onomastic level when a name is derived from another name. Both lexical sets, appellative and onomastic, influence each other (Smoczyński 1962, Michalewski 1972, Szymczak 1980). Both from the onomastic and ap­ pellative points of view, this is a very important issue of relations between the two lexical sub-sets, between their respective lexical characteristics within the lexical system of the Polish language. It follows that, given the genetically

ONOMASTICS IN POLAND

151

primary character of nomen appellativum and secondary character of nomen proprium, both lexemes and morphemes may move from one set to another, adopting the appropriate functions of the set they move into. In consequence of this bidirectional interaction, the concepts of primariness and secondariness look like results of those processes. This is why from the onomastic point of view, primary will be those proper nouns which as lexical items (e.g., patro­ nymic structures), were established on onomastic grounds, that is they are the result of derivation on the onomastic or onomastic-appellative plane, and thus, they increased the number of names which do not have corresponding items in the appellative set. On the other hand, names transferred from the lexical set of appellatives will be lexically secondary. Morphologically secondary will be onomastic derivatives formed on both derivational planes by means of for­ mants which initially, typically occurred in appellative structures, but subse­ quently acquired the new function of onomastic formants within the onomastic domain. Finally, morphologically primary are those onomastic derivatives which contain derivational morphemes established within the onomastic set and are alien to the appellative word-formation. They may appear in appellatives later. In such cases, they take on the character of secondary morphemes on ap­ pellative grounds. The notions of primariness and secondariness presented in Gala (1994) transcend not only the genetic perspective which contrasts nomen proprium as a speech sign with the primary nomen appellativum as a language sign, but also goes beyond Rospond's proposal relating those concepts to the morphological plane, mainly of derivational origin. 3. Onomastics as an ancillary discipline Proper nouns created under the influence of concrete cultural conditions are recorded in historical sources located territorially and chronologically. More­ over, they are also carners of features of dialects of the area in which they were established, and as such, they constitute invaluable material for dialectology (Zaręba 1968) and historical linguistics (Taszycki 1963). This can be illustrated by, for example, Witold Taszycki's works, which, on the basis of toponomastic data, determine the southern boundaries of ra changing into re, and ya into je (Taszycki 1934), as well as by Karol Dejna's monumental Dialekty polskie ( 2 1993 [1973]) in which the author employs historical and contemporary ono­ mastic material to establish the boundaries of dialectical innovations, for ex­ ample, of the devoicing of v, v following voiceless consonants (Dejna 2 1993 [1973], map 3) or replacement of - 'ev with - 'ov (ibid., map 45). In his univer­ sity handbook Atlas polskich inowacji dialektalnych [An atlas of dialectal in­ novations], Dejna again resorts to onomastics in order to describe areas where Proto-Slavonic continuants tort (> tart) (Dejna 2 1994[1981], map 3) did not

152

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

Map 2: The loss of voicing of v v following voiceless consonants (after Dejna 1994[1981], Map 10) Loss of voicing of v v after voiceless consonants: Schematic areas of Old Polish change of w  v f  f: Bogufal, Falimir, Faiek. Place names with preserved Old Polish: ƒ  f  v  w: Faliszewice, Fałków,Falęta. Contemporary place names without the changes of w into f: Chwaliszew, Chwałkowo.

ONOMASTICS IN POLAND

153

undergo metathesis, or areas which preserved palatalisation in the d n root, on the map presenting depalatalisation of consonants before 'ar from T (Dejna, ibid., map 5). Phonetic and morphological features of proper nouns were also used as ar­ guments in the discussion about the origin of Polish literary language, and one can mention Witold Taszycki's (1956) "Geneza polskiego języka literackiego w świetle faktów historycznojęzykowych [The origin of the Polish literary lan­ guage in the light of historical linguistic facts]", Stanislaw Rospond's (1956) "Problem genezy polskiego języka literackiego [Problems of the origin of the Polish literary language]", Stanislaw Urbańczyk's (1956) "Glos w dyskusji o pochodzeniu polskiego języka literackiego [A note on the origin of the Polish literary language]", and Tadeusz Milewski's (1956) "Nowe prace o pochodze­ niu polskiego języka literackiego [New works on the origin of the Polish liter­ ary language]". Onomastic materials are deemed to be of particular utility in et­ ymological studies, studies of the history of the lexicon (Slawski 1974), and of the chronology of loan-words (Karaś 1974). Moreover, it serves as an ancil­ lary discipline within history, especially the history of settlement (Rymut 1968). Onomastics facts and arguments have also been used in the difficult de­ bate about the Slavs' descent and place of origin (Rozwadowski 1906, LehrSpławinski 1946, Moszynski 1957). They were also used by lawyers, ethnog­ raphers, archaeologists, and sociologists. 4. The history of onomastic research Interest in onomastics as a set of proper nouns has a relatively long history and was initially incited by nonlinguistic curiosity about a concrete name and its individual object, place or person. It is difficult to determine the terminus a quo of such studies. Organised research in onomastics falls on the 20th century, mainly in the period following World War II. Taking into account research problems, organ­ isation of research, and education of academic staff and research groups, three stages in the development of onomastics can be distinguished: 1) from the be­ ginning of the 20th century to 1939, particularly in the period of Independence (1918-1939), 2) the post-war years till about 1970, and 3) from 1970 to the present. 4.1 The late 19th and early 20th century beginnings Scientific investigation of the onomastic set was initiated in the second half of the 19th century by Jan Karłowicz (1836-1903), a linguist, author of dic­ tionaries (Karłowicz 1888b, 1894-1905, 1900-1911; Karlowicz, Krynski & Niedzwiedzki 1900-1927), and editor of the periodical Wisîa to which Polish

154

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

culture is so indebted. Among other pioneers, one should also mention Jan Baudouin de Courtenay's (1845-1929) work of 1870 and the contributions of Kazimierz Moszynski (1887-1959), Aleksander Brückner (1856-1939), and Jan Rozwadowski (1867-1935). Major achievements of the above mentioned researchers did not, however, appear until the next century. Of particular inter­ est here are works written by historians: Chrobacja: Rozbiór starozytności słowianskich [Chrobatia: The disintegration of Old Slavic] of 1873 by Tadeusz Wojciechowski (1838-1919), who identified five groups of names, and on this basis, described types of settlement, Rycerstwo polskie wieków średnich [Polish knighthood of the Middle Ages] by Franciszek Piekosinski (18441906) of 1896, and Franciszek Bujak's (1875-1953) 1905 Studia nad osadnictwem Maiopolski [Studies on settlement in Little Poland]. The first years of the 20th century are marked by Jan Los (1860-1928) and Zygmunt Gloger's (1845-1910) start of exploratory work for the future onomastic lexicon of Old Polish (Taszycki 1965-1987 I, pp.v-vi). This pioneering enterprise was partially completed only after World War II with the publication of Taszycki's Słownik staropolskich nazw osobowych [A dictionary of Old Polish personal names]. Another significant research project was Rozwad­ owski's study of river names between the Volga and Oder which served as a basis for critical remarks about the homeland of the Indo-Europeans (Roz­ wadowski 1913) and of the Slavs (Rozwadowski 1906, 1948 [1922]). Those main trends in research — toponymy and hydronymy — exerted a significant influence on onomastics of the first half of our century. They were complemented by anthroponomastic research, carried out on a larger scale only after 1918. Apart from Jan Hanusz's (1858-1887) marginal contributions on surnames of Polish Armenians (Hanusz 1886), Jan Karlowicz's on Lithuanian surnames (1888a, b), and Lucjan Malinowski's (1839-1898) work of 1893 on surname transformation, anthroponymy is represented by Witold Taszycki's (1898-1979) work of 1925 on genetic and semantic classes of Polish sur­ names, on the origin of the oldest Polish personal names, and a series of re­ marks devoted to concrete individual personal names, entitled Ze studiów nad polskim imiennictwem osobowym [Selected studies on Polish personal names]. Jan Otrębski's (1935) dissertation O najdawniejszych polskich imionach osobowych [On the oldest Polish personal names] provides a valuable supplement to Taszycki's research. The anthroponymic research was continued by Jan Stanislaw Bystroń (1892-1964), who published Nazwiska polskie [Polish surnames] and Księgaimion w Polsce uzywanych [A book of names used in Poland] in 1936 and 1938, respectively. The scope of anthroponymic research was broadened to include the class of abusive names and nicknames

ONOMASTICS IN POLAND

155

by Stanislaw Kozierowski (1874-1949) of 1938 and 1948 in his copious Nazwiska, przezwiska, przydomki, imiona polskie niektótych typów słowotwórczych [Surnames, abusive names, nicknames, and names in some deri­ vational types]. 4.2 The post-World War II period to 1970 In the post-war period, the development of onomastics is characterised by 1) continuation of earlier research problems; 2) extension of research to new onomastic classes and issues, with simultaneous analysis of data; 3) setting up of a publishing series and the periodical Onomastica; 4) organization of scien­ tific associations, onomastic committees; 5) organization of research institutes, and 6) education of staff and research groups. Work on hydronymy is continued. In 1948 Mikolaj Rudnicki (1881-1978) published a monograph on the Oder and its tributaries (Rudnicki 1948b). The same year saw the posthumous publication of Rozwadowski's (1948[1922]) "Studia nad nazwami wód slowianskich [Studies on Slavic river-names]", a voluminous, important and, one could say, fundamental work on Slavic hy­ dronymy. The name of the Nysa river received a lot of attention, summed up and thoroughly examined in Jan Safarewicz's (1904-1992) 1950 review. Names of other rivers were also examined (Rudnicki 1955), as well as those of lakes (Mlodziejowski 1946) and fishing-grounds (Zwolinski 1954). The publi­ cations of particular significance include Hydronimia Wisły [Hydronymy of the Vistula] edited by Przemysław Zwoliński (1965), and Janusz Rieger's (1969) study of names in the San river basin. Research on toponymy developed with particular intensity. Besides the collection of data, fundamental problems of the systematics of names were tackled. Witold Taszycki (1946b), adopting different assumptions to those of Franz Miklosich (1927), proposed a new taxonomy which was based on the semantic criterion and in consequence he distinguished: A. place names which had always been place names; B. place names which originally were names of people, and only later became place names; C. ambiguous names; D. obliter­ ated names. Within A. and B. he distinguishes four specific sub-groups (A: topographic, cultural, possessive, diminutive; B: ethnic, patronymic, menial, and ancestral). Toponimic data collected in this period are systematised accord­ ing to Taszycki's postulates. His assumptions gave rise to a number of mono­ graphic works which discuss selected types of names, for example, patro­ nymic names of Mazovia (Taszycki 1951), Polish and Slavonic names of the type Podgóra "Under-hill", Zalas "Behind-forest" (Karas 1955), or names with the formant -izna ¡I -yzna such as Mroczkowizna, Klimontowszczyzna (Safarewiczowa 1956). Maria Karpluk (1955) analysed the lexical-derivative

156

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

type in her Polskie nazwy miejscowe od imion kobiecych (Polish place names derived from feminine names) where she offered interesting observations about the active role of such bases in the formation of oikonyms; names derived from those bases appeal* from the Middle Ages onwards with increased productivity during the 19th century. Historical evidence was also used in attempts to de­ scribe geographical variation/differentiation of specific derivational types (Manczak 1955, Śmiech 1956). The 1950s were a period of debate about the names of Poland's oldest provinces, It was provoked by Henryk Ułaszyn's (1874-1956) 1950 publica­ tion discussing the meaning of the names Wielkopolska "Great Poland" and Maiopolska "Little Poland", Both linguist-onomasticians and historians partici­ pated in the debate. In the light of presented arguments and chronological facts — the name Polonia Major (Wielkopolska) appeared in 1250, while Polonia Minor in 1350 — it seems convincing that the latter was construed to provide a contrast to the former. In addition, we have Stefan Hrabec's (1912-1972) 1955 dissertation about the name Mazovia . The problem of the relation between official and folk names, so far unno­ ticed, became a new area of reasearch. Folk forms seem closer to the historical formations preserved in documents, and thus are more motivated. Piotr Galas (1949) attested this on material from the Bochnia district. The local folk names from the Głupczyce and Racibórz area and their official forms which show German and Czech influence, were explored by Karol Dejna (1955). The names of farmlands, pastures, roads, and village sections, collected by the same author, were analyzed from a formal point of view in his study on regional names of Silesia, Terenowe nazwy ślqskie (Dejna 1956). Also quite voluminous is literature on the toponomastics of the Regained Territories owing to the need of restituting on those areas the old names oblit­ erated in the process of Germanisation, or forming new names in line with onomastic norms. The literature concerned with this issue discusses the direc­ tions, ways of re-Polonisation, and informs about their results. We can men­ tion here Tadeusz Milewski's (1906-1966) 1952 Nazwy miejscowe Ziem Odzyskanych [Place names of the Regained Territories] where he gives an ac­ count of the principles and a linguistic assessment of the re-Polonisation. Out of the rich literature on the subject, we can also mention contributions on the etymology of the names: Śląsk (Taszycki 1946a, c; Rospond 1955), Szczecin (Rospond 1947a, Urbanczyk 1948, 1950; Nitsch 1950, Stieber 1951), Pomorze, Prusy (Kielczewska 1955, Nitsch 1954a), Mazury (Nitsch 1948b), and place names from Pomorze Gdanskie (Nitsch 1954b),

ONOMASTICS IN POLAND

157

There is also considerable interest in the names of the mountain regions, particularly of the Sudeten mountains (Taszycki 1949), another target of the rePolonisation policy. Expansion of the scope of historical material by petrified data with no mo­ tivated connections with the bases, inspired onomasticians to seek new princi­ ples of taxonomy whose main criterion would be the structure of nomen pro­ prium. In 1957, Stanislaw Rospond (1906-1982) put forward such a pro­ posal, which, with only slight modifications, has been used up till now. Rospond's and Taszycki's classifications to a large extent determine research procedures and influence the comparability of data. The following years brought more monographs on toponymic types: Henryk Borek's (1968) on toponymic names with the formant -bn-, Rospond's (1969) on the type with the suffix -bsk-, on patronymic names in Silesia (Rospond 1964a), and Hubert Górnowicz's (1968) on ancestral names of Great Poland, Little Poland and Masovia. Futhermore, monographic studies on place names of selected areas of Poland were written, with Southern Poland receiving considerable attention — the old Sandomierz voivodeship (Kaminska 1964-1965), the northern part of the old Cracow voivodeship (Rymut 1967), the southern part of the old Cracow voivodeship (Lubas 1968), Sącz (Pawłowski 1966, 1971) and Orawa (Goiębiowska 1964) regions. The publications which should be mentioned here include: Karol Zierhoffer's (1957) monograph on place names of Northern Mazovia, Stefan Warchol's (1964) on town names of the Lublin region, and Gustaw LeydingMielecki's (1947-1959) dictionary of Mazovian place names. Anthroponomastics developed intensively in the post-war period. The first publications concentrate on the names of the Piast dynasty (Kętrzynski 1945), Lech and Piast (Rudnicki 1954-1956), Mieszko (Semkowicz 1946, Urbańczyk 1946), Miecław/Masław (Urbanczyk 1954, Siudut 1955), Bolesław Chrobry (Szymczak 1951, Gansiniec 1951), etc. Numerous authors strive to explain the name 'Slav' (Otrębski 1947, Lehr-Splawiáski 1948), as well as the names of other West-Slavonic tribes: Obodrites (Lehr-Spławiński 1947), Wieleci (Widajewicz 1949), Golęzycy (Rudnicki 1948a), Lędziczanie/Lechici (Tymieniecki 1949), Lęczyczanie i Sieradzanie (Zajączkowski 1953). However, the emphasis of anthroponomastic research was on historical surnames, or, to use more recent terminology, of proto-surnames, mainly their morphological structure and genesis, for example, in such works as (Siudut 1948) on Polish names with the suffix -ut, (Zwolinski 1950) on the word-for­ mative function of the element -slaw (Kuraszkiewicz 1951), on Mazovian

158

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

names of the -owic type, or on surnames derived from the names of birds and dishes (Nitsch 1948a). Simultaneously, many regional anthroponomastic studies were produced discussing contemporary official, i.e., legally binding names (surnames, first names) and optional ones (nicknames, cognomina), for example Banaczkowski (1949) on surnames and nicknames from Wądlock, Zadrozny (1952) on nicknames and cognomina from Jablonkowo, Tokarzówna (1954) on cog­ nomina of the highlanders from Szczawnica, and Sychta (1956) on Kashubian nicknames. Prescriptive practice constitutes a separate area of interest; it concentrates on grammatical problems within the domain of inflection, for example, sur­ names of the type Zarçba "(Mr.) Swashbuckler" (Doroszewski 1951), Piwko "(Mr) Little Beer" and Zelazko "(Mr) Iron" (Doroszewski 1967), Vocative forms of feminine surnames (Doroszewski 1949a), surnames ending in -ek, -en (Doroszewski 1953a), foreign surnames ending in -a (Idem 1953b), or creation of feminine forms (Doroszewski 1949b, Nitsch 1951, Kucala 1951). Anthroponymy, like toponomastics, raises the issue of re-Polonisation of first names and surnames (Rospond 1947b, Taszycki 1948). A prominent place in the history of anthroponymy belongs to Tadeusz Milewski's (1969) unique study devoted to the Indo-European onomasticon. Stanislaw Rospond's (1964b, 1967) model of a new taxonomy of proper names according to their structure exerted a great influence on the evolution of anthroponomastics. It is a transfer of stmctural-grammatical criteria used in to­ ponymy to petrified proper nouns of obliterated semantic motivation. His pro­ posal, which was used quite commonly, due to the nature of the petrified an­ throponomastic data, was a response to the need to systematize the then volu­ minous, anthroponomastic material, the card-index of Old Polish personal names collected by Witold Taszycki's team in what was then the Onomastic Unit of the Linguistics Department in the Polish Academy of Sciences in Cra­ cow, and the card-index of Silesian personal names collected under the guid­ ance of Stanislaw Rospond in the Institute of Polish Philology of the Univer­ sity of Wroclaw. Those abundant collections of personal names were the basis of Słownik staropolskich nazw osobowych [Dictionary of Old Polish personal names] edited by Witold Taszycki (1965-1987) and Rospond's (1967, 1973) Słownik nazwisk śląskich [Dictionary of Silesian names]. Such a dynamic development of onomastics in the post-war period is to be linked with the emergence of several research groups: Witold Taszycki's Ono­ mastics Department of the Jagiellonian University in Cracow, and later, be­ ginning in 1953, Rospond's Wrocław-Opole group in the Onomastic Unit of

ONOMASTICS IN POLAND

159

the Linguistics Department of the Polish Academy of Sciences, and finally Gdansk Onomastic Unit headed by Hubert Gómowicz (1922-1986). An inspiring role was played by the Committee for Establishing Names of Localities and Physiographic Objects, operating under the auspices of the Prime Minister of Poland. The Committee's task was to re-Polonise names in the western and northern territories, as well as to collect and determine names of places and physiographic structures from the whole territory of the country (Karas 1975). This large-scale project, completed in collaboration with a num­ ber of universities, bore fruit in the form of 1 : 100 000 maps with rich topo­ nymic data, a considerable amount of which was confronted with historical sources and cadastral lists. The collected materials, approved by the Commit­ tee, were published as Spis miejscowosci Polskiej Rzeczpospolitej Ludowej [A register of places of the Polish People's Republic] in Warsaw in 1967, and are issued by the Bureau of the Cabinet as Urzędowe nazwy miejscowosci i obiektów fizjograficznych [An official register of names of places and physiographic objects]. Those materials published in several hundred fascicles constitute sources of unprecedented scope and are of great scientific value and practical use. They were used as basis of an analysis of regional names with the struc 10 ture of adjectival derivatives (Śmiech 1996). Considerable influence was exercised by various onomastic publishing se­ ries; since 1948 the series Prace onomastyczne [Onomastic studies], and since 1955 the periodical Onomastica. Since the number of publications surpasses the volume of the specialised publishers, articles, dissertations, and even mon­ ographs frequently appear in numerous nation-wide and local-university per­ iodicals. The situation of onomastics in Poland is related to a wider interest in the onomastic research in other Slavonic countries. Those tendencies found ex­ pression in the foundation, in Cracow in 1959, of International Slavonic Com­ mittee of Onomastics, affiliated to Slavistic Committee, with the following sub­ committees: 1) the Committee for the Slavonic Toponymic Atlas, 2) the Hydronymic Committee, 3) the Committee of Onomastic Terminology, and 4) the Anthroponymic Committee. 4.3 Recent developments In the third period of our somewhat arbitrary division, i.e., from the '70s, projects commenced earlier were continued and some of them completed, for example, Slownik staropolskich nazw osobowych [Dictionary of Old Polish personal names]. New research problems were taken up, both theoretical and data-oriented, particularly in anthroponomastics.

160

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

Classification of proper nouns, referring to persons and places, remained the basic issue of onomastics. It was taken up by Mieczysław Karas with ref­ erence to contemporary material (of the 20th century), but with obliterated se­ mantic motivation. His proposal drew on the criterion of openness and closedness as name-determinants both on the lexical and morphological planes (Karas 1970b, 1972). This worthwhile idea has not received extensive material verifi­ cation, mainly on account of the scarcity of new, onomastic data, apart from surnames. Regional studies, often of monographic character, published after 1970, followed Rospond's systematics (Mączynski 1970, Borek & Szumska 1976, Bubak 1970, Kopertowska 1980). A lengthy work on the formation-processes of historical surnames by Jozef Bubak (1986) discussed the constitution of proto-names in relation to sociolinguistic factors acting as determinants for semantically-motivated classes, and within them categorial-derivational types, for example, czyj jest "whose is" patronymic type with its appropriate formants, or skąd-pochodzi "where X comes from" - surname types derived from place names with the -ski formant Monographs in anthroponomastics also discuss other classes of personal names: surnames and nicknames (Gołębiowska 1971; Gala 1979, 1987), cog­ nomens (Breza 1978a), first names (Bubak 1993), and anthroponymy in gen­ eral (Wolnicz-Pawłowska 1993). A significant achievement in this field is the publication of regional historical (Bubak 1992), as well as historical and con­ temporary data (Gómowicz 1992) systematized in the form of dictionaries. We should not fail to mention here a comprehensive publication of contemporary Polish surnames in alphabetical order (Rymut 1992-1994). A separate and important place in anthroponymy research has to be granted to monographic dissertations on anthroponymic word-formative types, or families of types relative to the type of historical base (Karas 1970a, Warchol 1970/1971, Malec 1971, Breza 1978b (1979), 1980a, b; Gala 1985). A similar kind of research concerns lexico-etymological types, i.e., personal names derived from a specific class of lexical bases, for example, from compound names (Malec 1982), names of Christian origin (Malec 1994), appellatives (Cieślikowa 1990), and place names (Kowalik-Kaleta 1981, Matuszewski 1975). Besides material onomastics (anthroponomastics), (the naming of natural objects), literary onomastics has also been pursued, i.e., the study of the stylistic function of names in literary texts (Grzeszczuk 1966, Wilkon 1970, Kurzowa 1973, Rospond 1974, Kosyl 1992), Some interest has also been shown in names of urban objects (urbonymy), for example, streets, parks, or suburbs. Studies have appeared on street names of Warsaw (Handke 1970), Gdynia (Górnowicz 1964), Lublin (Buczynski

ONOMASTICS IN POLAND

161

1966), Wroclaw (Antkowiak 1970), Poznan (Zakrzewski 1971), Kielce (Dzikowski & Kopertowska 1976), and Cracow (Supranowicz 1996). Names of animals constitute yet another area of research (Gómowicz 1973, Strutynski 1972, 1996). The attention this class received is undoubtedly due to its in statu nascendi character (Warchoł 1996). In this respect, zoonyms re­ semble non-urban names and contemporary cognomens. In addition, onomasticians studied other classes of names which, in their view, fulfilled the defining criteria of nomen proprium; e.g., names of indus­ trial products (Brocki 1972a), meteorological phenomena and stars (Kupiszewski 1974, 1976), minerals (Brocki 1972b), musical ensembles (Pisarkowa 1972), sports clubs (Ozdzynski 1973), or army units (Gomowicz 1979b). Simultaneously, studies continuing earlier toponymic and hydronymic projects are under way. The result is a series of monographs devoted to the to­ ponymy of Upper Silesia (Borek 1988), Cieszyn Silesia (Mrózek 1984), place names of the Bialystok region (Kondratiuk 1974, Halicka 1978), historical to­ ponymy of Mazovia (Wolff & Rzetelska-Feleszko 1982), microtoponymy of Cieszyn Silesia in the 18th century (Mrózek 1990), toponymy of Gdańsk (Eastern) Pomerania — the districts of Koscierzyna (Breza 1974), Puck (Treder 1977), and Bytów (Surma 1990), place names of Sącz (Pawłowski 1984), the districts of Jasło and Krosno (Lubas 1963, 1964), and non-urban names of Lublin region (Lesiów 1972). As in anthroponymy, certain derivational types of toponyms have been in­ vestigated, for example, geographical names with the -jb formant (Gomowicz 1979a), place names (Gomowicz 1975), non-urban and hydronymic names (Gómowicz 1974) with the -ec suffix, geographical names with the -ov suffix (Kęsikowa 1976), and toponyms with the -ica suffix (Rzetelska-Feleszko 1978). The research project on hydronymy brought forth monographic studies of names of the Warta (Rieger & Wolnicz-Pawlowska 1975) and the Oder basins (Borek 1983), names of rivers of Pomorze between the Vistula and the Oder (Rzetelska-Feleszko 1978), as well as names of lakes (Gomowicz 1971, Treder 1979). Besides data-oriented works, onomasticians have taken up the problems of an onomastic grammar (Góriiy 1957), norms of word-formation, and inflec­ tional acceptability. However, it was only after appropriate, voluminous mate­ rials had been accumulated, that nomina propria could be subjected to a broader, theoretical analysis. Such an approach fostered the various abovementioned, attempts at a systematics of proper nouns. The range of issues, in­ vestigated by theoretical onomastics, include: the defining characteristics of

ONOMASTICS IN POLAND

163

— Vol III (1971-1980). 1983. Ed. by Kazimierz Rymut. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. — Vol.IV (1981-1990). 1992. Compiled by Przybytek Rozalia, Kazimierz Rymut. Krakow: Instytut Języka Polskiego PAN. Borek, Henryk. 1968. Zachodnioslowiańskie nazwy toponimiczne z formantem -bn- [West-Slavonic toponymic names with the formant -bn-]. Wroclaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Borek, Henryk. 1978. "Diachroniczne i synchroniczne klasyfikacje nazwisk pol­ skich", Z polskich studiów slawistycznych, series 5: Językoznawstwo, 447-455. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Borek, Henryk. 1979. "Załozenia slownika polskich wyrazów toponimicznych [Principles of the dictionary of Polish toponymics]". Onomastica 24.5-17 Borek, Henryk, ed. 1983. Hydronimia Odry: Wykaz nazw w ukladzie hydrograficznym [List of names in a hydrographie system]. Opole: Instytut Śląski. Borek, Henryk. 1988. Górny Śląsk w swietle nazw miejscowych [Upper Silesia in the light of place names]. Opole: Instytut Śląski. Borek, Henryk & Urszula Szumska. 1976. Nazwiska mieszkańców Bytomia od konca XVI wieku do roku 1740 [Surnames of Bytom inhabitants from the end of the 16th century until 1740]. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Breza, Edward. 1974. Toponimia powiatu kośctierskiego [Toponymy of Koscierzyna county]. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. Breza, Edward. 1978a. Pochodzenie przydomków szlachty Pomorza Gdańskiego. Gdańsk: Uniwersytet Gdański. Breza, Edward. 1978b. "Polskie nazwy osobowe z sufiksem -j-[Polish personal names with a -j- suffix]". Sprawozdania Gdańskiego Towarzystwa Naukowego 5.93 (1979). Breza, Edward. 1980a. "Niektóre nazwy osobowe z sufiksami -bn- i -'bn- w języku polskim [Some personal names with the suffixes bn and -'bn- in Polish]". Prace Filologiczne 29.7-16. Breza, Edward. 1980b. "Polskie nazwy osobowe z sufiksem -in, -ina, -ino i jego pochodnymi -lin(a,o) i -owin(a,o) [Polish personal names with the suffix -in, -ina, -ino and its derivatives -lin(a,o) and -owin(a,o)]". Slavia Occidentalis 27.11-19. Brocki, Zygmunt. 1972a. "Nazwy polskich pociągów ekspresowych". Zpravodaj Mistopisné komise ČSAV 13.293-295. Brocki, Zygmunt. 1972b. "Wyraz jantar w onomastyce". Zpravodaj Mistopisné komise CSAV 13.795-796. Bubak, Jozef. 1970. Nazwiska ludności dawnego starostwa nowotarskiego [Personal names of people of the former Nowy Targ county]. 2 vols. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. Bubak, Jozef. 1986. Proces ksztaltowania się polskiego nazwiska mieszczanskiego i chlopskiego [The formation process of the Polish personal name of towns­ people and peasants]. Krakow: Uniwersytet Jagielloński. Bubak, Jozef. 1992. Slownik nazw osobowych i elementów identyfikacyjnych Sqdecczyzny XV-XVII w. [Dictionary of personal names and the identification

162

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

proper nouns (Kucała 1967), the place of proper nouns in the system of lan­ guage (Kuryłowicz 1956, 1980; Lubas 1973, Zaręba 1979), the essence of nomen proprium (Grodziñski 1973, Gala 1981, Furdal 1984), and the rela­ tionship between nomen proprium and nomen appellativum (Smoczyński 1962, Szymczak 1980, Mańczak 1984, Kosyl 1974, Borek 1979, Micha­ lew ski 1972). Studies of this sort prompted linguists to ask questions about onomastic grammar, its nature and extent of autonomy from the grammar of language. This was the subject of a conference organised in 1986 by the Ono­ mastic Section of the Linguistics Committee of the Polish Academy of Sciences and the University of Opołe. The Onomastic Section plays a very important role in onomastic research, as it co-organizes conferences and determines their themes, thus initiating and co-ordinating research. 5. Concluding remarks The impressive output of the Polish onomastics is contained in a four vol­ ume bibliography comprising works published until 1990 (see Bibliografia onomastyki polskiej below). This clearly shows that importance of this linguis­ tic discipline; its contribution to Polish culture and identity is unquestionable. For future onomastic research we can identify the following areas: 1) the continuation of projects begun earlier, 2) the collection of materials for the preparation of an anthroponymic dictionary of Middle Polish up to and includ­ ing the 19th century, 3) the publication of a historical dictionary of place names (oikonyms), 4) the compilation of a dictionary of Poland's non-urban names, 5.) a further development of the theory of proper nouns, and 6) the synthetic formulation of particular onomastic classes.

REFERENCES Antkowiak, Zygmunt. 1970. Ulice i place Wroctawia [Streets and squares of Wroclaw]. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. Banaczkowski, Piotr. 1949, "O nazwach, nazwiskach i przezwiskach w Wąchocku (Swiętokrzyskie) [On names, surnames and nicknames in Wą.chocku (Swiętokrzyskie voivodship)]". Język Polski 29.78-80. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan Niecislaw. 1870. O drewne-polskom jazykie do XIVgo Stoletija [On the Old Polish language before the 14th century]. Leipzig: Behr & Hermann. Bibliografia onomastyki polskiej. Vols.I-IV (see below, for details). — Vol.I (Beginnings to 1958 inclusive). 1960. Compiled by Witold Taszycki, Mieczysław Karas, Adam Turasiewicz. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, — Vol.11 (1959–1970). 1972. Compiled by Taszycki Witold, Mieczyslaw Karas & Adam Turasiewicz. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.

164

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

elements of Sącz region in the 15th-17th century]. 2 vols. Krakow: Towarzystwo Autorów i Wydawców Prac Naukowych "Universitas". Bubak, Jozef. 1993. Księga naszych imion [The book of our names]. Wroclaw: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. Buczyński, Mieczyslaw. 1966. "Nazwy ulic i placów Lublina [Names of streets and squares of Lublin]". Onomastica 11.136-181. Bujak, Franciszek. 1905. Studia nad osadnictwem Malopolski. Part I. Rozprawy Wydziatu Historyczno-Filozoficznego AU 47.172-428. Bystroń, Jan Stanislaw, 1927. Nazwiska polskie. (= Lwowska Biblioteka Slawistyczna, 4.) Lwow. (2nd ed., Ksiąznica: "Atlas", 1936.) Bystroñ, Jan Stanislaw. 1938. Księga imion w Polsce uzywanych. Warszawa: "Rój". Cieslikowa, Aleksandra. 1990. Staropolskie odapelatywne nazwy osobowe: proces onimizacji. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. Dejna, Karol. 1955. "Urzędowe i gwarowe postaci nazw miejscowych w okolicy Glupczyc i Raciborza". Rozprawy Komisji Jçzykowej LTN 2.119-158. Dejna, Karol. 1956. "Terenowe nazwy Śląskie". Onomastica 2.103-126. Dejna, Karol. 1973. Dialekty polskie. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Osso­ liñskich. (2nd ed., 1993.) Dejna, KaroL 1981. Atlas polskich innowacji dialektalnych. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. (2nd ed., 1994.) Doroszewski, Witold. 1949a. "Marylu czy Marylo". Poradnik Językowy 5.22. Doroszewski, Witold. 1949b. "Zeńskie formy nazwisk". Poradnik Językowy 5.20-21. (Sequels in 1952: 2.37; 7.37-38; 1954: 8.38.) Doroszewski, Witold. 1951. "Odmiana nazwisk typu Zaręba". Poradnik Języ­ kowy 3.29. Doroszewski, Witold. 1953a. "Odmiana nazwisk na -ek, -eń". Ibid. 10.40. Doroszewski, Witold. 1953b. "Nazwiska obce na -a". Poradnik Językowy 4.34. Doroszewski, Witold. 1967. "Nazwisko Piwko, Zelazko-odmiana". Ibid. 9.431. Dzikowski, Wladyslaw & Danuta Kopertowska. 1976. Toponimia KielC. War­ szawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Furdal, Antoni. 1984. "Onomastyka widziana z zewnątrz". Nazwy wlasne a wyrazy pospolite w języku i tekście ed. by Henryk Borek, 89-95. Opole: Wyzsza Szkola Pedagogiczna. Gala, Slawomir. 1979. "Slowotwórstwo nazwisk i przezwisk ludnosci bylego powiatu piotrkowskiego". Studia Językoznawcze 4.43-87. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. Gala, Slawomir. 198L "W sprawie jçzykowej definicji nazw osobowych". Ono­ mastica 26.41-51. Gala, Slawomir. 1982. "Przeniesienia, derywaty, powielenia w antroponimii polskiej". Rozprawy Komisji Jçzykowej LTN 28.21-32. Gala, Slawomir. 1985. Polskie nazwy osobowe z podstawowym -l-/-ł- w częsci sufiksalnej. Łódź: Uniwersytet Lódzkh (2nd ed., 1992.) Gala, Slawomir. 1987. Slownik nazwisk i przezwisk ludnosci ziemi piotrkowskiej. Piotrków Trybunalski & Lodz: Wydawnictwo Wydzialu Kultury i Sztuki Urzędu Wojewódzkiego w Piotrkowie Trybunalskim.

ONOMASTICS IN POLAND

165

Gala, Slawomir. 1994. "Morfologiczny czy leksykalny aspekt nazwisk okreslonych klas leksykalnoetymologicznych". Paper read at an Onomastic Con­ ference held in Warsaw. Galas, Piotr. 1949. "Urzędowe a ludowe nazwy miejscowosci w powiecie b o cheńskim i okolicy", Język Polski 29.51-62. Gansiniec, Ryszard. 1951. "Nagrobek Boleslawa Wielkiego". Przeglqd Zachodni 7:7/8.359-537. Gołiębiowska, Teresa. 1964. Terenowe nazwy orawskie. (= Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagielloñskiego; Prace Językoznawcze, 11.) Krakow: Uniwersytet Jagielloński. Golębiowska, Teresa. 1971. Antroponimia Orawy. (= Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwer­ sytetu Jagielloñskiego; Prace Językoznawcze, 34.) Ibid. Górnowicz, Hubert. 1964. "Toponimia Gdyni". Gdañskie Zeszyty Humanistyczne 6. Gdańsk: Wyzsza Szkola Pedagogiczna. Górnowicz, Hubert. 1968. Rodowe nazwy miejscowe Wielkopolski, Malopolski i Mazowsza. Gdañskie Zeszyty Humanistyczne. Gdańsk: Wyzsza Szkola Peda­ gogiczna. Górnowicz, Hubert. 1971. "Nazewnictwo jezior borzechowskich na Kociewiu". Onomastica 16.87-121. Górnowicz, Hubert. 1973. "Zoonimia Powisla Gdañskiego". Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego 2.41-55. Górnowicz, Hubert. 1974. "Ze studiów nad toponomastykq Pomorza Gdañ­ skiego. II: Nazwy terenowe i wodne z sufiksem -ec i jego pochodnymi". Slavia Occidentalis 21.13-33. Górnowicz, Hubert. 1975. "Ze studiów nad toponomastyką Pomorza Gdañ­ skiego. I: Nazwy miejscowe z sufiksem -ec i jego pochodnymi". Gdańskie Studia Językoznawcze 1.5-61. Górnowicz, Hubert. 1979a. "Nazwy geograficzne z formantem -jb na Pomorzu Gdańskim". Sprawozdania Gdańskiego Towarzystwa Naukowego, 138-139. Gdańsk. Górnowicz, Hubert. 1979b. "Nazwy wlasne polskich jednostek wojskowych". Poradnik Językowy 8.369-386. Górnowicz, Hubert. 1992. Slownik nazwisk mieszkañców Powisla Gdañskiego. Posthumously edited by Edward Breza. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdañskiego. Górny, Wojciech. 1957. "Zagadnienie polskiej gramatyki onomastycznej". Jçzyk Polski 37.174-178. Grodziñski, Eugeniusz, 1973. Zarys ogólnej teorii imion wlasnych. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Grzeszczuk, Stanislaw. 1966. Nazewnictwo sowiźrzalskie. (= Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagielloñskiego.) Krakow: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Halicka, Irena. 1978. Nazwy miejscowe srodkowej i zachodniej Bialostocczyzny. Topograficzne i kulturowe. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Hanusz, Jan. 1886. "O nazwiskach polskich Ormian". Muzeum 2.565-573. Handke, Kwiryna. 1970. Semantyczne i strukturalne typy nazw ulic Warszawy. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich.

166

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

Hrabec, Stefan. 1955. "O nazwie Mazowsze". Prace Polonistyczne 12.5-20. Kamińska, Maria. 1964-1965. Nazwy miejscowe dawnego województwa sandomierskiego. Part I&II. Wroclaw: Zakiad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. Karas, Mieczysław. 1955. "Polskie nazwy miejscowe typu Podgóra, Zalas". Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagelloñskiego: Filología 1.233-238. Karas, Mieczyslaw. 1970a. "Antroponimiczny sufiks -ur, -ura w języku polskim". Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagelloñskiego. Prace Językoznawcze 29.17-31. Karas, Mieczyslaw. 1970b. "Nazwy miejscowe i ich klasyfikacje (uwagi i propozycje)". Biuletyn PTJ 28.63-85. Karas, Mieczyslaw. 1972. "Nazwy wlasne i ich klasyfikacje (nazwy osobowe)". Biuletyn PTJ 30.103-150. Karas, Mieczyslaw. 1974. "Najdawniejsze zapozyczenia obce w jçzyku polskim". Studia indoeuropejskie 79-85. Karas, Mieczyslaw. 1975. "Onomastyka polska po II wojnie swiatowej (glówne kierunki i wyniki badań)". Poradnik Językowy 2.57-65. Karlowicz, Jan. 1888a. Kilka slow o nazwiskach litewskich (z powodu uwag L. Malinowskiego)". Prace Filologiczne 1.188-191. Karlowicz, Jan. 1888b. "Niektóre nazwy rodowe litewskiego pochodzenia". Prace Filologiczne 2.587-589. Karlowicz, Jan. 1894–1905. Slownik wyrazów obcego a mniej jasnego pocho­ dzenia, uzywanych w języku polskim. Krakow: W.L. Anczyc i Spóika. Karlowicz, Jan. 1900–1911. Slownik gwar polskich. 4 vols. Krakow: Akademia Umiejętności. Karlowicz, Jan, Adam Kryński & Wladyslaw Niedzwiedzki. 1900-1927. Slownik jçzyka polskiego. 8 vols. (Repr., Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 1952.). Karpluk, Maria. 1955. "Polskie nazwy miejscowe od imion kobiecych". Studia z Filologii Polskie'} i Slowiañskiej 1.111-161. Kęsikowa, Urszula. 1976. Nazwy geograficzne Pomorza Gdanskiego z sufiksem -OV-. Gdańskie Towarzystwo Naukowe. Wroclaw: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossoińskich. Kętrzyński, Stanislaw. 1945. "O imionach piastowskich do końca XI w.". Sprawozdania z Czynnosci i Posiedzeń PAU 46.213-215. Kielczewska, Maria. 1955. "Pomorze i Prusy". Język Polski 35.158. Kondratiuk, Michal. 1974. Nazwy miejscowe poludniowo-wschodniej Bialostocczyzny. Wroclaw: Zakiad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. Kopertowska, Danuta. 1980. Kieleckie antroponimy XVI i XVII wieku. Kielce: Wyzsza Szkola Pedagogiczna. Kosyl, Czeslaw. 1974. "O przechodzeniu nazw wlasnych do kategorii nazw pospolitych". Onomastica 19.85-104. Kosyl, Czeslaw. 1992. Nazwy wlasne w prozie Jaroslawa Iwaszkiewicza. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu M. Curie-Sklodowskiej. Kowalik-Kaleta, Zofia. 1981. Staropolskie nazwy osobowe motywowane przez nazwy miejscowe. Wroclaw: Zakiad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich.

ONOMASTICS IN POLAND

167

Kozierowski, Stanislaw. 1938. Nazwiska, przezwiska, przydomki, imiona polskie niektórych typów slowotwórczych. Ksiçga rodzaju ludu polskiego. Poznan: Druk S.A. "Ostoja". (Part II, Fasc.l, 1948.) Kucala, Marian. 1951. "Slówko o zeñskich nazwiskach na wsi". Jçzyk Polski 30.182-184. Kucaia, Marian. 1967. "Co jest, a co jeszcze nie jest nazwą własną". Onomastica 12.153-176. Kupiszewski, Wladyslaw. 1974. Polskie slownictwo z zakresu astronomii i miar czasu. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Kupiszewski, Wladyslaw. 1976. "Ekspresywne nazwy księzyca w języku polskim". Prace Filologiczne 24.313-318. Kuraszkiewicz, Wladyslaw. 1951. "Nazwiska na -owic w Warszawie XV-XVI wieku". Jçzyk Polski 31.28-29. Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1956. "La position linguistique de nom propre". Onomas­ tica 2.1-14. Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1980. "The Linguistic Status of Proper Nouns (Names)". Onomastica 25.5-10. Kurzowa, Zofia. 1973. "Nazwy osobowe na -o w onomastyce literackiej". Ono­ mastica 18.173-196. Lehr-Spławiński, Tadeusz. 1946. O pochodzeniu i praojczyznie Slowian. Poznan: Instytut Zachodni. Lehr-Splawiñski, Tadeusz. 1947. "Obodriti-Obodrzycy", Slavia Occidentalis 18.223-228. Lehr-Splawiñski, Tadeusz. 1948. "Znowu o nazwie Slowian". Jçzyk Polski 38. 140-146. Leyding-Mielecki, Gustaw. 1947. Slownik nazw miejscowych okrçgu mazurskiego, Part I. Olsztyn: Instytut Mazurski. (Part II: Nazwy fizjograficzne. Poznań: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1959.) Lubas, Wladyslaw. 1963. "Nazwy terenowe powiatu jasielskiego i krosnieńskiego" (Part I). Onomastica 7.195-236. Lubas, Wladyslaw. 1964. "Nazwy terenowe powiatu jasielskiego i krosnieñskiego" (Part II). Onomastica 9.123-163. Lubas, Wladyslaw. 1968. Nazwy miejscowe poludniowej części dawnego województwa krakowskiego. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. Lubas, Wladyslaw. 1973. "Onomastyka w systemie językowym (na przykladach slowiańskich)". Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Slqskiego, Prace Językoznawcze 2.7-23. Lesiów, Michal. 1972. Terenowe nazwy wlasne Lubelszczyzny. Lublin: Wyda­ wnictwo Lubelskie. Malec, Maria. 1971. Budowa morfologiczna staropolskich zlozonych imion osobowych. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. Malec, Maria. 1982. Staropolskie skrócone nazwy osobowe od imion dwuczlonowych. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. Malee, Maria. 1994. Imiona chrzescijanskie w sredniowiecznej Polsce. Krakow: Instytut Języka Polskiego PAN.

168

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

Malinowski, Lucjan. 1893. "Przeksztalcanie nazwisk". Prace Filologiczne 4. 659-660. Mańczak, Witold. 1955. "O zasięgach typów polskich nazw miejscowych w XVI w. (prócz Śląska i Pomorza)". Język Polski. 35.26-41. Mañczak, Witold. 1984. "Nazwy wlasne a rzeczowniki pospolite". Nazwy wlasne a wyrazy pospolite w języku i tekście ed. by Henryk Borek, 155-164. Opole: Wyzsza Szkola Pedagogiczna. Matuszewski, Jozef. 1975. Polskie nazwisko szlacheckie. Łódź: Lódzkie Towarzystwo Naukowe. Mączyński, Jan. 1970. Nazwiska Łodzian (XV-XIX wiek). Łódź: Lódzkie Towarzystwo Naukowe. Michalewski, Kazimierz. 1972. "Udzial imion wlasnych we wzbogacaniu apelatywnyeh zasobów slownikowych". Rozprawy Komisji Językowej ŁTN 18.101-131. Miklosich, Franz von. 1927. Die Bildung der slavischen Personen- und Orts­ namen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Milewski, Tadeusz. 1952. "Nazwy miejscowe Ziem Odzyskanych". Poradnik Językowy 10.24-37. Milewski, Tadeusz. 1956. "Nowe prace o pochodzeniu polskiego jçzyka literackiego". Pochodzenie polskiego jçzyka literackiego. Studia staropolskie ed. by Kazimierz Budzyk, vol.III, 60-81. Wroclaw: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. Milewski, Tadeusz. 1969. Indoeuropejskie imiona osobowe. Ibid. Mlodziejowski, Jerzy. 1946. "Miedzie, największe jezioro Pomorza Kaszubskiego". Przeglqd Zachodni 2:2.124-130. Moszyński, Kazimierz. 1957. Pierwotny zasięg języka praslowianskiego. Wroc­ law: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. Mrózek, Robert. 1984. Nazwy miejscowe dawnego Ślqska Cieszynskiego. Kato­ wice: Uniwersytet Śląski. Mrózek, Robert. 1990. System mikrotoponimiczny Slqska Cieszyńskiego XVIII wieku. Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski. Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1948a. "Pogadanki o imionach i nazwiskach. 2: Nazwiska od ptaków i ... potraw". Język Polski 28.52-53. Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1948b. "Mazury". Język Polski 28.85-86. Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1950. "O pierwotną nazwę Szczecina". Język Polski 30.185. Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1951. "Uwagi o nazwiskach kobiet zamęznych i panien". Język Polski 31.62-68. Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1954a. "O nazwach Pomorze i Prusy", Język Polski 34.312313. Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1954b. "Pogadanka o niektórych nazwach pomorskich". Język Polski 34.313-314. Otrębski, Jan. 1935. O najdawniejszych polskich imionach osobowych. Wilno: Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk w Wilnie. Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1947. Slowianie. Rozwiqzanie odwiecznej zagadki ich nazwy. Poznan: Księgarnia Ziem Zachodnich.

ONOMASTICS IN POLAND

169

Ozdzyñski, Jan. 1973. "Nazwy polskich klubów sportowych". Rocznik Naukowo Dydaktyczny WSP w Krakowie. Prace Językoznawcze 2.99-124. Pawtowski, Eugeniusz. 1966. Nazwy miejscowe Sqdecczyzny, Part I. Ogólna charakterystyka nazewnictwa miejscowego Sqdecczyzny. Krakow: Wyzsza Szkoia Pedagogiczna. Pawlowski, Eugeniusz. 1971. Nazwy miejscowosci Sqdecczyzny. Part II. Nazwy miasty wsi, przysiólków oraz dzielnic miejskich i wiejskich. Wroclaw: Zakiad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. Pawtowski, Eugeniusz. 1984. Nazwy terenowe ziemi sqdeckiej. Wroclaw: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. Piekosiñski, Franciszek. 1896 [vols. I & II], 1902 [vol. III]. Rycerstwo polskie wieków średnich. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Akademii Umiejętności. Pisarkowa, Krystyna. 1972. "Nazwy nowoczesnych zespolów muzycznych (zespoly obce)". Onomastica 17.167-186. Polañski, Kazimierz, ed. 1995. Encyklopedia językoznawstwa ogólnego. Wroclaw: Zakiad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. Rieger, Janusz. 1969. Nazwy wodne dorzecza Sana. Wroclaw: Zakiad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. Rieger, Janusz & Ewa Wolnicz-Pawlowska. 1975. Nazwy rzeczne w dorzeczu Warty. Wroclaw: Zakiad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. Rospond, Stanislaw. 1947a. "Pierwotna nazwa Szczecina a póinocno-zachodnia granica Polski Piastowskiej". Slavia Occidentalis 18.291-304. Rospond, Stanislaw. 1947b. "Repolonizacja imion i nazwisk". Komunikaty Instytutu Slqskiego series 7, No 9. Rospond, Stanislaw. 1955. "Ślęza i jej derywaty". Onomastica 1.7-40. Rospond, Stanislaw. 1956. "Problem genezy polskiego języka literackiego". Pochodzenie polskiego języka literackiego. Studia staropolskie ed. by Kazi­ mierz Budzyk, vol.III, 117-177. Wroclaw: Zakiad Narod. im. Ossoliñskich. Rospond, Stanislaw. 1957, Klasyfikacja strukturalno-gramatyczna slowiańskich nazw geograficznych. Wroclaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Rospond, Stanislaw. 1964a. Patronimiczne nazwy miejscowe na Slqsku. Wroclaw: Zakiad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. Rospond, Stanislaw. 1964b. "Struktura i klasyfikacja slowiańskich antroponimów". Biuletyn PTJ 24.203-224. Rospond, Stanislaw. 1967 Part I: A-F: 1973 Part II: G-K. Slownik nazwisk Slqskich. Wroclaw: Zakiad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. Rospond, Stanislaw. 1969. Slowiańskie nazwy miejscowe z sufiksem -b sk-. Wroc­ law: Zakiad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. Rospond, Stanislaw. 1974. "Nazewnictwo literackie Jana Kochanowskiego". Kwartalnik Opolski. 20:2.109-116. Rozwadowski, Jan. 1906. "Krytyczne uwagi o praojczyznie Slowian (Studia nad nazwami wód slowiańskich)". Part II. Sprawozdania z Czynnosci i Posiedzen AU w Krakowie 11/3.2. Rozwadowski, Jan. 1913. "Kilka uwag do przedhistorycznych stosunków wschodniej Europy i praojczyzny indoeuropejskiej na podstawie nazw wód". Rocznik Slawistyczny 6.39-58.

170

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

Rozwadowski, Jan. 1922. Nazwy Wisly i jej dorzecza. (= Monografía Wisly, 2.) Warszawa: Polskie Towarzystwo Krajoznawcze. (Repr. in Studia nad nazwami wód slowiańskich: Prace onomastyczne PAU No.1.280-303. Krakow 1948.) Rudnicki, Mikolaj. 1948a. "Golensizi = Golęzycy?". Slavia Occidentalis 19. 377-378. Rudnicki, Mikoiaj. 1948b. Nazwy Odry i jej wazniejszych doplywów. Monografía Odry. Poznan: Instytut Zachodni. Rudnicki, Mikoiaj. 1954/56. "Lech i Piast". Slavia Antiqua 5.76-82. Rudnicki, Mikołaj. 1955. "Slupa". Onomastica 1.121-127. Rymut, Kazimierz. 1967. Nazwy miejscowe pólnocnej częsci województwa krakowskiego. Wroclaw: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. Rymut, Kazimierz. 1968. "Toponomastyka w sluzbie badań historyczno-osadniczych". Onomastica 3.7-24. Rymut, Kazimierz. 1992-1994. Slownik nazwisk wspólczesnie w Polsce uzywanych. Vols. 1-10. Krakow: Instytut Języka Polskiego PAN. Rzetelska-Feleszko, Ewa. 1978, Rozwój i zmiany toponimicznego formantu -ica na obszarze zachodnioslowianskim. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narod. im. Ossoliñskich. Safarewicz, Jan. 1950. "Dyskusja nad nazwą, Nysa". Rocznik Slawistyczny 16. 138-151. Safarewiczowa, Halina. 1956. Nazwy miejscowe typu Mroczkowizna, Klimontowszczyzna. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. Semkowicz, Wladysław. 1946. "Geneza imienia Mieszko". Inter Arma, Zbiór prac ofiarowanych prof. Kazimierzowi Nitschowi w siedemdziesiqtq rocznicę urodzin przez przyjaciól i uczniów. 67-84. Kraków: Uniwersytet Jagielloñski. Siudut, Andrzej. 1948. "Nazwiska polskie z przyrostkiem -ut" Slavia Occi­ dentalis 19.389-397. Siudut, Andrzej. 1955. "Trzy zagadkowe imiona". Onomastica 1.166-168. Slawski, Franciszek. 1974. Slownik praslowiañski. Vol. I. Wroclaw: Zaklad Naro­ dowy im. Ossoliñskich. Smoczyñski, Pawel. 1962. "Nomina appellativa i propria we wzajemnym oddzialywaniu słowotwórczym", Biuletyn PTJ 21.62-82. Stieber, Zdzisław. 1951. "Uwaga o Szczecinie". Język Polski 31.33-34. Strutyñski, Janusz. 1972. Polskie nazwy ptaków krajowych. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. Strutyñski, Janusz. 1996. Urbozoonimia polska. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Tomasz Strutyñski. Supranowicz, Elzbieta. 1996. Nazwy ulic Krakowa. Kraków: Instytut Języka Pol­ skiego PAN. Sumía, Genowefa. 1990. Toponimia powiatu bytowskiego. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. Sychta, Bernard. 1956. "Przezwiska u Kaszubów". Jçzyk Polski 36.97-108 and 205-217. Szymczak, Mieczyslaw. 1951. "Z dziejów wyrazu chrobry". Prace Polonistyczne 9.8-12. Szymczak, Mieczyslaw. 1980. "Wlasciwosci znaczeniowe wyrazów utworzonych w języku polskim od nazw wlasnych". Poradnik Językowy 3.105-112.

ONOMASTICS IN POLAND

171

Smiech, Witold. 1956. "Historia nazw miejscowych z przyrostkiem *-ov- na terenie dawnego powiatu sieradzkiego". Rozprawy Komisji Językowej ŁTN 4.7786 Smiech, Witold. 1996. Przymiotnikowe nazwy terenowe Polski. Edited posthu­ mously by Siawomir Gala. Łódź: Łódzkie Towarzystwo Naukowe. Taszycki, Witold. 1924. Polskie nazwy osobowe. Krakow: Gebethner & Wolff. Taszycki, Witold. 1925. Najdawniejsze polskie imiona osobowe. Krakow: Polska Akademia Umiejçtnosci. Taszycki, Witold. 1934. Z dawnych podzialów dialektalnych jçzyka polskiego. Part 1. Przejscie ra w re; Part 2. Przejscie ja w je. Lwów: Archiwum Towarzystwa Naukowego we Lwowie. Taszycki, Witold. 1946a. "O nazwach Śląsk i Slçzanie". Jçzyk Polski 26.155156. Taszycki, Witold. 1946b. Slowiañskie nazwy miejscowe (Ustalenie podziału). Krakow: Polska Akademia Umiejçtnosci. Taszycki, Witold. 1946c. I. "Sladami jçzyka polskiego na Śląsku". II. "Śląskie nazwy plemienne". III. "Imiona dawnych Ślązaków". Śląsk 3/4.12-16. Taszycki, Witold. 1948. "Polszczenie imion i nazwisk". Przeglqd Zachodni 4:7/8.148-149. Taszycki, Witold. 1949. "Sudeckie nazwy górskie". Przeglqd Zachodni 5:7/8. 110-122. Taszycki, Witold. 1951. Patronimiczne nazwy miejscowe na Mazowszu. Krakow: Polska Akademia Umiejçtnosci. Taszycki, Witold. 1956. "Geneza polskiego jçzyka literackiego w swietle faktów historycznojęzykowych". Pochodzenie polskiego jçzyka literackiego. Studia staropolskie ed. by Kazimierz Budzyk, vol.Ill, 30-59. Wroclaw: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. Taszycki, Witold. 1963. "Stosunek onomastyki do innych nauk humanistycznych". Onomastica 8.1-18. Taszycki, Witold, ed. 1965-1987. Słownik staropolskieh nazw osobowych. Vols. I-VII. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. Tokarzówna, Krystyna. 1954. "Przydomki górali szczawnickich". Lud 41.728735. Treder, Jerzy. 1977. Toponimia byłego powiatu puckiego. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. Treder, Jerzy. 1979. "Nazwy jezior w powiecie wejherowskim". Prace Filologiczne 28.249-270. Tymieniecki, Kazimierz. 1949. "Lędzicze (Lechici), czyli Wielkopolska w wieku IX". Przeglqd Wielkopolski 2.161-172. Ulaszyn, Henryk. 1950. Znaczenie nazw Wielkopolska i Malopolska. Lodz: Lódzkie Towarzystwo Naukowe. Urbańczyk, Stanislaw. 1946. "O imię pierwszego historycznego ksiçcia Polski". Inter Arma, Zbiór prac ofiarowanych prof. Kazimierzowi Nitschowi w siedemdziesiqtq rocznicę urodzin przez przyjaciól i uczniów, 107-117. Kraków: Uniwersytet Jagielloński. Urbañczyk, Stanislaw. 1948. "O pochodzeniu nazwy Szczecin". Szczecin 3:29.3.

172

POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS

Urbańczyk, Stanislaw. 1950. "O pierwotną nazwę Szczecina". Przeglqd Zachodni 6:1.502-506. Urbaiiczyk, Stanislaw. 1954. "Mieclaw (Maslaw): Ksiązę mazowiecki". Slavia Antiqua 4.350-356. Urbańczyk, Stanislaw. 1956. "Glos w dyskusji o pochodzeniu polskiego języka literackiego". Pochodzenie polskiego języka literackiego. Studia staropolskie, ed. by Kazimierz Budzyk, vol.III, 82-101. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. Warchol, Stefan. 1964. Nazwy miast Lubelszczyzny. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Lubelskie. Warchol, Stefan. 1970, 1971. "Slowiaiiskie nazwy osobowe z sufiksami -ula, -ul (na tie formacji odapelatywnych)". Onomastica 15.202-233, 16.186-210. Warchol, Stefan, ed. 1996. Systemy zoonimiczne w językach slowiañskich. (= Rozprawy Slawistyczne UMCS, 11.) Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu M. CurieSklodowskiej. Widajewicz, Jozef. 1949. "Masudi o Wieletach". Pamiętnik Slowiański 1.55-82. Wilkoń, Aleksander. 1970. Nazewnictwo w utworach Stefana Zeromskiego. Wroc­ law: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. Wisla. 1887-1905. 19 vols. Warszawa: A. Gruszecki. Wisla. 1916-1917. Vol. XX. Warszawa: M. Arct. Wojciechowski, Tadeusz. 1873. Chrobacja: Rozbiór starozytnosci slowiañskich. Krakow: "Kraj". Wolff, Adam & Ewa Rzetelska-Feleszko. 1982. Mazowieckie nazwy terenowe do konca XVI wieku. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Wolnicz-Pawlowska, Ewa. 1993. Antroponimia lemkowska na tle polskim i słowackim XVI-XIX wiek. Warszawa: Instytut Slawistyki PAN. Zadrozny, Jerzy. 1952. "Jablonkowskie przydomki, jablonkowskie przezwiska". Zwrot 4:10.9-10. Zają.czkowski, Stanislaw. 1953. "W sprawie plemion Lęczycan i Sieradzan". Sla­ via Antiqua 4.117-129. Zakrzewski, Zbigniew. 1971. Nazwy osobowe i historyczne ulic Poznania. Poz­ nan: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie. Zaręba, Alfred. 1968. "Dialektologia i onomastyka". Onomastica 13.7-24. Zaręba, Alfred. 1979. ''Osobowe nazwy wlasne i ich miejsce w systemie językowym". Poradnik Językowy 1.1-22. Zierhoffer, KaroL 1957. Nazwy miejscowe pólnocnego Mazowsza. Wroclaw: Za­ klad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich. Zwoliński, Przemyslaw. 1950. "Funkcja slowotwórcza elementu -slaw w staropolskich imionach osobowych". Biuletyn PTJ 10.166-185. Zwoliñski, Przemyslaw. 1954. "Nazwy toni rybackich jeziora Sniardwy", Język Polski 35. 286-304. Zwoliñski, Przemyslaw, ed. 1965. HydronimiaWisly. Part I: Wykaz nazw w układzie hydrograficznym. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich.

PART II PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

CHAPTER 6 JAN BAUDOUIN DE COURTENAY'S CONTRIBUTION TO GENERAL LINGUISTICS* ARLETA ADAMSKA-SAŁACIAK Adam Mickiewicz University 1.

Introduction Jan Ignacy Niecisiaw Baudouin de Courtenay (1845-1929) is probably one of the most interesting and complex figures of the linguistics of his time. He was one of the chief precursors of structuralist linguistics, father of several linguistic schools, and a role model for generations of Polish scholars. Pre­ senting his scholarly profile in a few pages is a daunting task, not only because a lot has already been written about him,1 but also because his impressive scholarly output does not lend itself to neat pigeon-holing. Among the areas of linguistics to which Baudouin made important contri­ butions one finds, among others: phonetics and phonology, historical linguis­ tics, psycho- and sociolinguistics, contrastive linguistics, dialectology, lan­ guage typology, lexicology and lexicography. He was also a distinguished Slavist and Indo-Europeanist. If one disregards the list of 22 principles of linguistics formulated in his au­ tobiographical note (Baudouin 1897:33-35), Baudouin never produced any­ thing approaching a synthesis of his views. We are told by his contemporaries (e.g., Rozwadowski 1929) that, looking back at his long career, he repri­ manded himself for having frittered away his energies on too many diverse topics. An author dealing with Baudouin is thus confronted with the sheer bulk of his production (over 400 publications, mostly scattered in obscure periodicals) and hampered by the lack of a major synthetic oeuvre. Additionally, there is the awareness that, since only a tiny fraction of Baudouin's work has been trans­ lated into English, the burden of responsibility to one's Western readers is perhaps greater than usual.

* This chapter first appeared as an article in Historiographia Linguistica 25:1/2.25-60 (1998). See especially Häusler (1968), Koerner (1972), Šaradzenidze (1980), Mugdan (1984), and Rieger & Szymczak (1989). 1

176

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

Owing to the preceding observations, some self-imposed restrictions seem to be in order. I have decided to concentrate on what is likely to be of interest to students of general linguistics (thus ignoring, e.g., Baudouin's achieve­ ments in the area of Slavic), and on what is of special interest to me personally (hence the noticeable bias towards Baudouin's treatment of language change). 2 This seems to me to be a more fruitful path to follow than attempting to pro­ duce a paper of comparable size dealing with a larger number of issues, but in a more perfunctory way. The References at the end should provide a reason­ ably exhaustive guide for readers wishing to find out more about any particular topic connected with Baudouin. Where possible, I have tried to let my subject speak in his own voice, both in order to give the readers a taste of his — admittedly heavy — prose, and, more importantly, in order to minimise the danger of misrepresenting his thoughts. 3

2. Biographical sketch4 Baudouin was descended from a long line of French aristocrats which went back to the 13th century and which died out in France by 1730. Some time be­ fore that date two of Baudouin's impoverished ancestors had migrated to Poland. One of the brothers, a colonel of artillery, became head of the foreign court-guard of King August II; the other founded the famous Hospital of the Infant Jesus for abandoned children in Warsaw. The colonel's son (Bau­ douin's great-grandfather) was chamberlain and advisor to the last Polish king, Stanislaw August Poniatowski. He became fairly well-known as a translator of Molière and author of numerous works on mesmerism. Baudouin's father was a land surveyor and his mother came from the landed gentry; they had twelve children and lived a life typical of 19th-century Polish intelligentsia. Baudouin himself was born in 1845 in Radzymin near Warsaw. Despite his French background, and the fact that he spent merely a fraction of his life in an independent Poland, the testimony of one of his daughters (Małachowska 1973) makes it clear that Baudouin thought of himself as a Pole. At the same 2

A subject treated in considerable detail in Adamska-Saiaciak (1996). Unless indicated otherwise, all translations into English are mine: AA-S. 4 This section is based on a number of published sources — including Baudouin (1897), Bulič (1897), Rozwadowski (1929), Jakobson (1929), Korbut (1930), Szober (1930), Uiaszyn (1934), Nitsch (1935), Vasmer (1947), Leont'ev (1960), Vinogradov (1963), Häusler (1968), Koerner (1972; 1973[1971]:138-147), Stankiewicz (1972), Malachowska (1973), Šaradzenidze (1980), Mugdan (1984), Rusek (1989), Stachurski (1989), Urbańczyk (1989) — and on personal communication with Prof. Magdalena Smoczyńska of the Jagiellonian Uni­ versity. 3

JAN BAUDOUIN DE COURTENAY

177

Picture of the young Baudouin de Courtenay

time, being passionately opposed to all forms of nationalism and institution­ alised religion, he insisted that every individual had the right to belong to the

178

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

nation and denomination of his choice, including no nation and no denomina­ tion.5 In 1862 Baudouin entered the historical-philological faculty of the newly opened Warsaw University (called Szkoła Główna "Main School"). When, two years later, the faculty split into three departments, he chose Slavic philol­ ogy. In his own view (Baudouin 1897:22), he was an autodidact from the start, pursuing, apart from curricular subjects, the study of Sanskrit, Lithua­ nian, and of the physiology of sounds. It was also around that time that he de­ veloped a profound interest in psychology, thanks mainly to contact with the works of Steinthal. After receiving his master's degree in 1866, Baudouin was sent abroad in order to prepare for a professorial career at the Szkola Główna. He went to Prague, Jena and Berlin, spending at most a semester in each place, but com­ ing into contact with some of the most prominent linguists and natural scien­ tists of his time. In the years 1868-1870 Baudouin studied in St. Petersburg under Izmail Ivanovic Sreznevskij (1812-1880), who encouraged his incipient interest in dialectology. In 1870 he spent some months in Leipzig, where, at the insti­ gation of his former fellow-student at Jena, August Leskien (1840-1916), he received a doctorate for "Einige Fälle der Wirkung der Analogie in der polni­ schen Declination" (which had appeared in 1868 in a journal edited by August Schleicher and Adalbert Kuhn). It was also in Leipzig that he published O drevne-pol'shorn jazyke do XIVgo stoletija (1870),6 a work for which he was awarded an M. A. by the University of St. Petersburg (the Warsaw degree was not recognised in Russia) and offered the post of privat-docent of comparative grammar. Baudouin might have preferred to go elsewhere, but in the end he had little choice. In 1871 the historical-philological faculty of Kiev University nomi­ nated him to the post of docent of comparative grammar, but the university council vetoed the decision on the grounds of the candidate's nationality. For the same reason, and despite earlier promises, he was not wanted at his War­ saw alma mater, by then completely Russified. Finally, having once held a scholarship from the Russian government, he could not accept the post of pro­ fessor of Slavic offered him by the Jagiellonian University in Cracow, which was then under Austro-Hungarian administration. This scenario of settling for second best was to be repeated more than once in the course of his subsequent career. 5 6

See excerpts from his letter to Arnošt Muka (1854-1932) in Besta (1962:440). English translations of all Polish and Russian titles are given in the References.

JAN BAUDOUIN DE COURTENAY

179

In 1872 the Russian Academy agreed to finance Baudouin's fieldwork on the Slovenian dialects of southern Austria and northern Italy, a study under­ taken at the suggestion of Sreznevskij. Apart from providing the eager young scholar with the opportunity to attend Ascoli's lectures in Milan and Leskien's lectures in Leipzig, the trip ultimately resulted in Opytfonetiki rez'janskix govorov (1875), a work which earned him a doctorate from St. Petersburg. Meanwhile, in 1874, the University of Kazan offered Baudouin the post of docent of comparative grammar. He moved there in the autumn of 1875, soon after defending his dissertation. In August 1876 he married Cezaria Pryfke, whom he had known since his student days in Warsaw. Baudouin was to stay in Kazan until 1883, although he never ceased to complain of the place's provincialism and his scholarly isolation. A brighter aspect of his stay there was that he managed to attract some highly motivated and talented students with whom he met regularly not only at the university, but also privately, during weekly seminars at which original papers were read and new developments in Western linguistics discussed. The group of enthusi­ asts included V. A. Bogorodickij, S. K. Bulič, W. Radloff, and, last but not least, Mikołaj Habdank Kruszewski (1851-1887), with whom, for a few sem­ inal years, Baudouin collaborated very closely. Unfortunately, towards the end of Baudouin's Kazan period, the views of the two scholars started to diverge; not long afterwards, Kruszewski became terminally ill and died at the age of thirty-six. Both facts filled Baudouin with a bitterness discernible in virtually all his subsequent writings in which reference is made to the so-called Kazan School. An even more personal tragedy had struck earlier: in 1878 Baudouin's wife, pregnant with twins, had died at her parents' house in Warsaw, where she had gone in the hope of having a safer delivery. In the academic year 1881-1882 Baudouin applied for a sabbatical, pro­ posing to devote it to a continuation of his fieldwork on Slovenian dialects. As it happened, he used the leave primarily to refresh his contacts with Western scholarship. He went to the Third International Congress of Geography in Venice, participated in several sessions of the Société de linguistique de Paris (meeting Saussure,7 Bréal and Havet, and receiving life membership in the society), and spent some time in Leipzig, working on his dialectological data and studying Celtic with Ernst Windisch (1843-1918). In January 1882 he married Romualda Bagnicka, a student of the historical-philological faculty at the St. Petersburg Higher School for Women. She was later to become a recognised author (mainly of historical and biographical works) and a cam7

See Sljusareva (1974) for information on the subsequent correspondence between the two scholars.

180

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

paigner for women's rights, particularly active in the fight for the admission of women to universities. The couple had five children, whose speech Baudouin studied systematically for 19 years (1885-1904).8 In 1883 they moved to Dorpat (now Tartu in Estonia), where Baudouin re­ ceived the newly founded Chair of Comparative Slavic Grammar. Owing to its geographical location (closer to the West) and to the fact that the university was German-speaking, Baudouin must have considered it to be an improvement upon Kazan, though still a far cry from what he aspired to.9 He taught general linguistics, Slavic and Lithuanian, studied Armenian, Estonian, Latvian and Arabic, and took courses in higher mathematics and speech pathology. It was during the Dorpat period that he wrote his most important theoretical studies, including Mikołaj Kruszewski, jego zycie iprace naukowe (1888-1889), O zadaniach językoznawstwa (1890), and O ogólnychprzyczynach zmian dźwiękowych (1890). In 1893, having worked in Russia for the twenty-five years entitling him to early retirement, Baudouin was finally able to transfer to Cracow, where he be­ came titular professor of comparative linguistics. His best-known publication from the period is the treatise on sound alternations, Proba teorji alternacyj fonetycznych (1894), whose German version was published the following year (Baudouin 1895). In addition to fulfilling his professorial duties at the Jagiellonian University and being a spectacularly active member of the Academy of Sciences, Bau­ douin organised private seminars for academics and advanced students of lin­ guistics, as well as presided over linguistic discussions open to university lec­ turers and distinguished secondary school teachers. His influence on the intel­ lectual life of Cracow was immense. Working at what was essentially a Polish university,10 surrounded once again by a group of dedicated students (includ­ ing Kazimierz Nitsch, Stanislaw Szober, Henryk Ułaszyn, and Tytus Benni — all later to become distinguished scholars in their own right), Baudouin was finally reasonably happy. Sadly, extending his stay in Cracow proved impos­ sible, since the ministry of education in Vienna, under some pressure from Baudouin's enemies at the university,11 refused to renew his five-year con8

For details, see Chmura-Klekotowa (1974:6). 9 From Baudouin's copious correspondence with his friends and colleagues, extending over many decades, we learn of his dashed hopes regarding various academic posts, one example being the chair of Slavic in Vienna (Seldeslachts & Swiggers 1999:283). 10 The Polish territories administered from Vienna enjoyed a considerable degree of cultural autonomy compared with those under Russian or Prussian rule, 11 Mostly conservative Catholics, resentful of his professed agnosticism and his passion for social reform.

JAN BAUDOUIN DE COURTENAY

181

tract. The immediate reason was, allegedly, a pamphlet in which Baudouin attacked the corrupt practices of the Austro-Hungarian administration; a less di­ rect reason may have been his interest in the Slavic languages, which was in­ terpreted by Hungarian nationalists as a symptom of dangerous 'panslavism'. As a result, Baudouin, still technically a Russian citizen, returned to St. Pe­ tersburg. In addition to general linguistics and phonetics, his interests now en­ compassed lexicology, lexicography and language typology; he also continued to delve deeper and deeper into the psychological substrate of linguistic phe­ nomena. In 1904 he published Szkice językoznawcze, an important collection of essays written in earlier periods and scattered in various Polish, Russian and German periodicals. In 1907 he entered into a polemic with the Leipzig profes­ sors Brugmann and Leskien (1907), declaring himself a staunch supporter of artificial languages. He published a number of textbooks for students of vari­ ous Slavic languages, as well as a highly successful introduction to linguistics, Vvedenie v jazykovedenije (1917[1909]). Much as in Kazan a quarter of a cen­ tury earlier, he again raised a group of first-rate linguists. One of his disciples, Lev Vladimirovic Scerba (1880-1944), was later to become the head of yet another linguistic school — known in Soviet historiography as the Leningrad School — whose major achievement was the development of Baudouin's ideas in phonology. However respected he may have been as a scholar, Baudouin's political sympathies did little to endear him to the tsarist regime. The situation became critical when in 1913, true to his lifelong commitment to social justice, he pub­ lished a pamphlet on the suppression of the rights of national minorities in the empire. The move resulted in his suspension from the university and a twoyear prison sentence. He was released from prison after a few months, with the outbreak of World War I, but all his personal property, including linguistic documentation gathered painstakingly over many years, was lost in the wake of the war and the Bolshevik Revolution, After the revolution Baudouin briefly resumed his duties at St. Petersburg. Upon the re-emergence of an independent Polish state in 1918 he took the Chair of Indo-European Linguistics at the University of Warsaw, where he was to remain for the rest of his life. During that final decade he continued to be active as a scholar, pedagogue, and indefatigable writer on ethical, social and political issues. His personal integrity had won him immense respect, par­ ticularly with those social groups in whose defence he had frequently risked his career: he was even the minorities' candidate for the presidency of Poland in 1922. Recognition of his professional achievement resulted in the appear­ ance in 1921 of the first Festschrift ever to be devoted to a Polish linguist.

182

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

In 1922 Baudouin spent some time in Prague, lecturing on the classifica­ tion of languages; in 1923, at the invitation of Holger Pedersen (1867-1953), he went to Copenhagen to give a lecture on the influence of language on worldview (published as Baudouin de Courtenay 1929). This was to be his last trip abroad. He died in Warsaw in 1929. 3. Baudouin's views on language In various places Baudouin characterised language in various ways. Al­ though the characterisations are not mutually exclusive, they are usually given in passing, which does not facilitate interpretation. To start with, language is not a (Schleicherian) organism, but one of the functions of an organism (Bau­ douin 1869). It is also defined, in a Humboldtian manner, as 'a universal reac­ tion of the spirit to the incitements or stimuli of the world' (1990[1903]: 335), the formative organ for thought, or a kind of world-view. Given its origin and functioning, language is — again in Humboldtian terms — both an ergon and energeia, the latter aspect being responsible for the ubiquity of change, the former justifying conscious attempts at language improvement on the part of its users. This ergon-cum-energeia nature of language underlies Baudouin's (1907) defence of artificial languages:12 Die Sprache ist weder ein in sich geschlossener Organismus, noch ein unantastbarer Abgott, sondern ein Werkzeug und eine Tätigkeit. Und der Mensch hat nicht nur das Recht, sondern geradezu die soziale Pflicht, seine Werkzeuge zweckmäßig zu ver­ bessern, oder sogar die schon bestehenden Werkzeuge durch andere bessere zu erset­ zen. (1907:394) Die Sprache ist wohl ein viel komplizierteres Gebilde, als z.B. ein Gedicht oder ein Musikstück, aber es ist auch gewissermaßen ein Kunstprodukt. Neben der 'kollek­ tiven' Schöpfung einer ganzen Sprachgenossenschaft ist auch hier eine individuelle schöpferische Tätigkeit hervorragender Erfinder denkbar. (1907:397)

In the nature-culture debate Baudouin would thus seem to stand some­ where in the middle, conceiving of language as both a function of the human organism and a cultural product. Baudouin was a uniformitarianist In his view, the essential features of lan­ guage, including its poly genetic origin, followed from the identity of the phy­ siological and psychological constitution of all humans. Uniformitarianism also lay at the heart of his belief that any language at any time must be a mixture of old and new elements, since this is what one finds in the living languages available for inspection.

12

Note that original emphasis has been retained in all quotations.

JAN BAUDOUIN DE COURTENAY

183

Most importantly, Baudouin's concept of language was psychological, as evidenced by his oft-repeated dictum that a language exists only in the minds of its speakers: Language is a psychical phenomenon through and through. The basis for all its mani­ festations is exclusively psychical, cerebral. (1904[1888—1889]: 165) In particular, Baudouin insisted that what he called "the people's feeling for the language" (Russ. čut' je jazyka narodom) was something real and objective­ ly verifiable: The people's feeling for the language is not a fiction, not a subjective delusion, but a real, positive category (function), which can be determined by its properties and ef­ fects, confirmed objectively, proven by facts. (1990[1871]:48) This psychological bias became more pronounced with time, reaching a culmination in Baudouin de Courtenay (1915). Contrary to Jakobson's claim (1971:417ff.), however, it is evident not only in Baudouin's post-Kazan period, but virtually in all his writings (cf. Bulič 1897:47). Although psychologism was exceedingly common in 19th-century linguis­ tics, Baudouin's own version of it appears somewhat idiosyncratic. In addition to drawing upon associative psychology, it also contains elements of ethnopsychology. 13 This has created a difficulty for later commentators, some of whom have dubbed Baudouin a 'psychologist', others a 'sociologist', 14 while still others — such as Čikobava (1959) or Leont'ev (1965) — have used both la­ bels in different combinations. If one insists on characterising his stance in those terms, the last option seems the most sensible one, Baudouin's 'psychologism' does indeed appeal' to be combined with a 'sociologism' of sorts. As already indicated, the latter is rather peculiar. For Baudouin there was no such thing as a collective soul or a collective language, no society other than the average of individuals, and no ethnopsychology in the literal sense. Unlike Steinthal, Lazarus or Wundt, he never talked of the national language as a manifestation and measure of the national spirit; in fact, he hardly ever talked of the national spirit at all. This is understandable, given his decisive rejection of all personification in science (cf. Mugdan 1984:145), as well as his pro­ found distaste for anything even vaguely suggestive of nationalism. 15 Still, like Steinthal, he looked upon language as the linguistic activity of groups of 13 This may have bothered those (including the ethnopsychologist Wundt himself) who re­ garded Herbartian associationism and Völkerpsychologie as incompatible; cf. Wundt's (1901) exchange with Delbrück (1901), 14 For details, see Saradzenidze (1980:32n.l3). 15 For some exemplary evidence, see Baudouin de Courtenay (1908); for more discussion see Rothstein (1989).

184

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

people making up a society. Accordingly, he approved of the central idea be­ hind Völkerpsychologie, viz. that individual psychology must be supplemented by sociological considerations. He gave the ususal raison d'être for a 'psy­ chology of the people', namely, that the development of such phenomena as language, myths, customs etc. did not normally depend on individual acts of will. One would look in vain for a coherent theory of language as a social phe­ nomenon among Baudouin's theoretical pronouncements, most of which do not go beyond slogans of the type: The existence of language is only possible within a society. (1904[1888-89]:128)

However, Baudouin's work with concrete linguistic data testifies to his profound awareness of the role of the social in language. As early as in the 1870 monograph, he is to be found making a largely successful attempt at re­ constructing the phonetic features of different Old Polish dialects on the basis of historical documents. What we now call socially conditioned synchronic variation figures prominently in the writings based on his own fieldwork. Analyses such as that of the loss of h or the variable realisation of word-final consonants in the Resia dialects (1875 and many later mentions) distinctly re­ semble subsequent work in sociolinguistics, a discipline of which Baudouin is rightly considered to have been a forerunner (see, e.g., Rothstein 1975, Stone 1989). In sum, Baudouin seems to have realised that the language-society nexus was far more complicated than allowed for in current linguistic theory. Para­ doxically, he paid a high price for his innovative frame of mind. It seems o b ­ vious — if only from a cursory glance at Jakobson's writings on the Kazan School — that Baudouin's "precocious, premature and unappreciated discov­ ery of what is now called sociolinguistics and, following from that, his im­ mersion in what is now called psycholinguistics" (Olmsted 1989:26) proved damaging to his reputation as a structuralist, costing him the loss of influence over scholars who embraced this new direction in linguistics. 4. Baudouin's views on linguistics Baudouin was distinctly unhappy with the natural-historical dichotomy, so popular in his time in the classification of the sciences: Contrasting 'historicalness' with 'naturalness' is illogical, and smacks of contrast­ ing, e.g., length with youth, or weight with colour. (1904[1888-1889]:127)

Linguistics was for him a discipline sui generis. When forced to think in terms of the simplistic dichotomy, he suggested that linguistics was a psycho­ logical-historical discipline by virtue of its attitude to the object investigated,

JAN BAUDOUIN DE COURTENAY

185

whereas its method, as well as its whole internal organisation, brought it close to the natural sciences (Baudouin 1963[1869]:37; 1881b:278). Believing firmly in the psychological character of language, he stressed the links between linguistics and psychology, demanding that all linguists be fa­ miliar with the principles of psychology (Baudouin 1904[1901]:6). Another issue that figures prominently in his reflections on the nature of linguistics as a science is the relation between the linguistic past and present. It has often been suggested that the synchronic/descriptive and the diachronic study of language are equally important in Baudouin's work. This is true enough, if we take his division of linguistics to be analogous to that champi­ oned later by de Saussure. Such an assumption is wholly justified for a large part of Baudouin's work. However, in a number of writings — e.g., in Bau­ douin (1889, 1890, 1897, or 1899) — we see an attempt to introduce a three­ fold division of linguistics, corresponding to the three interrelated aspects of language: the static, the dynamic, and the historical. None of the three is co­ extensive with either half of the Saussurean dichotomy. Baudouin's statics is a limiting case of dynamics, an abstraction (for the purposes of description) from the real behaviour of languages, which exhibit change also in their synchrony: In language, as in nature in general, everything is alive, everything is moving and changing. All stillness, rest, stagnation, is only apparent: a special case of move­ ment in conditions of minimal change. The statics of language is but a special case of its dynamics [...] (1897:34)

Dynamics is the central part of linguistics, the one which reflects the everchanging reality of language and looks for the causes of the changeability. The third member of the triad, history, would seem to be a mere chronicle, a noncausal account of the sequence of events in the tribal/national language. Bau­ douin declared history to be marginal in his work, since his professed concern was with development, i.e., with what can only happen in the individual lan­ guage. In practice, the investigation of tribal/national languages played a much more important role in his work than he was willing to admit. In Baudouin (1922), for instance, he deals with the history of the (average, collective etc.) Polish language, and not with the development of the languages of individual Poles. Little is altered by his insistence that the history of a language equals the history of mental representations, as in the following: [...] what is the internal history of the Polish language a history of? It is by no means a history of transient phonetic-acoustic or graphic-visual phenomena, indis­ pensable for interpersonal interaction in the domain of human language or speech, but a history of the representations corresponding to those phenomena and stored in individual human souls. (1983[1922]:101)

186

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

In sum, regarding the synchrony ~ diachrony issue, it is probably fair to say that, while one cannot equate Baudouin's and de Saussure's views on the matter, one must not overestimate their differences either. In both cases the un­ derlying division is between the unchanging (Baudouin's statics, Saussure's synchrony) and the changing (Baudouin's dynamics, Saussure's diachrony). Superimposed upon this distinction is Baudouin's notion of history, which comprises not only change, but also persistence: change and lack of change are thus conceived as complementary.16 5. Baudouin's contribution to phonology Of all the topics connected with Baudouin this is the one most thoroughly dealt with in the existing literature, both in historiographically oriented studies and in strictly phonological ones.17 While there may be differences of opinion regarding the extent of Baudouin's importance for any other area of linguistics, his contribution to the development of phonology appeal's undisputed. Already in the Kazan period Baudouin distinguished between what he called 'anthropophonics' (roughly, today's phonetics) and 'phonetics' (corre­ sponding to later (morpho)phonology). Subsequently, he tried to disambiguate the latter term by talking of 'psychophonetics'. Anthropophonics dealt with sounds and psychophonetics with phonemes. Alongside the distinction be­ tween these two aspects of the study of speech sounds, Baudouin insisted on the yet more basic separation of the study of sounds/phonemes from the study of graphemes (a term he himself coined). The issues are discussed, for in­ stance, in his early lecture programmes (Baudouin 1876 and 1877-78) and in his mature work on sound laws (Baudouin 1910). Like most pioneers, Baudouin did not always use his own distinctions con­ sistently. Thus, one occasionally finds him using the terms 'sound' and 'pho­ neme' interchangeably, which has not escaped the attention of later phonologists (e.g., Jakobson 1971[1960]:420). The elaboration of the phoneme concept dates back to the time when Bau­ douin and Kruszewski worked in tandem, which makes it difficult, if not im­ possible, to assess their respective contributions to this fundamental develop-

16

For a diagram illustrating the synchrony-diachrony and statics-dynamics perspectives, see Lencek(1989:75n.6). 17 Despite some reservations expressed below, and despite the subsequent appearance of a number of works devoted to the topic, Jakobson's (1960) treatment still remains unsurpassed. 18 Baudouin's creations, side by side with dozens of terms which were never to be used out­ side the Kazan circle, included also such felicitous coinages as 'morpheme'.

JAN BAUDOUIN DE COURTENAY

187

ment in structuralist phonology.19 The relevant publications appeared in the same year (Baudouin 1881a, Kruszewski 1881a,b), and both scholars readily acknowledged their debt to each other. Despite his subsequent disappointment with Kruszewski's major work, Ocerk nauki o jazyke (1883), and long after he had become disenchanted with the whole Kazan era, Baudouin continued to pay tribute to his late student, especially as regards the logical organisation and orderly presentation of their common findings. It is not unlikely that, had he acted differently, the part played by Kruszewski would have fallen into obliv­ ion. Pursuing the age-old question of the relation between sound and meaning, Baudouin and Kruszewski arrived at the concept of the phoneme as a meaningdifferentiating unit through the study of phonetic alternations. Their notion of alternation is therefore sketched briefly in the following section. 5.1 Alternations The topic of alternations occupied Baudouin for half a century, from his article on the s ~ ch alternation in Polish (Baudouin 1868b) until his introduc­ tion to linguistics (Baudouin 1917[11909]); his 1894 monograph (German ver­ sion: Baudouin 1895) contains the fullest exposition of his views on the sub­ ject. In that work an alternation is defined as the coexistence (das Nebeneinan­ der) of phonetically different but etymologically related sounds. Three basic classes of alternations are distinguished: 1) neophonetic alternations (diver­ gences), 2) paleophonetic or traditional alternations, and 3) psychophonetic al­ ternations (correlations). Divergences result from the influence upon a sound of its phonetic context; their members, divergents, are combinatory variants of the same sound. Traditional alternations are residues of divergences, i.e., they attest to past operation of sound changes which are no longer active. Finally, in correlations phonetic differences perpetuated by tradition come to be utilised 'for psychical purposes' (1990[1894]:143), i.e., as signals of morphological or semasiological distinctions. Another property exclusive to alternations of the third type is their 'vitality', manifested in the analogical extension of their members (correlatives) to new words. The boundaries between the three classes are not sharp, since alternations of one type gradually evolve into those of another. The usual scenario is as 19 It has been known since at least Jakobson (1971 [1960] : 396) that Baudouin and Kru­ szewski acquired the term from Saussure (1879), who got it from A. Dufriche-Desgenettes (1804-1878), possibly via Havet. It should be clear, though, that it is not the word 'pho­ neme' I am concerned with, but the concept.

188

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

follows: with the obliteration of the phonetic context (caused, among others, by the gradual transformation of a formerly combinatory phonetic process into a spontaneous one), a divergence is transformed into a regular, traditional alternation, which eventually acquires a morphological/semasiological func­ tion, thus turning into a correlation. With the passage of time, the resulting cor­ relation tends to lose its psychological motivation, changing back into a tra­ ditional alternation. What at a given time still constitutes a psychophonetic alternation for one individual may already be a traditional alternation for an­ other. The study of alternations was one of the manifestations of Baudouin's con­ viction that linguists should work with living languages prior to investigating dead ones (see, e.g., Baudouin 1897:34). Unlike with the Neogrammarians, this was not simply a theoretical postulate largely devoid of practical conse­ quences, but a principle Baudouin adhered to consistently. At the same time, the theory of alternations had important consequences for Baudouin's conceptualisation of language change. He tried to introduce some order into the current treatments of the subject, arguing that one should not mistake currently operating processes for historical changes, or, in general, in­ voke the terminology of historical linguistics without making sure that what one was dealing with really was the result of a historical process. In his view, the only type of phonetic change occurring in the linguistic present resulted from the discrepancy between the speaker's phonetic intention and its realisa­ tion, thus amounting to no more than a mere substitution: [T]he substitution of an actual pronunciation for an intended one is the only strictly phonetic change, the only phonetic 'transition' which can take place in the linguistic present. That, however, which is usually called phonetic 'change', or 'transition' of one sound into another, is, from the objective point of view, merely coexistence, or alternation. (1990[1894]:167) As an example of alternation — as opposed to substitution — Baudouin cited pairs such as the Polish k~ č in ręka "hand" ~ rqczka "little hand", where the appearance of c could not be due to a discrepancy between the intended and the actual, since speakers of Polish could easily pronounce a k in the relevant context. Unlike substitutions, alternations are results of historical changes. This is not to say that the whole issue boils down to an either-or choice between 'syn­ chronic' vs. historical processes. The occurrence of different sounds in related morphemes may be an instance of a simple substitution or a reflex of a histor­ ical change, but it may also be due to both factors, i.e., to a process which started in the past, but is still operative in the present. Baudouin insisted that

JAN BAUDOUIN DE COURTENAY

189

using the cover term Lautwandel or Lautübergang to describe all these phe­ nomena would gloss over important differences between them. The immediate response to these proposals was lukewarm at best. Bau­ douin and Kruszewski failed to convince their contemporaries that the distinc­ tion between sound alternation20 and sound change was worth maintaining, as is evident from the reviews of Baudouin (1895) by Lloyd (1896), Meringer (1896) and Wagner (1896), or, earlier, from the review of Kruszewski (1881a) by Brückner (1881) and of Kruszewski (1881b) by no lesser a scholar than Bmgmann (1882). Many years had to pass before the value of the concept of alternation came to be appreciated (see, e.g., Kilbury 1974, Klausenburger 1978). 5.2 The phoneme As indicated above, the idea of sound alternations served Baudouin and Kruszewski as a point of departure for distinguishing between sounds and phonemes. The phoneme was, for both of them, a phonetic unit (as opposed to the sound, an anthropophonic unit) which constituted the invariant part of the word. At first, they viewed phonemes as prototypes of sound correspondences in related languages (i.e., rather like Saussure in 1879), as well as prototypes underlying sound alternations in a given language (see, e.g., Kruszewski 1995 [1881b]: 14n.5). Most of the time, however, their attention was focussed on the synchronic plane, the phoneme being defined as: [...] the sum of generalised anthropophonic properties of a given phonetic part of the word, indivisible in the process of establishing the links of coreelation within one language and the links of correspondence within several languages. In other words: the phoneme is what is phonetically indivisible from the point of view of the comparability of phonetic parts of the word. (Baudouin 188la:69) There is a much commented upon difference between this definition and a later one, which reads: The phoneme = a uniform representation from the phonetic world, which comes into existence in the mind through the psychical fusion of impressions obtained by pro­ nouncing one and the same sound = the psychical equivalent of a sound, (Baudouin 1990[1894]:153)

The shift from defining the phoneme in functional terms to conceiving it as a psychological unit has generally been treated, especially by representatives of the Prague School, as a sign of regression on Baudouin's part This assess­ ment, entirely typical of early structuralism, is also evident, for example, in the 20 The term 'Lautalternation' was first used by Baudouin's colleague, Radloff (1882). In their earlier works Baudouin and Kruszewski talked of 'Lautabwechslung' or 'Lautwechsel'.

190

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

relative indifference to Sapir's psychological definition of the phoneme three decades later (Sapir 1921, 1925, 1933), or in Trubetzkoy's abandonment of his earlier mentalist approach (Trubetzkoy 1929, 1933) in favour of a func­ tionalist one (Trubetzkoy 1939). Although the advent of generative phonology to some extent legitimised the mentalist treatment, it is probably fair to say that in the end the functional approach proved more fruitful. Still, one ought to be aware that the definitions of the phoneme Baudouin proposed at different points in his career differ more in theory than in practice: no matter which definition is adopted, the units identified as phonemes will turn out largely to be the same, and, more often than not, identical to the units arrived at through later phonemic analysis. A detailed examination of the reasons which led Baudouin to concentrating on the psychological aspects of the phoneme falls outside the scope of the pre­ sent article. Suffice it to say that there is little evidence to support Jakobson's (1971[1960]:419) claim that the move was "fundamentally just camouflage to justify his discoveries in the eyes of his contemporaries", who, for the most part, stressed the dependence of linguistics on psychology and favoured the genetic approach. Contrary to Jakobson (1967), there is also no indication that towards the end of his life Baudouin reverted to the functional understanding of the phoneme championed in the Kazan period. Such claims run deeply against what we know about Baudouin's lifelong allegiance to the psychologi­ cal interpretation of the facts of language and about his scholarly and personal integrity. In my view, there is no reason to disbelieve what he himself said on the topic, and that hardly leaves any doubts as to his genuine conviction — mistaken as it may have been — that the psychological approach to the pho­ neme was an improvement upon his own earlier treatments of the subject. 5.3 Distinctive features21 Although in the early stages of Baudouin's and Kruszewski's work one of the defining features of the phoneme was its indivisibility, the later Baudouin (e.g., 1910) proposed to resolve the unit into still smaller components: the sim­ plest indivisible mental representations of single articulatory actions and of the acoustic impressions evoked by those actions. He called these two types of re­ presentations kinemas and akusmas, and defined the phoneme accordingly as "a complex of kinemas and the corresponding akusmas, joined into one whole by their simultaneity, with an inseparable beginning and end" (1990[1910]: 416).

21

See Ruszkiewicz (1973) for more on Baudouin's treatment of distinctive features.

JAN BAUDOUIN DE COURTENAY

191

The immediate reason behind this resolution of the phoneme into what were later called distinctive features was the need to disambiguate the notion of sound change, which Baudouin believed to be hopelessly misunderstood by most of his contemporaries. He argued that representing phonemes — and, eo ipso, their changes — as complexes of kinemas and akusmas would help the linguist to see what really changed in the course of a sound change. Rather than saying, for instance, that b has changed into p, one would have to say that "the group of kinemas and akusmas characteristic of the phoneme associated with the grapheme b has been replaced by a different group of kinemas and akusmas, characteristic of the phoneme associated with the grapheme p " (1990[1910]:416). A schematic presentation of that statement, with all the properties of b listed on the left and those of p on the right, allows one to see that the kinemas and akusmas are identical on both sides, except that the akusma of voicing (with its underlying kinema) has changed into the akusma of voicelessness. Baudouin also pointed out that, apart from clearly identifying the changing elements of a sound in a particular sound change, his way of representing pho­ nemes facilitated the identification of factors responsible for the varying de­ grees of changeability of different sounds. The more complex a phoneme in terms of its composition, he argued, the greater the likelihood of its succumb­ ing to change: p, b, t or d, for instance, are more stable than their palatalised counterparts. Also, fairly rare or unusual combinations of kinemas and akus­ mas — such as r or / — are more prone to change than commoner combina­ tions of features, present in whole series of phonemes. Interestingly, Baudouin does not seem to have regarded the reasoning be­ hind his proposal as particularly innovative, as the following quote makes clear: All this has long been known to all thinking linguists. All I am trying to demon­ strate is the desirability of representing the simplest articulatory-auditory elements by means of stable technical terms and symbols. (1990[1910]:418)

'All thinking linguists' probably included scholars such as Sweet or Passy, who shared Baudouin's concern with the optimal graphic representation of sound. Since the late 1870s Baudouin had recognised the need to develop two systems of transcription, differing in the amount of phonetic detail in­ cluded; around 1900 this became the subject of abundant correspondence between him and Henry Sweet (see Jakobson 1971[1960]:424-425).

192

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

6. Baudouin's views on language change Like most of his contemporaries, Baudouin talked of language change in terms of sound change and analogy, and had to take a stand on the notorious controversy over sound laws. The following two sections summarise his thinking on the subject. 6.1 Analogy Baudouin's pioneering study on analogy (1868a), published in German in the same year as Scherer (1868), was hardly noticed by his contemporaries. One of the reasons for this lack of recognition was certainly the fact that the data for the study came from Polish; a contributing factor may have been Schleicher's editorial intervention, which consisted in removing (without the author's knowledge) the whole theoretical introduction to the study. What was left of the article just about succeeded in dispelling the myth of the existence of vocalic stems in Polish declension. In all probability, however, without the omitted theoretical preface it was hard to appreciate the innovative character of Baudouin's analysis, especially his argument that the only valid criterion for morphological boundary placement was the state of the language at a given time, or, more precisely, 'the linguistic feeling of the speakers'. Ever since this early work Baudouin's view of analogy was in all important respects identical to that championed later by the Neogrammarians (who, as is well known, acknowledged their debt to Scherer) and sharply opposed to the teaching of Schleicher. In short, Baudouin stressed the universality of analogy, insisting that its operation should be recognised not only for contemporary, but also for past (including pre-historical) stages of languages. 6.2 Sound change and sound laws Baudouin's writings from all periods abound in statements questioning the reality of sound changes and sound laws, for example: There are no phonetic changes or 'phonetic laws' (Lautgesetze), nor can there be any, if only for the reason that the human voice in general, and the sounds of language in particular, do not have, and cannot have, any continuity. A pronounced word or sen­ tence disappears as soon as it has been pronounced. There is no physical connection between one utterance and the next. The link between successive utterances of a given sound, a given phonetic word, or, finally, the whole of phonetic speech (i.e., the speech that is heard and perceived by ear) is constituted by representations, memory images (Erinnerungsbilder), which in the course of pronouncing become the stimuli for moving the organs of speech in the appropriate manner. (1990[1894]: 165-166)

JAN BAUDOUIN DE COURTENAY

193

As for changes (as distinct from laws), what Baudouin rejected was merely the idea of a sound change as a synchronic process (cf. 5.1 above); the issue might thus be considered to be partly terminological. His rejection of neogrammarian sound laws, on the other hand, was something much more serious. It followed from his insistence on distinguishing between individual and social language, his conviction that sounds have no continuity, and, above all, his belief in the psychological character of language.22 For Baudouin, the notion of Lautgesetze would only appear to make sense, [i]f we replace the articulatory-auditory representation permanently present in individ­ uals with its transient, short-lived manifestation during inter-individual intercourse, if we forget about the unfilled breaks between the individual psyches, if, finally, we as­ sume that 'sound changes' (Lautwandel) are effected in and of themselves, indepen­ dently of articulatory-auditory representations. (1990[1910]:413)

He argued further that the assumption of an uninterrupted, continuous exis­ tence of sounds was patently wrong. There are no such sounds, and that which does not exist, but is merely a transitory manifestation of that which does, can­ not change. Neither sounds nor words are capable of phonetic development. What can and does develop are the speakers' mental representations of linguis­ tic units, as well as the skill of their articulatory and auditory organs. Conse­ quently, the only real Lautgesetze are the laws of acoustics, which, by virtue of being applicable to all (including nonlinguistic) sounds, belong together with other laws of the physical world. Linguists have been misled into postulating specifically linguistic sound laws by the stability of graphemic representations, which obscures the gradual nature of change: A uniform representation of a letter, i.e., a uniform grapheme, [...] furnishes the grounds for regarding the corresponding representation of a sound as something uni­ form. However, any representation of a sound, any phoneme, must, by the nature of things, be broad, unstable and changeable. Related to the failure to distinguish be­ tween letters and sounds, graphemes and phonemes, is another misunderstanding in the thinking on 'sound laws', The overwhelming majority of linguists are unable to understand that the relations of dependence, subsumable under the notion of a law, can only be present here in vacillations and changes which are imperceptible, micro­ scopic. Between the two end-points of the historical changes which have led, for in­ stance, from the k of the linguistic ancestors to the c of the linguistic descendants [...] there is no relationship that could be captured by a formula of a law of develop­ ment. However, on the way along which a whole series of generations has proceeded in this direction, one must assume an infinite number of discrete points, such that each successive stage depends directly on the conditions of individual linguistic thought and social intercourse. (1990[1910]:414-415)

22

For a more extensive discussion than is possible here, see Adamska-Salaciak (1997).

194

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

The distinction Baudouin was after seems to me to be analogous to the dis­ tinction between diachronic correspondence and diachronic change introduced by Andersen (1972). A correspondence is an epiphenomenal result of a change, often first identifiable on the basis of a difference in spelling. Changes are what happens in the linguistic microcosm, while correspondences are what historical linguists have access to, and what they often perceive as regular enough to be deserving of the name 'law'. Given enough time and a large enough territory, changes do indeed result in regular correspondences: [...] the psychical processes which accompany the activation and manifestation of phonemes, as well as social processes [...], lead to historical-phonetic changes in the average language. The results of those changes, ascertained statistically, exhibit regu­ larity over vast territories and long time stretches. (1990[1910]:443-444)

Baudouin himself was much more interested in micro- than in macrochange. He called the former change in actu and claimed it was reflected, among others, in the 'multilingualism' of all members of any speech commu­ nity, as well as in the differences observable in the speech of successive gen­ erations, or in the speech of one and the same individual over the years.23 He refused to be impressed by superficial generalisations about secondary macrochanges: The 'exceptionlessness' characteristic of such phonetic correspondences and generali­ sations, pompously christened 'sound laws', is on a par with the Taws' or generalisa­ tions of meteorology [...]. It is simply the ascertaining of that which occurs on the surface of the phenomenal world. The actual laws', the laws of dependence, are hid­ den deep down, in a complicated tangle of most varied factors. (1990[1910]:416)

Unlike for some other critics of the neogrammarian dogma, such as, for example, Schuchardt (1885), for Baudouin the rejection of the sound law con­ cept did not mean embracing the other extreme, i.e., treating all change as the result of more or less conscious imitation. Phonetic change usually proceeds slowly and imperceptibly, he claimed, "so that fashion and conscious imitation are out of the question" (1990[1910]:447). 6.3 Causation Like his views on sound laws, Baudouin's ideas on the causes of language change remained remarkably stable over the years. The fullest treatment of the topic is given in Baudouin (1890), but remarks similar to those quoted below can be found in his writings from different periods.

23

Cf. his observations on the changes in his own pronunciation (e.g., Baudouin 1990 [1910]:433).

JAN BAUDOUIN DE COURTENAY

195

It is hardly surprising, in view of Baudouin's psychological bent, that he considered the individual brain to be the main locus for change and, at the same time, a guarantee of language maintenance: The nervous centre, the brain, is characterised in relation to language by the ability to bring about coiTespondence, harmony, between content and form, that is, to bring closer in form what is close in content, and, conversely, to bring closer in content what is close in form, as well as to differentiate in form what is different in content, and, conversely, to differentiate in content what is different in form. Here resides both a guarantee of maintaining the state of the language, as well as a stimulus for change. (1904[1890]:57) Broadly speaking, change in language is due to the following factors: 1) The linguistic stock of form-content combinations arises in an unplanned fashion, through chance associations of images; this results in the simultaneous excess and shortage of means of expression, both conducive to change. 2) Linguistic intercourse is indirect (the linguistic images of one individual must be transmitted to the 'psychical reservoirs' of other individuals), which leads to the loss of form-content connections; when etymological links are for­ gotten, words become isolated and more susceptible to change. 3) Creative individuals enrich both the resources of their own language and, through contact with others, those of the social language. 4) Due to the haphazard manner in which its resources accumulate, lan­ guage may sometimes impede logical thinking; this leads to changes which make language more orderly and logical. 5) The universal tendency of human thought to become increasingly more abstract leads to changes of meaning through metaphor, "through making words, qua linguistic vehicles for concepts, more abstract, [...] through the as­ sociation of images according to similarity, in a certain fixed direction" (1904 [1890]:58). It should be clear from the above that the factors which bring about change at the same time determine its direction(s). In the most general terms, change is governed by the tendency to minimise effort in three areas: articulation, percep­ tion, and 'cerebration', The underlying assumption is that, in relation to lan­ guage, the human mind works in three directions: from the centre outwards (the work of motor nerves, the muscular work involved in speaking, i.e., phonation), from the outside inwards (the work of sensory nerves, listening, directing attention to what is heard, i.e., audition and perception), and in the very centre of the brain (the work of the nerves in the central nervous system, attention, memory, linguistic thinking, or, in Baudouin's terminology, 'cere­ bration'). Each of the three aspects of our mental work is subject to the ten­ dency to minimise effort. Accordingly, any change motivated by this tendency

196

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

will proceed in one or more of the three directions. The tendencies sometimes counteract one another, [a]nd a perfectly natural thing it is, too, since [...] [a] 11 three types of linguistic work take place during every single act of speaking. No wonder, then, that tendencies in one direction may be paralysed by tendencies in another direction, so that, for in­ stance, the effects of the tendency to facilitate pronunciation manifest themselves only insofar as there is no interference from the tendency towards clarity and towards preserving links among forms which constitute one family. (1904[1890]:63)

Baudouin's examples of the operation of the three basic tendencies of change are of the following kind: 1. F (changes resulting from the tendency towards ease of phonation): simplification of consonant clusters, final vowel reduction, dissimilation of liquids (as in the Polish barwierz > balwierz "barber"). 2. F(-C) (as above, unless the tendency towards ease of cerebration inter­ venes): palatalisation of Polish s and z (to ś and ź respectively) before palatal p ' , b', m', w', except when the s and z are still perceived as pre­ positional in origin (thus śpi "is sleeping", weźmie "will take" (3rd sg.), but zbierać "to gather", zmiana "change", spisać'"to write down"). 3. F+A (simultaneous operation of the tendencies towards ease of phona­ tion and ease of audition): failure to pronounce the Polish i (dark /) sylla­ ble-finally, e.g., in niósł "he carried" or jabtko "apple", 4. F+A(-C) (as above, unless the change is arrested by the tendency to­ wards ease of cerebration): f, lost in similar contexts, was preserved in picha "louse", where it was "felt by the Poles to constitute an indispensable phonetic part of the word"24 (1904[1890]:69). 5. C (changes resulting from the tendency towards ease of cerebration, i.e., towards "the removal of redundant differences which violate [...] the agreement between content and form" (1904[1890]:72)): loss of grammati­ cal gender, adoption of the same case ending for several declensions, rise of prepositions and articles. A finer distinction needs to be made in the case of changes in meaning mo­ tivated by the ease of cerebration, since there one has to deal with two conflict­ ing aspects of the relevant tendency: the tendency towards poetic creativity, which makes language more concrete and lively, and the tendency towards the isolation of individual words, which facilitates logical and abstract thinking. Depending on which tendency is favoured on a given occasion, the human mind executes a simplification in either one or the other direction: While metaphor is a mnemonic device, which facilitates the remembering of words through association by similarity [...], the forgetting of etymological links between 24

Presumably because of the threat of homonymy with pcha "is pushing".

JAN BAUDOUIN DE COURTENAY

197

words whose semantic affinity has become obscured adds to their clarity, distinctness and psychical force. As a result, words become more precise symbols, less unstable than they used to be when their etymological connection with other words was still felt. (1904[1890]:76) Several observations are worth making at this point. First, when Bau­ douin's contemporaries talked of ease as a factor determining the direction of change, they usually meant ease of pronunciation alone. Baudouin's treatment of the issue resembles the much later, and much better known, 'principle of economy' advocated by Martinet (1955). Secondly, Baudouin's discussion of the desired harmony between content and form amounts to invoking one of the fundamental principles of language organisation, viz. the principle of 'one meaning, one form'. Another prominent motif in his discussion of the ease of cerebration is the conflict between the tendency towards greater iconicity (metaphor, folk etymology) and the tendency towards greater symbolisation (obliteration of etymologies). This is a theme familiar from many present-day treatments of change, notably those carried out with the apparatus of Peirceantype semiotics (cf., e.g., Anttila 1989). Occasionally, Baudouin makes yet another distinction: between causation in the absolute sense and causation 'in a given state of the language'. The for­ mer is responsible for the appearance of alternations (it is in this sense that the cause of an alternation is always phonetic), while the latter ensures the contin­ ued presence of alternations (particularly, though not exclusively, traditional ones) in the speech of an individual or a group of individuals: In a given state of the language, only tradition (transmission by some members of a speech community to other members of that community) can be considered the cause of an alternation [...]. We have learnt to speak the way we do from our surroundings and from our ancestors — this explanation is entirely sufficient. (1990[1894]:210) In general, questions concerning the appearance and evolution of different alternation types are directly related to the larger question of the mechanisms of change. According to Baudouin, it is the least strongly motivated (i.e., paleophonetic or traditional) alternations which carry within them the seeds of change. Supported by tradition alone, they are most likely to fall victim to the conflict of individual strivings and needs with that tradition: Psychical associations, which secure the preservation of traditional alternations, are constantly in collision with the tendency to eliminate those phonetic differences which are justified neither by individual anthropophonic tendencies nor by individual psychical needs. (1990[1894]:224) The conflict is typically resolved in one of the following ways: 1) the alter­ nation in question may be eliminated through the replacement of one of the al-

198

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

ternants with the other; 2) it may be eliminated through the loss of the feeling of an etymological relationship between the relevant morphemes; 3) it may evolve into a psychophonetic alternation (correlation) through endowing the difference between the alternants with a morphological or semasiological func­ tion (1990[1894]:256-257). The winner in cases 1) and 2) is the tendency to­ wards 'one meaning, one form'; in 3) tradition prevails, but only if new asso­ ciations are formed. In the long run, a traditional alternation will either disap­ pear or change into a correlation. One could find numerous examples of quotes illustrating Baudouin's ideas on causation, but they would hardly affect the picture sketched above. Change is consistently presented in his writings as a reaction to a situation of conflict (between different tendencies, needs etc.), with the solution to the conflict be­ ing unpredictable in advance, since it depends on which tendency prevails on a given occasion. 6.4 Linguistic innovations Baudouin seems to have believed that all languages abound in potential in­ novations resulting from the reinterpretation by language users of the linguistic material available to them. The following is one of the clearest formulations of this thought: The normal functioning of objective linguistic thinking consists in continuous and incessant assimilation, in [...] bringing the incomprehensible back to life by linking it to the comprehensible, in [...] endowing it with meaning and subsuming it under known types. Objective linguistic thinking is characterised by the constant joining of words and their meaningful parts into groups which share a common semasiologi­ cal image, i.e. by constant 'etymologising'. We only notice it, however, when a word's lack of meaning connection [to other words] activates the tendency to endow it with meaning in one way or another. Objective linguistic thinking is characterised by the joining of linguistic forms into groups/types which share a common, morphologically laden, phonetic (articulatory-auditory) image. We only notice it, however, when this joining leads to the rise of unexpected forms, of neologisms. At any time, therefore, we should be prepared for the surfacing of latent 'folk etymology' and latent 'analogy'. (1983[1915]:63-64)

In addition to saying what it does, the quote illustrates a rather exasperating habit of Baudouin's: an original thought is expressed in passing,25 probably judged by the author to be self-evident, and never developed in enough detail. A careful reader, however, might agree that it does not seem too far-fetched to 25

In this particular case, in a book on the Polish language, and not, say, a theoretical work on language change.

JAN BAUDOUIN DE COURTENAY

199

compare the scenario sketched by Baudouin with Andersen's (1973) notion of abductive innovation in evolutive change. As those familiar with Andersen's model will recall, this type of innovation remains covert — or, as Baudouin would have said, 'latent' — unless it is followed by a deductive innovation which makes the reanalysis explicit. 6.5 The language system. What most distinguishes Baudouin's approach to change — especially sound change — from the atomism dominant in the linguistics of his time is probably his recognition of the role played in change by the system of the lan­ guage which undergoes it. Already in his 1870 master's thesis and in his early university lectures he pointed out that physiologically identical sounds in dif­ ferent languages could differ in value depending on their relations to the re­ maining sounds of the same language, i.e., to the sound system of that lan­ guage. Such differences have important consequences for the historical devel­ opment of sounds: [...] one must not forget about the possibility of one and the same sound in different languages developing differently [...] in connection with the difference of the whole sound system. [...] German s may have developed into r due to the fact that the whole sound system of German was at that time completely different from the sound system of Slavic, where s did not undergo a similar change. (1904[1888-89]: 165)

Other changes with which Baudouin illustrated "the mutual relationship and interdependence of the details of the phonetic system" include, for instance, the rise of nasal vowels in open-syllable languages, followed by their gradual loss after the languages in question develop closed syllables (1990[1910]:445). Baudouin went further than viewing individual changes as system-depen­ dent: he believed that even notions such as economy and ease were relative to the language system in question. This thought was formulated in response to Delbrück's (1902:296-297) objections against appealing to economy as an ex­ planatory device. Delbrück's question was, roughly, how to account for de­ velopments which are the exact opposites of changes associated with minimi­ sation of effort, e.g., in a situation when we find both the change ai > ei and the change ei > ai. Baudouin proposed that one must allow for the relative na­ ture of ease. The following was his example: For many people, the phonemes associated with the graphemes ƒ and x (ch) are quite easy, while for the Lithuanians they sometimes constitute such an insurmountable difficulty that they have to be replaced by p and k [respectively]. (1990[1910]:421)

200

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

He immediately added that there was more to minimisation of effort than facilitating pronunciation, referring the reader to the threefold notion of econ­ omy introduced in his earlier work (cf. 6.3). With reference to morphological and semantic change, Baudouin seems to have been of the opinion that, as a language develops, its systematic character increases, primarily through the subsumption of originally isolated forms un­ der different form types (cf. 6.4). Authors such as Leont'ev (1960:14) have taken this to be one of the most important features of his treatment of change. The issue may not be self-evident, since the notion of the linguistic system in most of Baudouin's work seems to be taken for granted rather than argued for explicitly. As a result, some scholars have underplayed its relevance for Bau­ douin, while others have tended to exaggerate it. While I obviously cannot agree with the opinion that "there is no indication that Baudouin ever conceived of language as a system in the manner in which Saussure formulated it" (Koerner 1973:140), I think one should also be careful with statements to the effect that "Baudouin's understanding of language as a system is considerably deeper and more seminal for contemporary linguistics than the notion of sys­ tem proposed by de Saussure" (Berezin 1976:190). What we can be reason­ ably sure of, given the evidence presented in this section, is that Berezin was right in one respect, namely, with regard to the importance of the role of the language system in language change. 6.6 Goals of change Baudouin appreciated the role played in change by both internal and exter­ nal factors, recognising what is now called the multiple causation of change. Most importantly, he believed that the causes of language change could not be extricated from the speakers. He speculated that change could best be viewed as the fight of the chaos of nature and life with the 'ordering human spuit': In the life of language we can observe constant work directed at removing chaos and divergence, and at introducing order and uniformity. (1990[1903]:353) The ordering tendency, which counteracted the lack of one-to-one corre­ spondence between meaning and form, was aided by language mixture, which, in addition to introducing change from without (e.g., through borrowing), constituted a powerful si mplificatory force. Apart from ordering/simplificatory trends, Baudouin occasionally talked of other universal tendencies of language (or rather, of language users), such as, e.g., the tendency towards morphologisation and towards semasiologisation. He also identified tendencies in the development of separate languages and language groups, one frequently men-

JAN BAUDOUIN DE COURTENAY

201

tioned example being the drift towards the consonantal type in the history of certain Slavic languages. In short, Baudouin's view of change was distinctly teleological. The ver­ sion of teleology which he espoused — albeit implicitly — is common enough in the literature on the subject, where change is conceived of as a result of the competition of a number of tendencies operating with or (more often) without the language users' consciousness. Baudouin's work is especially rich in references to short-term processes whose nature can only be construed as teleological Here belong, for instance, cases of so-called 'prohibitive analogy', i.e., "the tendency towards a phonetic uniformisation of morphemes which are felt to belong together psychically" (1990[1894]:197), or cases where the 'preventive' or 'conservative' effect (i.e., the non-occurrence of change) is attributed to the high frequency of a given form or to its "high psychical weight coefficient" (1990[1905]:380). Needless to say, Baudouin (e.g., 1904[1888-1889]) explicitly rejected the kind of teleology that ascribes goals to language itself. The tendencies/forces whose operation he admitted in language were all supposed to be derived from the tendencies of the speakers. The overriding goal of language users, as indi­ cated above (6.3), was the minimisation of effort in the domains of language production, perception and mental processing. Here is a typical example of his reasoning on the subject: The simplification of linguistic forms, [...] the introduction of greater agreement be­ tween form and content, between word and thought, does not occur because of a striv­ ing towards any goal given in advance, but only in order to facilitate the process of speaking, as a simple, unconscious mnemonic device, as a striving to spare oneself unnecessary work. What is at work here are simple egoistic and altruistic motives, the tendency to facilitate, on the one hand, the mental development of the individual, and, on the other hand, social life. The fact that, in the process, parts of the language come closer to the ideal indicated by Kruszewski26 is only an unintentional, acciden­ tal effect, which has nothing to do with the real cause of the changes. (1904 [18881889]: 166-167; emphasis in the original)

Readers familiar with Keller (1990) will no doubt have noticed the essen­ tially 'invisible-hand' conceptualisation of change implicit in the above. Just as the increase of general prosperity (e.g., in Mandeville's Fable of the Bees) is an unintended consequence of countless individual actions which are guided by selfish motives, and not by any desire to further the common good, so the op­ timisation of linguistic structure (in particular, the increase in the degree of one26 The ideal referred to is the principle of "correspondence between the world of words and the world of ideas" (Kruszewski [1995:173], translated from the fifth and last of the Položenija "Theses" which Kruszewski appended to his dissertation [1883:149]).

202

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

to-one correspondence between form and content) is, in Baudouin's scheme of things, a contingent result of a mass of individual actions which, although goal-directed, are not intended by the actors as means towards attaining the state of affairs they happen to bring about. 7. Concluding remarks I tried to make it clear in the Introduction that the present paper would not, and could not, do justice to Baudouin's versatility, or to the impact his work has had on many different branches of linguistics. By concentrating on a few chosen areas, I hope to have given the reader a taste of how innovative and original Baudouin's work was for his time. It is in this light that one should view the tentative comparisons I have drawn between some of Baudouin's statements and later developments in lin­ guistics, such as, e.g., Andersen's model of abductive and deductive change or Keller's invisible-hand theory of language. The singling out of these models inevitably reflects my own bias and interests. Other commentators would no doubt be able to show parallels between Baudouin and other recent ap­ proaches. 27 This, of course, attests to the necessarily subjective character of the historiographer's endeavour, but is also, I believe, indicative of something more important: far from being of merely historical value, Baudouin's ideas continue to hold interest and relevance for students of linguistics, largely irre­ spective of their theoretical allegiance. REFERENCES Adamska-Sałaciak, Arleta. 1996. Language Change in the Works of Kruszewski, Baudouin de Courte nay and Rozwadowski. Poznan: Motivex. Adamska-Sałaciak, Arleta. 1997. "Baudouin de Courtenay on Lautgesetze". Hickey & Puppel 1997.911-921. Andersen, Henning. 1972. "Diphthongization". Language 48.11-50. Andersen, Henning. 1973. "Abductive and Deductive Change". Language 49. 765-793. Anttila, Raimo. 1989. Historical and Comparative Linguistics. 2nd ed. Am­ sterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan (Ignacy Niecisław). 1868a. "Einige Fälle der Wir­ kung der Analogie in der polnischen Declination". Beiträge zur vergleichen­ den Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der arischen, celtischen und slavischen Sprachen 6.19-88. (Polish translation with restored preface in Baudouin 1904:176-248.) Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1868b. "Wechsel des s (š, ś) mit ch in der polni­ schen Sprache", Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung 6.221-222.

27

For some attempts, see the contributions to the Rieger & Szymczak volume of 1989.

JAN BAUDOUIN DE COURTENAY

203

Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1869. "August Schleicher". Tygodnik Ilustrowany 104.317-319. (Russian transl, in Baudouin 1963 I, 35-44.) Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1870. O drevne-pol' skom jazyke do XIVgo stoletija [On the Old Polish language before the 14th century]. Leipzig: Behr & Hermann. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1875. Opyt fonetiki rez'janskix govorov [An attempt at a phonetics of the Resia dialects]. Warsaw: E. Wende. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1876. "Programma čtenij docenta sravniternoj grammatiki indoevropejskix jazykov v tekuščem 1875/76 akad. godu [A program of readings by a docent of comparative grammar of Indo-European languages in the current academic year 1875-1876]". Izvestija Imperatorskogo Kazanskogo Universiteta 1.191-195. (English transl, in Baudouin 1972: 81-91.) Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1877-1878. "Podrobnaja programma lekcij v 1876-77 ucebnom godu [A detailed program of lectures in the academic year 1876-1877]". Izvestija Imperatorskogo Kazanskogo Universiteta 13.309-324. 14:1. 61-133. (English transl, in Baudouin 1972:92-113.) Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1881a. "Nekotorye otdely 'sravnitel'noj gram­ matiki' slavjanskix jazykov [Some chapters of the 'comparative grammar' of the Slavic languages]". Russkij Filologiceskij Vestnik 5.265-344. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan, 1881b. "Neskol'ko slov' o 'sravniternoj grammatike indoevropejskix jazykov' [A few words about the 'comparative gram­ mar of Indo-European languages']". Žurnl Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveščenija 218:2.269-321. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1888-89. "Mikolaj Kruszewski, jego zycie i prace naukowe [Mikolaj Kruszewski, his life and scholarly works]". Prace Filologiczne 2:3.837-849, 3:1.116-175. (Repr. in Baudouin 1904:96-175.) Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1889. "O zadaniach językoznawstwa [On the tasks of linguistics]". Prace filologiczne 3:1.92-115. (Repr. in Baudouin 1904:2449.) Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1890. "O ogólnych przyczynach zmian językowych [On the general causes of linguistic changes]". Prace Filologiczne 3:2. 447-488. (Repr. in Baudouin 1904:50-95.) Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1894. "Próba teorji alternacyj fonetycznych [An attempt at a theory of phonetic alternations]". Rozprawy Akademii Umiejętności: Wydziałfilologiczny 2:5.219-364. (Repr. in Baudouin 1990:140-278.) Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1895. Versuch einer Theorie phonetischer Alter­ nationen: Ein Kapitel aus der Psychophonetik. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1897. "Boduèn de Kurtenè, Ivan Aleksandrovic: Avtobiografičeskaja zametka [Boduèn de Kurtenè, Ivan Aleksandrovic: An autobiographical note]". Vengerov 1897.18-45. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1899. "Fonologija [Phonology]". Wielka encyklopedia powszechna ilustrowana, vol.XXII, 791-798. Warsaw. (Repr. in Bau­ douin 1990:281-294.) Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1901. "Językoznawstwo czyli lingwistyka w wieku XIX-ym [Linguistics in the 19th century]". Prawda 1.1-23. (Slightly ex­ panded version in Baudouin 1904:1-23.) Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1903. "Język i języki [Language and languages]", Wielka encyklopedia powszechna ilustrowana, vol.XXXIII, 266-278. Warsaw. (Repr. in Baudouin 1990:332-354.)

204

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1904. Szkice jçzykoznawcze [Linguistic sketches]. Vol.1. Warsaw: Piotr Laskauer. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1905. "Próba uzasadnienia samoistności zjawisk psychicznych na podstawie faktów językowyçh [An attempt to justify the in­ dependence of psychical phenomena on the basis of linguistic facts]". Sprawozdania z posiedzeá Wydziaíu Filologicznego AU w Krakowie 1-3. (Repr. in Baudouin 1990:372-392.) Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1907. "Zur Kritik der künstlichen Weltsprachen". Annalen der Naturphilosophie 6.385-433. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1910. "O 'prawach glosowych' [On 'sound laws']". Rocznik slawistyczny 3.1-72. (Repr. in Baudouin 1990:410-471.) Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1913. National' nyj i teritorial' nyj priznak v avtonomii [The national and the territorial criterion in autonomy]. St. Peters­ burg: Tipografija M. M. Stasjuleviča. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1915. "Charakterystyka psychologiczna języka polskiego [A psychological profile of the Polish language]". Encyklopedya polska, vol.II:3.154-226. Warsaw. (Repr. in Baudouin 1983:28-98.) Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1917[1909]. Vvedenie v jazykovedenie [Intro­ duction to linguistics]. 4th ed. St. Petersburg: Author, 233 pp. (Extracts repr. in Baudouin 1963 II, 246-293.) Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan, 1922. Zarys historji języka polskiego [An outline of the history of the Polish language]. Warszawa: Polska Składnica Pomocy Szkolnych. (Repr. in Baudouin 1983:99-186.) Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1929 "Einfluss der Sprache auf Weltanschauung und Stimmung", Prace Filologiczne 14.184-225. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1960. I. A. Boduèn de Kurtenè (k 30-letiju so dnja smerti) [I. A. Boduèn de Kurtenè (on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of his death)]. Ed. by S[amuel] B[orisovic] Bernstejn. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1963. I. A. Boduèn de Kurtenè: Izbrannye trudy po obščemu jazykoznaniju [I. A. Boduèn de Kurtenè: Selected works in general linguistics]. 2 vols. Ed. by V[iktor] P. Grigor'ev & A[leksej] A. Leont'ev. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1972. A Baudouin de Courtenay anthology: The beginnings of structural linguistics. Ed., transl, and with an introduction by Edward Stankiewicz. Bloomington & London: Indiana Univ. Press. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1974. Spostrzezenia nad językiem dziecka [Ob­ servations on child language]. Ed. with an introduction by Maria ChmuraKlekotowa. Wroc-ław-Warszawa-Krakow-Gdansk: Zakład Narodowy Imienia Ossolinskich. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1983. Dziela wybrane [Selected works]. Vol.V. Warszawa: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Baudouin de Courtenay. Jan. 1990. Dzieła wybrane [Selected works]. Vol.IV. Ibid. Berezin, F[edor] M. 1976[1968]. Russkoe jazykoznanie: Konca XIX - načala XX v. [Russian linguistics: Late 19th - early 20th century]. 2nd rev. ed. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo "Nauka". Besta, Theodor. 1962. "Neznámé listy J. Baudouina de Courtenay luzickosrbskému buditeli A. Mukovi [Unknown letters of J. Baudouin de Courtenay to the Sorbian activist A[mošt] Muka]". Slavia 31:3.419-440.

JAN BAUDOUIN DE COURTENAY

205

Boduèn de Kurtenè, Ivan Aleksandrovic = Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan Ignacy Niecisiaw. Brückner, Aleksander. 1881. Review of Kruszewski (1881a). Archiv für Slavische Philologie 5.685-686. Brugmann, Karl. 1882. Review of Kruszewski (1881b). Literarisches Centralblatt für Deutschland 32:12.400-401. Brugmann, Karl & August Leskien. 1907. Zur Kritik der künstlichen Weltspra­ chen. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner. Bulič, Sergej K. 1897. "Boduèn de Kurtenè. Ivan Aleksandrovic". Vengerov 1897.45-50. Chmura-Klekotowa, Maria. 1974. "Wstęp [Introduction]". Baudouin 1974:5-9. Cikobava, Arnold S. 1959. Problema jazyka kak predmeta jazykoznanija [The problem of language as the subject of linguistics]. Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe ucebno-pedagogiceskoe izdatel'stvo Ministerstva prosveščenija. Delbrück, Berthold. 1901. Grundfragen der Sprachforschung mit Rücksicht auf Wundts Sprachpsychologie erörtert. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner. Delbrück, Berthold. 1902. "Das Wesen der Lautgesetze". Annalen der Natur­ philosophie 1.277-308. Erlich, Victor, Roman Jakobson & Czesław Miłosz, eds. 1975. For Wiktor Weintraub: Essays in Polish literature, language and history presented on the occasion of his 65th birthday. The Hague: Mouton. Häusler, Frank. 1968. Das Problem Phonetik und Phonologie bei Baudouin de Courtenay und in seiner Nachfolge. Halle/Saale: Max Niemeyer. (2nd rev. ed., 1976.) Heilmann, Luigi, ed. 1974. Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of Linguists. 2 vols. Bologna: II Mulino. Hickey, Raymond & Stanislaw Puppel, eds. 1997. Language History and Lin­ guistic Modelling: A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60 th birthday. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Jakobson, Roman. 1929. "Jan Baudouin de Courtenay". Slavische Rundschau 1.809-812. (English transl, in Jakobson 1971.389-393.) Jakobson, Roman. 1960. "Kazanska szkola polskiej lingwistyki i jej miejsce w światowym rozwoju fonologii [The Kazan' school of Polish linguistics and its place in the international development of phonology]". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa' Językoznawczego 19.3-34. (English transl. in Jakobson 1971: 394-428.) Jakobson, Roman. 1967. "Znaczenie Kruszewskiego w rozwoju językoznawstwa ogólnego [The significance of Kruszewski in the development of general lin­ guistics]". Kruszewski 1967:x-xxv. Jakobson, Roman. 1971. Selected Writings. Vol.11: Word and language. The Hague: Mouton. Keller, Rudi. 1990. Sprachwandel: Von der unsichtbaren Hand in der Sprache. Tübingen: Francke. Kilbury, James. 1974. 'The Emergence of Morphophonemics: A survey of theory and practice from 1876 to 1939". Lingua 33.235-252. Klausenburger, Jürgen. 1978. "Mikołaj Kruszewski's Theory of Morphonology". Historiographia. Linguistica 5.109-120. Koerner, E. F. K[onrad]. 1972. "Jan Baudouin de Courtenay: His place in the history of linguistic science". Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue canadienne des Slavistes 14:4.663-682. (Repr. in Koerner 1978:107-126.).

206

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

Koerner, E. F. K. 1973[1971], Ferdinand de Saussure: Origin and development of his linguistic thought in Western studies on language. Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg & Sohn. Koerner, E. F. K. 1978a. Toward a Historiography of Linguistics: Selected essays. Foreword by R. H. Robins. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Koerner, E. F. K. 1986. "Kruszewski's Contribution to General Linguistic Theory". Linguistics across Historical and Geographical Boundaries: In honour of Jacek Fisiak ed. by Dieter Kastovsky & Aleksander Szwedek, vol.1: Linguistic Theory and Historical Linguistics, 53-75. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. (Revised and extended version, with a full bibliography of Kru­ szewski's writings, in Kruszewski 1995:xi-xxxv.) Korbut, Gabrjel. 1930. "Jan Niecisław Baudouin de Courtenay". Wiedza i Zycie 2 (offprint). Kruszewski, Mikołaj Habdank. 1881a. "K voprosu o gune: Issledovanie v oblasti staroslavjanskogo vokalizma [On the question of guna: A study in the field of Old Slavic vocalism]". Russkij Filologiceskij Vestnik 5:1.1-109. (Partial Polish transl. in Kruszewski 1967:25-46.) Kruszewski, Mikołaj. 1881b. Ueber die Lautabwechslung. Kazan: Universitäts­ buchdruckerei. (English transl. by Robert Austerlitz in Kruszewski 1995:5-34.) Kruszewski, Mikołaj. 1883. Očerk nauki o jazyke [An outline of the science of language]. Kazan: Tipografija Imperatorskogo Universiteta. (English transl. by Gregory M. Eramian in Kruszewski 1995:51-173.) Kruszewski, Mikoiaj. 1967. Wybór pism [Selected writings]. Transl. by Jerzy Kurylowicz and Krystyna Pomorska, with introductory articles by Jerzy Kurylowicz and Roman Jakobson. Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków: Zaklad Narodowy Imienia Ossolinskich. Kruszewski, Mikołaj. 1995, Writings in General Linguistics: On Vocalic Aternations; An Outline of Linguistic Science. Ed. with an Introduction by Konrad Koerner. (= Amsterdam Classics in Linguistics, 1800-1925, 11.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Kruševskij, Nikolaj Vjaceslavovic = Kruszewski, Mikoiaj Habdank. Lencek, Rado L. 1989. "Language-Society Nexus in Baudouin's Theory of Language Evolution: Language change in progress". Rieger & Szymczak 1989.73-81. Leont'ev, Aleksej A. 1960. "Tvorčeskij put' i osnovnye čerty lingvističeskoj koncepcii I. A. Boduèna de Kurtenè [The creative path of I. A. Boduèn de Kurtenè and the basic characteristics of his linguistic conception]". Baudouin 1960.5-27. Leont'ev, Aleksej A. 1965. "I. A. Boduèn de Kurtenè i ego ucenie o jazyke (K 120-letiju so dnja rozdenija) [LA. Boduèn de Kurtenè and his teaching on language (On the occasion of the 120th anniversary of his birth)]". Russkij Jazykv Škole 29:2.87-93. Lloyd, Richard John. 1896. Review of Baudouin de Courtenay (1895). Die Neueren Sprachen 3.615-617. Makkai, Valerie Becker, ed. 1972. Phonological Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Małachowska, Ewelina. 1973. "Jan Baudouin de Courtenay w zyciu prywatnym [Jan Baudouin de Courtenay in private]". Przegląd Humanistyczny 5.92-104, 119-131. Martinet, André. 1955, Économie des changements phonétiques. Berne: Francke.

JAN BAUDOUIN DE COURTENAY

207

Meringer, Rudolf, 1897. Review of Baudouin de Courtenay (1895). Öster­ reichisches Litteraturblatt 22.684-686. Mugdan, Joachim. 1984. Jan Baudouin de Courtenay (1845-1929): Leben und Werk. München: Wilhelm Fink. Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1935. "Jan Baudouin de Courtenay 13 III 1845 - 3 XI 1929". Polski slownik biograficzny, vol.I, 359-369. Warsaw. (Repr. in Nitsch 1960:182-216.) Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1960. Ze wspomnien językoznawcy [From the memoirs of a linguist]. Kraków: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Olmsted, D[avid] L[ockwood]. 1989. "Baudouin, Structuralism and Society". Rieger & Szymczak 1989.25-34. Prace lingwistyczne ofiarowane Janowi Baudouinowi de Courtenay dla uczczenia jego dziaialnosci naukowej 1868-1921 [Linguistic works presented to Jan Baudouin de Courtenay to celebrate his scholarly activity 1868-1921]. 1921. Kraków: Drukarnia Uniw. Jagiellonskiego. Radioff, Wilhelm. 1882. "Die Lautalternation und ihre Bedeutung für die Sprachentwicklung, belegt durch Beispiele aus den Türksprachen". Abhand­ lungen des Fünften Internationalen Orientalisten-Congresses gehalten zu Ber­ lin im September 1881 vol.III, 54-70. Berlin: Ascher. Rieger, Janusz & Mieczysław Szymczak, eds. 1989. Jan Baudouin de Courtenay a lingwistyka światowa: Materiały z konferencji międzynarodowej, Warszawa 4-7 IX 1979 [Jan Baudouin de Courtenay and world linguistics: Materials from an international conference, Warsaw 4-7 IX 1979]. Wrocław-WarszawaKraków: Zakład Narodowy Imienia Ossolinskich. Rothstein, Robert A. 1975. "The Linguist as Dissenter: Jan Baudouin de Cour­ tenay". Erlich et al. 1975.392-405. Rothstein, Robert A. 1989. "Jednostka ludzka jako motyw przewodni twórczości Jana Baudouina de Courtenay [The individual as the leading motif of Jan Bau­ douin de Courtenay's output]". Rieger & Szymczak 1989.529-537. Rozwadowski, Jan Michal. 1929. "Jan Baudouin de Courtenay". Jęzvk polski 14.164-170. (Repr. in Rozwadowski 1960:260-265.) Rozwadowski, Jan. 1960. Wybór pism [Selected writings]. Vol.Ill: Językoznawstwo ogólne [General linguistics]. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Rusek, Jerzy. 1989. "Krakowski okres dziaialnosci Jana Baudouina de Cour­ tenay [Jan Baudouin de Courtenay's Cracow period]". Rieger & Szymczak 1989.603-608. Ruszkiewicz, Piotr. 1973. "Baudouin de Courtenay and the Theory of Distinc­ tive Features". Biuletyn Fonograficzny 14.91-99. Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co. Sapir, Edward. 1925. "Sound Patterns in Language". Language 1.37-51. (Repr. in Makkai 1972.13-21.) Sapir, Edward. 1933. "La réalité psychologiques des phonèmes". Journal de psychologie normale et pathologique 30.247-265. (English original, "The Psychological Reality of Phonemes", first published in 1949, has been reprinted in Makkai 1972.22-31.) Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1879. Mémoire sur le système primitif des voyelles dans les langues indo-européennes. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.

208

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

Saradzenidze, T[inatin] S. 1980. Lingvisticeskaja teorija I. A. Boduèna de Kurtenè i ee mesto v jazykoznanii XIX - XX vekov [I. A. Boduèn de Kurtenè's linguistic theory and its place in 19th and 20th-century linguistics]. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo "Nauka". Scherer, Wilhelm. 1868. Zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: Weid­ mann. (Repr., with an Introd. by Kurt R. Jankowsky [ix-lv], Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1995.) Schuchardt, Hugo. 1885. lieber die Lautgesetze: Gegen die Junggrammatiker. Berlin: Robert Oppenheim. Seldeslachts, Herman & Pierre Swiggers. 1999. '"Ich erwarte mit Ungeduld das absolute Ende meiner elenden Existenz': The 'image' of Jan Baudouin de Courtenay in his Correspondence with Hugo Schuchardt". History of Lin­ guistics 1996 ed. by David Cram et al., vol.11: From Classical to Contemporaiy Linguistics, 277-288. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Sljusareva, N[atalija] A. 1974. "Problems of Scientific Connections and In­ fluence (F. de Saussure and J. Baudouin de Courtenay)". Heilmann 1974 II, 753-757. Stachurski, Edward. 1989. "Listy Jana Baudouina de Courtenay [Jan Baudouin de Courtenay's letters]". Rieger & Szymczak 1989.625-646. Stankiewicz, Edward. 1972, "Baudouin de Courtenay: His life and work", Bau­ douin 1972:3-47. Stone, Gerald. 1989. "Jan Baudouin de Courtenay's View of Free Variation". Rieger & Szymczak 1989.301-305. Szober, Stanisław. 1930. "Jan, Ignacy, Niecislaw Baudouin de Courtenay (18451929)". Prace filologiczne 15:l.vii-xxiii. Trubetzkoy, Nikolaj S. 1929. "Zur allgemeinen Theorie der phonologischen Vokalsysteme". Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 1.39-67. Trubetzkoy, Nikolaj S. 1933. "La phonologie actuelle". Journal de psychologie normale et pathologique 30.227-246. Trubetzkoy, Nikolaj S. 1939. Grundzüge der Phonologie. (= Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 7.) Prague. Ulaszyn, Henryk. 1934. "Jan Baudouin de Courtenay: Charakterystyka ogólna uczonego i czlowieka [Jan Baudouin de Courtenay: A general profile of the scholar and the man]". Poznań: Gebethner & Wolff, Urbańczyk, Stanislaw. 1989. "Zycie i naukowa droga Jana Baudouina de Cour­ tenay [The life and scholarly path of Jan Baudouin de Courtenay]". Rieger & Szymczak 1989.515-522. Vasmer, Max. 1947. "J. Baudouin de Courtenay: Zur 100. Wiederkehr seines Geburtstages". Zeitschrift für Phonetik 4/5.71-77. Vengerov, S[emen] A., ed. 1897. Kritiko-biografičeskij slovar' russkix pisatelej i učenyx [A critical-biographical dictionary of Russian writers and scholars]. Vol.V. St. Petersburg: Tipografija M. M. Stasjuleviča. Vinogradov. Viktor V. 1963. "I. A. Boduèn de Kurtenè". Baudouin 1963 I, 620. Wagner, Ph[ilipp]. 1896. Review of Baudouin de Courtenay (1895). Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Litteratur 18.106-109. Wundt, Wilhelm. 1901. Sprachgeschichte und Sprachpsychologie mit Rücksicht auf B. Delbrücks "Grundfragen der Sprachforschung". Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann.

CHAPTER 7 MIKOLAJ KRUSZEWSKI AND 20TH-CENTURY LINGUISTICS* FEDOR MIXAJLOVIČ BEREZIN Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow 1. Introductory remarks At certain points in the development of sciences there appear classical texts which accumulate in generalized form the achievements of various spheres of knowledge. On the one hand, they are a reaction against previous theories, while on the other, they pave the way for new theories, These theories, both past and future, depend on the philosophical premises on which a particular science is founded. If we adopt this point of view in order to look at paradigms in the history of linguistics, we may distinguish three such paradigms: NEOGRAMMARIAN, with Karl Brugmann's (1849-1919) and Hermann Osthoff s (1847-1909) fa­ mous preface to the first volume of their Morphologische Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen (1878), also referred to as the 'Neogrammarian manifesto' (positivism being its philosophical basis); STRUC­ TURALIST, with Ferdinand de Saussure's (1857-1913) Cours de linguistique générale (1916) as the classical text (again predicated on positivist principles); and GENERATIVIST, with Noam Chomsky's (b.1928) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965) as the representative 'exemplar' (rationalist positivism consti­ tuting its philosophical background). It has commonly been claimed that these three paradigms in their historical sequence stand in sharp opposition to each other. Such a claim impedes our understanding of 'continuity' in the formulation and elaboration of some of the stages in the evolution of linguistics. In between these paradigms, there exist certain intermediate links which escape attention of historians of linguistics. For instance, it is maintained that "Baudouin de Courtenay and Ferdinand de Saussure bridge as it were the linguistics of the 1880s with modern linguistic * This chapter was first published in Historiographia Linguistica 25:1/2.61-86 (1998). The translated from the Russian original was provided by Waldemar Skrzypczak, in consultation with Stefan Grzybowski. It was further revised by the editors with the help of Gregory M. Eramian (University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada).

210

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

trends'5 (Guxman 1964:13). This connection, however, lacks one important link, i.e., Mikołaj Kruszewski's linguistic theory, which an American re­ searcher, Joanna Radwanska-Williams (1993) justifiably calls 'a lost para­ digm'. 2. A brief sketch of Mikotqj Kruszew ski's life Mikolaj Habdank Kruszewski was born in Luck, in the Volhynia region (today a part of Ukraine), on 6 December (18 December) 1851. After graduat­ ing from Grammar School, he entered the Historical-Philological Faculty of Warsaw University, where he first enrolled in the history department. Most of his time, however, he devoted to studying philosophy. The Slavist Mitrofan Alekseevic Kolosov (1832-1891), who worked at that time at Warsaw Uni­ versity, turned his attention to the extraordinary talents of the young student and strong his attraction to linguistics, and advised him to further improve his knowledge of linguistic either in Xarkov under the famous linguist Aleksandr Afanas'evič Potebnja (1835-1891), or in Kazan with Jan Baudouin de Courtenay (1845-1929). As it was rather difficult to obtain a scholarship to further his studies, having graduated in 1875, Kruszewski had to accept the post of a school teacher in the town of Troick in Orenburg Province. On the way to his new job Kruszewski stopped in Kazan in order to meet Baudouin. He talked with him about his further research plans. In 1878, after a three-year period in Troick, Kruszewski arrrived in Kazan as a graduate student — a candidate for a faculty position without a professorial fellowship (professorskij stipendiat bez soderzanija). The intensified study of linguistics under the guidance of Baudouin, the ability to select from extensive reading what was important and to reject what was of secondary importance, enabled Kruszewski, as early as in 1880, to start teaching courses in Russian phonetics, anthropophonics, and Sanskrit In 1883, having defended his doctoral dissertation Očerk nauki o jazyke (An out­ line of the science of language), he became successor to Baudouin's Chair, and after the departure of the latter for Dorpat, he began teaching ail Baudouin's courses: general linguistics, comparative phonetics of Indo-European lan­ guages, linguistic palaeontology, and some parts of the historical grammar of Russian. Unfavourable external conditions (such as the necessity to support his large family) forced him to take up an additional job at the institute of noble young ladies (Girls' Institute), besides his university teaching. Extreme fatigue, weak health, and constant emotional anxiety ruined Kruszewski's nervous system and led to its gradual paralysis. In February 1886 he finally stopped working for the university and found himself in hospital. Progressive brain damage led

MIKOLAJ KRUSZEWSKI AND 20TH-CENTURY LINGUISTICS

Mikoiaj Kruszewski

211

212

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

to an inevitable end: on 31 October (12 November) 1887 the life of that young and yet promising scholar came to an end. It is difficult to say in what direction the Russian, and even World linguistics would have evolved at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries and afterwards, had Kruszewski lived longer. It is possible that he sensed his huge, unfulfilled creative poten­ tial, as on the eve of his death he is reported to have said to his wife: "Ax! [Oh, how quickly I passed across the stage!]". The words of Potebnja, grieving over the loss of his favourite student Aleksandr Vasil'evic Popov (1855-1880), can also be fully applied to Kru­ szewski's death: [Such youth [...], such broad plans, and the hard-working nature to match them, and to burn himself out [...]!]" (Potebnja 1881:ii). In the historiography of Russian linguistics Kruszewski is usually associ­ ated with the Kazan School of Linguistics. Baudouin de Courtenay himself was sceptical about this label, and whenever he did use the term 'Kazan School', without fail he placed it in inverted commas. Apart from Kruszewski, among the other members of the School, as well as among Baudouin's stu­ dents, it is necessary to mention Sergej Konstantinovic Bulič (1859-1921), Vasilij Alekseevic Bogorodickij (1857-1941), Aleksandr Ivanovic Aleksandrov (1861-1917), Professor of Slavonic Philology, as well as Vasilij Vasil'evic (alias Wilhelm) Radlov (1837-1918), the distinguished Turkologist, who attended Baudouin's seminars. All these scholars left a significant mark on linguistics. The most general principles, that bound all these linguists, were their active interest in the investigation of modem living languages, the under­ standing of language in terms of social phenomena, and the emphasis on com­ parative typological study of languages (Baudouin de Courtenay 1963 II:4855). Baudouin de Courtenay was the unquestionable intellectual leader of this School, whose nature reconciled, in a strange way, a slighting attitude towards his students and pupils with exaggerated overestimation of some of them (in particular, the poorest ones) and underestimation of others (the most talented). In his letter to Radlov from Dorpat, dated 15/27 July 1886, Baudouin writes: My Kazan work — during its better years! — was mostly beating the air [ein leeres Strohdreschen] and a senseless waste of time. All the so-called Kazan linguistics is simply humbug. My so called-Kazan students were for the most part idlers and good for nothing [sind meistenteils Faulenzer und Taugenichtse]. And I, a fool [dummer Kerl], instead of performing my own duties, was wasting 15 hours a week working with them (a cui bono)? Now I only feel pangs of conscience and bitter disappoint­ ment. (Quoted after Leont'ev [1968:15])

MIKOŁAJ KRUSZEWSKI AND 20TH-CENTURY LINGUISTICS

213

This criticism, mixed with irritation, of his own Kazan work can probably be explained by the fact that by this time Baudouin was disappointed by the intellectual climate of his environment and by the distance from Western aca­ demic centres of linguistic research. In his letters to the great Slovenian Slavist Vatroslav Jagic (1838-1923) teaching in Vienna, he complains: [...] the milieu which surrounds me is not at all conducive to scientific work. [...] The exchange and scientific verification of ideas is limited exclusively to conversa­ tions with my students. Among these there are some very talented ones. I think you are already familiar with the work of one of them [Kruszewski]. (Jagic 1983:149) [...] my stay in Kazan is becoming more and more unbearable. (Jagic 1983:198)

He also revealed that he was planning to leave Kazan. His exasperation can also explain his unfortunate description of his students. "I think", he writes to Jan Karlowicz (1836-1903) on 23 August 1885, "that, of all my 'disciples', Aleksandrov is the most successful." In another letter to Karlowicz dated 10/22 November 1883, he describes Kruszewski in the following ternis: Kruszewski wants to look like a 'child prodigy'. In order to prove it, he insisted dur­ ing a discussion that he had never read anything by Paul at all, and had arrived at his conclusions with the help of his own intellect [...]. Poor him, he forgot that he him­ self in his Zur Lautabwechslung (1881) had said that, already at that time, he had been familiar with Paul. How can this be reconciled? There is no question that he is very talented and intellectually independent, and put in a lot of his own work into his book, but it is difficult to deny Paul's influence [...] Kruszewski's Ocerk — is a very successful book, but it's superficial and somewhat careless. (Quoted after Leont'ev [1968: 9, 14])

Baudouin expressed his harsh opinion on that work again later, saying that the book, although original, seemed to lack any expression of linguistic laws and thus it did not present itself as any particular 'event' in linguistics. "He himself did not succeed in formulating any important laws. However, he paved the way for their discovery" (Baudouin de Courtenay 1963 I:197). And at the same time, he wrote that Ocerk nauki o jazyke "has remained until now one of the best works in general linguistics, not only in Russian" (Baudouin de Courtenay 1963 II:53). Radwańska-Williams says: "[...] we can find at the core of Baudouin's critique of Kruszewski's writings a legitimate theoretical disagreement" (1993:146). It is interesting to note that Kruszewski's Ocerk was included by Baudouin in the obligatory reading list for the students of Dorpat University in 1884, along with Paul's Principien der Sprachgeschichte (1880) and Brugmann & Osthoff's foreword to Morphologische Untersuchun­ gen (1878). There seems to be no indication, however, that Baudouin recom­ mended Kruszewski's Ocerk to his students at St. Petersburg University (durring 1900-1918). Radwariska-Williams explains this as follows (p.134):

214

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS Kruszewski's relationship to Baudouin as his teacher and mentor was an important factor determining the reception of Kruszewski's linguistic theory by his contempo­ raries. During Kruszewski's lifetime Baudouin was an enthusiastic promotor of his student's writings and ideas. After Kruszewski's death, Baudouin's enthusiasm gave way to disillusionment [...]. In the context of the neogrammarian period in Russian linguistics, i.e. the late 19th and early 20th century, Baudouin's ultimately negative judgement of Kruszewski had the effect of devaluing Kruszewski's work.

Koerner (1989:379) also noted that "Baudouin's [1888-1889] account vacillates between disdain and envy"; Kilbury had earlier characterized his ex­ tensive obituary article as nothing more than "a nervous mixture of praise and personal attacks" (1976:22). Be that as it may, during Baudouin's Petersburg period, the name of Kruszewski was most probably not mentioned a single time in his lectures and recommended literature, None of his Petersburg stu­ dents—including Lev Vladimirovič Ščerba (1880-1944), Max Vasmer (1886— 1962), Boris Jakovlevic Vladimircov (1884-1931), Evgenij Dmitrievič Polivanov (1891-1938), Boris Aleksandrovic Larin (1893-1964) — ever referred to, or even mentioned, in their writings, any of Kruszewski's works. Baudouin's Petersburg students profited a great deal from his lectures. Scerba writes: When, in 1923, we received in Leningrad the Cours de linguistique générale by de Saussure [...], we were struck by the many coincidences between de Saussure's tenets and those we had been used to. (1957[1930]:94). And Polivanov adds: As for the notorious posthumous book by de Saussure it can be said with a great deal of justification that it does not contain any statements that would have novelty value for us, as they have been known to us from Baudouin de Courtenay's teaching. (Poli­ vanov 1968[1929]:185). These students of Baudouin did not know his admission of debt to Kru­ szewski, as can be gathered from remarks such as: T myself learnt a lot from him [Kruszewski], and his influence on me was envigorating' (Baudouin 1963 I[1888]: 149), and at the same time they did not know the classical model Oerk nauki o jazyke. Baudouin himself did not produce any classical text. As Ščerba wrote: 'Baudouin [...] in most cases expressed his ideas casually, in innu­ merable reviews and minor articles, often on completely different subjects' (Scerba 1974[1930]:391). It is regrettable that such a talented scholar' as Baudouin could not under­ stand the ideas and views of his equally talented student.

MIKOŁAJ KRUSZEWSKI AND 20TH-CENTURY LINGUISTICS

215

3. Kruszewsk's ideas in phonology and morphology 3,1 Kruszewski on phonology In the history of phonology Kruszewski, along with Baudouin de Courtenay, is usually referred to as one of the founders of the phonological theory of language. Speaking out against the 'archaeological' trend in linguistics, whose representatives reduced the essence of phonetic study to the reconstruction of the sound system of the proto-language, Kruszewski demonstrated in his inau­ gural lecture "The subject, division and method of a science of language" of 1880, that [...] the most immediate task of phonetics is not the reconstruction of the sound sys­ tem of protolanguages, but above all the study of the character of the sounds of a given language, the conditions and laws of their changes and disappearance, and the conditions of the appearance of new sounds. (Kruszewski 1894:89).

Introducing Russian linguists to Saussure's Mémoire sur le système primi­ tif des voyelles dans les langues indo-européennes (1878), Kruszewski bor­ rows from this work the term 'phoneme', interpreting it as a designation of a phonetic unit. Kruszewski's peculiarity consisted in his grounding of an inter­ pretation of the phoneme on the comparison of related morphological units, as­ sociating it with sound alternation. Kruszewski analyzess the idea of sound al­ ternation in a very detailed way in his work K voprosu o gune [On the question of the 'guna'] (1881a). Contemporary foreign historians of linguistics discover in this very work views that are comparable with those of the 20th century. Thus Jakobson maintains that the chapter 'General notes on sound alternation' from K voprosu o gune "is the first proposal in linguistic literature of a theory and classification of sound alternations" (Jakobson 1985:341). Kruszewski subdivided all the changes, or sound alternations, into three categories, The first category included 'The minimal change in the original sounds [...] which is a combinatory sound change and depends on anthropophonic, that is to say purely physical causes" (Kruszewski 1995:11[1881:8]). The second type of alternation refers to the alternation in which "The causes or conditions of such an alternation can only be discovered by investigating the history of the language" (Kruszewski 1995:13[1881:9]). An example of such a change in Russian is muxa/muska [múxa]/[múska] "fly/little fly". The third type of sound alternation is closely related to morphological phenomena and can be exemplified by the k/č alternation as in proroklproročit' [prarók]/[praróčit'] "prophet/to prophesy", or s/z as in the Gemían Haus/Häuser. In his analysis of K voprosu o gune, referring to the first type of alterna­ tion in particular, Kilbury writes that in the s/z type of alternation:

216

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

Title-page of Kruszewski's Über die Lautabwechslung (Kazan, 1881)

MIKOŁAJ KRUSZEWSKI AND 20TH-CENTURY LINGUISTICS

217

[...] no line is drawn here between phonemics and morphophonemics in the typical American sense, but perhaps his distinction is roughly that between subphonemic variation and automatic morphophonemic alternation, on the one hand, and nonautomatic morphophonemic (i.e. morphological) alternation, on the other hand. (Kilbury 1976:19)

In Radwariska-Williams's opinion, "In 20th century structuralist terms, the first category is phonological, while the second and third categories are morphophonological" (1993:53). She claims that the term 'phoneme', as used by Kruszewski, is close in meaning to the modern understanding in phonology, including both historical phonology and morphophonology. The point is, however, that in her view the quoted argumentation, found in Kruszewski's K voprosu o gune [...] is rather different from the typical 19th century linguistic text. It is an attempt to construct a theory rather than to systematize a particular set of data; in this respect it can be contrasted even with Saussure's Mémoire. (Radwańska- Williams 1993:51)

Kruszewski's theory of sound alternation is connected with his aspiration to replace the sound laws, operating without exceptions, proposed by the Neogrammarians. In his polemics with them on the operation of sound laws Kru­ szewski claims that "my views diverge from those of Prof. Paul on the ques­ tion of the nature of sound laws, and where they are to be sought" (Kru­ szewski 1995:49[1883:9]). Kruszewski's elaboration of the theory of sound alternation was founded on his study of phonetic alternations characteristic of the synchronic state of the Russian language, on the norms of a living language, because in ancient lan­ guages such phonetic changes cannot be registered due to the letter-sound di­ vergence. Sound alternation should be considered in close relation to morpho­ logical categories. 3.2 Kruszewski on morphology Kruszewski took too broad a view of morphology as a part of grammar. He subdivided morphology into the study of word-formation (lexicology) and the study of inflection (syntax). The external aspect of lexicology is lexicology in the narrow sense of the term, whereas the internal aspect relates to semasiol­ ogy; similarly syntax is subdivided into the study of inflexion and the study of function. "The main morphological unit, which is called the root, has as its function the expression of a certain relation" (Kruszewski 1893:44). Kruszew­ ski sees the task of linguistics to be the discovery of morphological laws, or generalisations, two of which he considers important: the generalisation con­ cerning "morphological assimilation"[...] and the generalisation concerning

218

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

"apocopy of stems in favour of suffixes" (Kruszewski 1995;8[1881:4]; origin­ al emphasis). Kruszewski subdivided morphological assimilation into four categories: 1) prefix assimilation; 2) stem assimilation; 3) suffix assimilation, and 4) inflec­ tional assimilation. The prefix assimilation consists in the modification of the prefix by analogy with some other prefix or in the breaking down of an incom­ prehensible word into the prefix and the stem: peκpym [rekrút], "recruit" for instance, is assimilated into the category of lexical items with the ne prefix (as in Hexpucmb [néxrist'] "non-believer"), hence Heκpym [nekrut] "non-re­ cruit". The thematic (stem) assimilation consists in the change of the lexical stem. The suffix assimilation is seen by Kruszewski in the case of loanwords, used with native language suffixes as in Latin patella (Cκoeopo∂a) [skәv­­ radá] "frying pan"), rendered in Polish as patel-nia. As for the inflectional assimilation, Kruszewski emphasised that it was the most common type of morphological assimilation. As examples of such an as­ similation he gives forms of the third person plural xo∂m [xodjut] "they go",  o c  m [nosjut] "they carry", eO3m [vozjut] "they cart", in place of the correct forms xo∂m [xodjat], ocm [nosjat], eo3m [vozjat]. It needs to be pointed out that the idea of analogy, so widely accepted by linguists at the end of the 19th century, was viewed by Kruszewski as 'morphological assimi­ lation'. Kruszewski's doctrine of morphological assimilation is closely related to another element of the morphological system — the theory of so-called mor­ phological absorption, which later grew to even broader dimensions and re­ ceived the name of metanalysis (pereintegracija). Kruszewski's concept of morphological absorption develops Baudouin's idea, bold for his time, of the shift in boundary between the morphological elements of a lexical unit, particu­ larly the change of border between the stem and the ending. Having developed Baudouin's idea, Kruszewski turned it into a broad scientific generalisation, applicable to numerous Indo-European languages. Baudouin admitted "that this morphological generalisation in his [i.e., Kruszewski's] formulation looks in­ comparably more significant than [it does] in my own" (Baudouin de Courtenay 1963 I[1888]:160). In the works of Kruszewski's student Vasilij Alekseevic Bogorodickij (1857-1941), Kruszewski's theory on morphological ab­ sorption was developed into the theory of metanalysis of stems in favour of inflection, the theory which became an integral part of university handbooks of Russian grammar.

MIKOŁAJ KRUSZEWSKI AND 20TH-CENTURY LINGUISTICS

219

Kruszewski explains 'morphological absorption' as the shift from a lan­ guage state referred to as synthetic to the state known as analytic, which can be illustrated by the following formula: abc + def + ghi > bcde 1 2 3 2 Kruszewski saw the differences between the synthetic and analytic forms of words primarily in the systems of declensions and conjugations. He main­ tains that morphological absorption not only helps to understand the shift from synthetic to analytic languages, but it also leads to the creation of new morpho­ logical elements. Kruszewski turned his attention to the dynamism of morpho­ logical elements within a word and subtly noticed their various modifications, conditioned by their positions and phonological causes. It should be noted that Kruszewski never used the term 'morpheme'. This 'joli mot' (Meillet) was in­ troduced into linguistic nomenclature by Baudouin later.1 Kruszewski spoke of 'morphological element', and essentially reduced all language to the word, to the morphology of the word, refusing to see anything beyond the boundaries of the word, beyond its morphological elements. It is interesting to note that post-Bloomfieldian descriptivism also focused mainly on morphology. The narrowing of the scope of research by Kruszewski led to an interesting inter­ pretation of morphological problems from both the point of view of meaning expressed by individual morphemes, as well as from the point of view of their mutual interrelationships. Kruszewski gave a very precise and comprehensive description of mutual interrelationships among morphological elements. The nature of their correla­ tions allowed him to conclude that, in Indo-European languages, prefix, root, and suffix are not always mutually independent elements, but their parts often overlap, so that with time their boundaries become unstable. Kruszewski as­ cribed great significance to the metanalysis of components of a word, explain­ ing their evolution by the morphological structure of a word. 4. The philosophical foundations of Kruszewski' s linguistic views In Western linguistic literature of the end of the 19th century there appeared a number of reviews on two fundamental works of Kruszewski in German translation Über die Lautabwechslung (1881) and Prinzipien der Sprachent­ wickelung (1884-1890), written by Karl Brugmann (1849-1919), Louis Havet (1849-1925), Vatroslav Jagic (1838-1923), and Aleksander Brückner (1856-1939). These reviews demonstrate that Western linguists did not un1

Baudouin added the term to the published version of his 'Detailed program of lectures for the academic year 1877-1878' at Kazan University (1881:149 = 1963 I, p.116).

220

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

derstand much of Kruszewski's ideas. It is my contention that the lack of ac­ ceptance of Kruszewski's ideas by Western linguists was due to his peculiar philosophical outlook, which was shaped by his intense interest in philosophy, logic and psychology. He familiarised himself with these disciplines either by studying them on his own or by attending courses at Warsaw University which were taught by the eminent Russian psychologist and logician Matvej Mixailovič Troickij (1835-1899) who was close to materialism. As Baudouin notes, "thanks to the influence of Prof. Troickij he [Kruszewski] acquired a clear insight into fundamental philosophical problems" (Baudouin de Courtenay 1963 I:199). As Anan'ev (1947:151-152) noted, Troickij [...] being one-sided in his eulogy of English empirical psychology [...] expressed his sympathy for the natural sciences and [...] materialism and avoided any of the conformism and [...] prevailing idealistic philosophy in those days.

The use of data drawn from psychology and logic in Kruszewski's attempt to determine the fundamental laws of language in terms of logico-grammatical categories, for instance, was undoubtedly inspired by Troickij's lectures. In his lectures on psychology and logic, Troickij claimed that the purpose of logic is 'to present only the best types of human intellectual activity and human thought, which find their expression in known concepts, which we refer to as the meaning of a given word' (Troickij [1883/84]:4), and also that 'Words, with their respective concepts, are also subdivided into classes' (ibid., p.43). While attending Troickij's lectures, Kruszewski also became familial* with the views of John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), the founder of English positivism, who in his two-volume work A System of Logic (1843) attempted to reconcile two epistemological traditions, empiricism and rationalism. The empirical ap­ proach treated sensory experience as the only source of knowledge and derived from deduction, whereas the rationalist position derived from induction. "The first and most obvious distinction between observation and experiment is that the latter is an immense extension of the former" (Mill 1865:419). Further, Mill claims that the bases of certain areas of science (physiology, philosophy, so­ ciology) was very limited and that their methods ought to be, to a large degree, if not totally, derivable from experience. Hence Kruszewski aimed at the de­ scription of those linguistic facts which are perceived with our sensory organs. Such facts are available only in the physiology of sounds, in other words, anthropophonics. As far as the method of anthropophonics is concerned, it differs considerably from the general methodology of language study in that, along with observation, it admits ex­ perience. (Kruszewski 1892:266; emphasis added: FMB)

MIKOŁAJ KRUSZEWSKI AND 20TH-CENTURY LINGUISTICS

221

And in this vein he writes further that 'our science is purely inductive'. On the other hand, the experiential study of anthropophonic data, particularly in the area of phonetics, leads to the formulation of empirical laws, general assump­ tions, and generalisations which allow the clarification of the nature and causes of linguistic changes. According to Kruszewski, the real knowledge of lin­ guistic facts is possible only when deductive and inductive methods are treated inseparably. We do not possess any general truths or axioms, which could be applicable by means of deduction in the science of language [...] But in addition inductive sciences usually use general truths arrived at by means of induction for deductive conclusions. Such general truths are also plausible in linguistics, in particular in the branch called the physiology of sounds ... (Kruszewski 1894:89-90)

No matter whether intentionally or not, his 'philosophical and highly gen­ eralising mind' (Baudouin de Courtenay 1963 I, p. 176) made him shift from the positivist observation of facts and experience towards the discovery of laws governing language changes, and the discovery of interrelations among lin­ guistic elements. We should not lose sight of the fact that in Russia of the 1860s and 1870s, bold theoretical research in the realm of biology and physiology was carried being out, particularly in the works of Kliment Arkad'evič Timirjazev (1843— 1920), Andrej Sergeevic Famincyn (1835-1918), Ivan Mixajlovic Secenov (1829-1905). Hence Kruszewski's attention was focused sharply on the recent achievements of biology, particularly on Charles Darwin's (1809-1882) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (1859), which he quotes three times in German translation. Thus, in order to support his position re­ garding the gradualness of the sound changes brought about by anthropophonetic causes, he drew upon the Darwinian concept of the extreme importance of minimal phenomena and their thorough analysis. These minimal changes tak­ ing place over long periods of time can bring about bigger changes. 'Sounds to Kruszewski', writes Baudouin de Courtenay, 'are almost the same as what species of animals and plants are to a naturalist' (Baudouin de Courtenay 1963 I:187). This particular philosophy of science led Kruszewski to assign linguis­ tics to [...] the natural sciences. Its main task is not to restore the picture of the past history of language, but to discover laws of language phenomena [...] The laws of language are absolutely identical with the laws operating in other spheres of the existing uni­ verse, that is the so called laws of nature, which do not allow any exceptions or devi­ ations. (Kruszewski 1881a: 107; emphasis added: FMB)

Claiming that linguistic phenomena are also governed by laws of nature, which allow no exceptions, Kruszewski, in fact, puts forward a hypothesis of

222

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

the universal nature of sound laws, as Radwańska-Williams justifiably points out in the following terms (1993:59-60): The hypothesis of universal sound laws reflects the goal of Kruszewski's linguistic theory, the search for the laws of language. In this respect Kruszewski's conception of linguistic science anticipates the goal of discovering linguistic universals ex­ pressed by 20th century structuralist and generative theories.

A brief analysis of Kruszewski's philosophical views allows us to under­ stand why the few reviewers of his works, being outstanding scholars in their own fields, could not appreciate the theoretical conclusions contained in his works. Kruszewski's enthusiasm for the positivist inductive approach — evi­ dently harking back to August Schleicher — stood in opposition to the deduc­ tively-oriented approach of Neogrammarians, and did not meet with their un­ derstanding. Even so, two of Kruszewski's works, translated into German, contain ideas which, even if not fully understood by his contemporaries, allow the definition of Kruszewski's linguistic theory "as a full-fledged structuralist the­ ory, antedating Saussure's Cours de linguistique générale (1916) by over 30 years" (Radwańska-Williams 1993:69). 5. Kruszew ski on the fundamental problems of general linguistics The conception of language as a system is one of the crucial elements in Kruszewski's general linguistic theory. According to Kruszewski, the linguis­ tic system consists of structural families of words, systems of types. The structural families constitute grammatical categories which correspond to a similarly organised representation of objects and phenomena of objective real­ ity. Kruszewski conveys a deep belief that structural systems, the systems of types, are connected and correlated with processes of typification, that is the ability of human thinking to classify and generalise objects and phenomena of the objective world into definite systems or types of concepts (qualities, prop­ erties, features, etc.). The systems of declension and conjugation are not only systems; "everything that is known in grammars under the general designation of 'word-formation', presents a large number of systems" (Kruszewski 1995: 137-138[1883:109]). Such an understanding of language as a system led Koerner (1989:387) to claim that in Kruszewski's conception, the language is "not simply a system, but more like something that Josef Vachek calls 'a sys­ tem of systems'". On numerous occasions Kruszewski emphasised the importance of mem­ ory (cf. 1995[1883]: 96, 124, 139, 142, etc.) — "our memory retains for us parallel systems of models" (p,145[l 18]) as a condition for the production of

MIKOŁAJ KRUSZEWSKI AND 20TH-CENTURY LINGUISTICS

223

linguistic forms within an individuar s mind. What is remembered, is stored or fixed in a linguistic system. In this sense Kruszewski's concept of language is close to the conception of 'linguistic code', i.e., of a linguistic system which is present in the memory of the speakers of a given language. It is important to highlight Kruszewski's characterization of the elements of the language system and their changeability through time. According to Kruszewski, it is important that the historical development of language as a system is conditioned by the internal regularities of a language, the close interconnection of semantic cate­ gories of a language with their external formal grammatical expression, and the presence of general laws. Evaluating Kruszewski's general conception of the systemic nature of lan­ guage, it is necessary to emphasise two points: 1) the application of the princi­ ple of systematicity not only to phonetics and morphology, but also to the lexi­ con, and 2) the conception of language, not only as a system of structures, but also as a system of relations (dependencies). The relations of dependencies of every category with numerous other categories create the harmony of a linguis­ tic system — "language forms a harmonious whole" (Kruszewski 1995:149 [1883:122]; emphasis in the original). The cause of the historical changeability of language as a system, according to Kruszewski, lies in the psychological nature of the linguistic system, which can be explained by the laws of association. Language is a system of signs which do not exist independently of the mind of the speaking individual, and therefore, like everything which exists in the human mind, are also subject to psychological laws. Kruszewski attaches great importance to associative links for ordering the language system. While the Neogrammarians understood associations merely as the fusion of various concepts into one whole and the establishment of vari­ ous interrelations among those concepts, Kruszewski was under the influence of Mill's conception of the interrelationships among natural phenomena: The phenomena of nature exist in two distinct relations to one another; that of simultaneity and that of succession. Every phenomenon is related, in a uniform manner, to some phenomena that coexist with it, and to some that have preceded or will follow it. (Mill 1856:362)

Mill's idea on simultaneity or succession in natural phenomena was devel­ oped by Kruszewski into two laws of association, i.e., association by contigu­ ity (the order of succession) and association by similarity (the order of coexis­ tence). Jakobson claims that Kruszewski's conception of the two ways of word classification had a considerable influence on Saussure's ideas on as­ sociative relations, analogous to Kruszewski's associations by similarity, and

224

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

on syntagmatic relations, analogous to Kruszewski's associations by contigu­ ity (Jakobson 1985:337-338). Jakobson maintains that Kruszewski's concep­ tion is more systematic than Saussure's, and his subdivision into "two lin­ guistic axes [...] raised by Kruszewski from the mechanistic to phenomenological level, developed in Kruszewski's work into a harmoniously complete and unusually fruitful theory of language" (p.336). Kruszewski's claim concerning the two laws of association also occurs in the capacity of an explanatory principle of language structure, which Kru­ szewski is more likely to consider to be lexical rather than syntactic.2 The homogeneity of a system is determined by the production of words, that is by the association by similarity, along with the operation of the association by contiguity, i.e., reproduction. The formation of words leads, by analogy to patterns present in the language, to the creation of other forms, less regular, secondary, and yet functioning in the language. The association by similarity introduces into a linguistic system only a temporary and relative irregularity, which cannot be said about the association by contiguity which has a more de­ structive effect on the system of language. Quoting Mill almost verbatim, Kru­ szewski claims that [...] we will always find a twofold stratification in every language: a geographical stratification of the coexisting order, or borrowing, and a chronological stratification of the sequential order, or inheritance. Words of these two stratifications will always more or less disrupt the harmony of a linguistic system. (Kruszewski 1995:123 [1883:93-94]; emphasis in the original)

From Kruszewski's above conception on associative links among words there emerge three important conclusions: First, the development of language is defined as an eternal antagonism between the progressive association by similarity and the conservative assimi­ lation by contiguity. In terms of contemporary terminology, one can say that paradigmatic and syntagmatic lexical relations, according to Kruszewski, are found in relations of antagonism, and at the same time, the syntagmatic rela­ tions determine the paradigmatic ones. Second, as regards associative relations, an implicit analogue can be found in what is now termed as semantic field theory, elaborated in the 1920s and 1940s by such German linguists as Leo Weisgerber (1899-1985), Jost Trier (1894-1970), Gunther Ipsen (1899-1984), Walter Porzig (1895-1961). When Kruszewski talks about words in our consciousness being capable of inducing 2

Cf. Baudouin de Courtenay's (1963 I:176) comment: Tn general, Kruszewski sees the essence of language in the word to such an extent [...] that the "ideal of language" presented by him is, in fact, the "ideal of the word".'

MIKOLAJ KRUSZEWSKI AND 20TH-CENTURY LINGUISTICS

225

one another, i.e., inducing definite types of relations among words of a given language, then we can clearly see a semantic field— 'the link between two or more words, conditioned by syntactic bonds' (Ufimceva 1961:56). Third, when Kruszewski speaks about associative links of words, he con­ nects with them the frequency of occurrence of one or another word in speech. The frequency is connected mainly with association by contiguity when we re­ call words in our memory. The association by contiguity based on meaning, and, the reproduction of a word connected with this association, is closely de­ pendent on the frequency of use of the word in one meaning or another. Kru­ szewski establishes the following law of inverse relationship between the sphere of use of a word and its content: "the broader the use of a given word, the less content it will have" (Kruszewski 1995:166[1883:141]; emphasis in the original). The law of frequency formulated by Kruszewski does not simply state the fact that some concepts are encountered more often than others, but explicitly postulates the primary and secondary nature of elements of a linguistic struc­ ture in the sense of their opposition of meaning (association by contiguity) and the external structural resemblance (association by similarity). This law is of primary importance for the theory of association (Deese 1965:14-15), and was further elaborated in the works of an eminent Polish linguist, Jerzy Kurytowicz (1895-1978), who also indicated: C'est-à-dire que plus le contenu est générale, plus large est l'emploi du signe dans la communauté parlante; plus le contenu est special, plus l'emploi, non seulement in­ terne (= à l'intérieur du système), mais aussi externe (= à l'intrieur de la commu­ nauté) est étroit. (Kuryiowicz 1960:14)

The law discussed above has received the name of the Kruszewski-Kurylowicz principle and is formulated as follows: 'The richer the content of a lin­ guistic unit, the less often it occurs in a text". This law is considered to be one of the fundamental principles in contemporary information theory. Kruszewski's doctrine of the two laws of association is inseparable in his theory from the recognition of the symbolic nature of language: "we must never lose sight of the basic nature of language: the word is a sign for a thing" (Kruszewski 1995:98[1883:67]), and "language is [...] a system of signs" (ibid., p.99[1883:68]), In all likelihood Kruszewski became acquainted with the word-as-a-sign concept through Troickij's lectures, who also had claimed that 'a word is a sign of a thing' (Troickij [1883/84]:4). The word, according to Kruszewski, designates a definite concept along with its nuance or nuances of meaning; its symbolic function manifests itself in that the word occurs as a substitute, a symbol of that object which it designates, and — at the same time

226

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

— the function of the word as a symbol is, according to Kruszewski, one of the most remarkable advantages of language. Radwañska-Williams (1993:81) remarks that [...] the idea that the sign is bound by association by contiguity rather than by association by similarity, i.e. by virtue of the co-occurrence in the mind of the lin­ guistic form and the idea of the object, signified by the form, is close to Saussure's principle of the arbitrariness of the linguistic sign.

Kruszewski, thirty years before Saussure, used the terms such as 0ó03Hcųa ee [oboznacajuscee] "signifying" and oóo3HanaeMoe [oboznačaemoe] "signified", understanding the 'signified' as a 'symbol' — the sub­ stitute of a thing, and 'signifying' as the sound of a word, its acoustic image. Here is Radwañska-Williams' subtle observation (1993:85) on the correlations of the lineai' nature of the linguistic sign by Kruszewski and Saussure: According to Saussure, the linguistic sign is linear, i.e., the units of the language in their combination with each other in the stream of speech occur in the order of suc­ cession. This corresponds to Kruszewski's conception of "the order of succession", but note that for Kruszewski the order of succession constitutes only half of the linguistic relations into which the sign enters. The linguistic sign is only linear in­ sofar as it also enters into association by similarity, it is not linear, i.e., it always has the potential of evoking related forms with which it is associated, and of being influenced both in use and in form by these related forms.

Kruszewski's treatment of words as signs attracts attention to their arbi­ trary character: "A word can serve in turn as a sign for an endless series of things which change in the course of time" (Kruszewski 1995:159[1883:133]). In connection with this, it should be mentioned that the very possibility of a continuous and never-ending change of a word in time is conditioned by the arbitrary character of a linguistic sign, that is, this very arbitrariness enables the change of the sound form of the sign on the condition that the change is suffi­ ciently gradual so as to secure the continuity of the link between the signifying and the signified. As Radwañska-Williams puts it (1993:94), "[...] the arbi­ trariness of the linguistic sign throws a bridge between the stability of the sys­ tem (synchrony) and historical change (diachrony)". She also remarks that in Kruszewski's conception, the word as a linguistic sign is both motivated and arbitrary. The semantic motivation of a given word is determined by the asso­ ciation by similarity, and arbitrariness by the association by contiguity. The as­ sociation by contiguity determines the independence of a linguistic sign and is fully sufficient for its existence, while the association by analogy is necessary for the existence of language as a system. Apart from the laws of association, Kruszewski considered as "the other basic law of the development of language", that of "[t]he correspondence be-

MIKOLAJ KRUSZEWSKI AND 20TH-CENTURY LINGUISTICS

227

tween the world of words and the world of ideas" (Kruszewski 1995:100 [1883:69]), whereas the ideal state of the language he regarded as a full cor­ respondence between a system of linguistic signs and what they mean, i.e., "a complete general and particular correspondence between the world of words and the world of ideas" that "language constantly strives for" (Kruszewski 1995:118[1883:87]. These remarks by Kruszewski are in our opinion some of the most significant points in the understanding of his general linguistic theory, for a question arises here as to the correlation of language and thought, logical and grammatical categories, and the understanding of language as a system. In Kruszewski's claims regarding the correspondence between the world of words and the world of ideas, Radwanska-Williams (1993:82) sees a semiotic function, a semiotic conception of the nature of language: If the semiotic function is to express thought, i.e., language is a system that is suited to the expression of thought (or to the modelling of our 'knowledge of the world'), then the ideal state of language would be a perfect correspondence between the 'outer' form of words and their 'inner' content, i.e., between the structure of ideas and the structure of language. It is precisely this semiotic function that induces the changes in the linguis­ tic system, as well as the division of linguistic phenomena into the psychologi­ cal and the physiological. This makes the semiotic function fundamental in Kruszewski's theory. A brief survey of Kruszewski's basic views is by no means evidence that we are dealing with 'a talented dilettante' (Leont'ev 1968:15). On the contrary, we are dealing with a profoundly insightful scholar, who not only met the standards of the contemporary science of language, but whose ideas reached far into the future and thus turned out to have had an influence upon the lin­ guistics in the 20th century. To quote Radwanska-Williams again (p. 158): By the end of the neogrammarian period in Russian linguistics, that is, by about the time of the Russian Revolution, Kruszewski would have been all but forgotten were it not for his influence on one young linguist, Roman Osipovic Jakobson (1896— 1982). Through Jakobson, the phonological theory of the Kazan School, and Kru­ szewski's theory of language in general, became seminal elements in the develop­ ment of Prague School structuralism. Later, it was Jakobson's reconstruction of the development of his own thought that brought Kruszewski to the attention of Western linguistics. In this regard, the reminiscences of Jakobson himself also are of interest : As a first-year graduate student in 1914 I naively decided to start my reading of Rus­ sian linguistics with the very first issue of the periodical Russkij Filologiceskij Vestnik, which was the Russian journal treating topics closest to those of linguis­ tics. When I began studying its first issues, which appeared at the border of 1870s

228

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

and 1880s, I was immediately drawn to the unusual ideas of a young Polish scholar named Mikoiaj Kruszewski, who had died at an early age and had been unjustly for­ gotten. Filip Fedorovic Fortunatov, the head of the Moscow Linguistic School, had just died, and his offprints and pamphlets were being sold to the students.3 I thus came to own a remarkable article by Kruszewski on sound alternations. This article which had been written in German had been turned down by the conservative editors of a German linguistic journal, and the author printed it at his own expense and sent a copy to Fortunatov. This is how the name of Kruszewski first entered my con­ sciousness [...]. Thus it was quite by accident that I became familiar with Kruszew­ ski's attempt to extend and apply to language the theory of association by similarity and contiguity that he had founded drafted by English thinkers. (Jakobson & Pomorska 1983:126-127).

Radwańska-Williams finds many echoes of Kruszewski's linguistic theory in Jakobson's linguistic views. They are such issues as the sound-meaning re­ lationship, which became fundamental for Jakobson's phonological theory, the relationship between the system of language and the history of language, and between the variant and the invariant, i.e., essentially the problem of the defi­ nition of linguistic units and their valiants. The proximity of Jakobson's and Kruszewski's views can be seen in Jakobson's search for linguistic universals, and in his definition of distinctive features in terms of their phonetic properties. Jakobson's theory of the semiotic and functional nature of language, as Rad­ wañska-Williams maintains, also largely derives from Kruszewski's ideas. It was from him that Jakobson took over the very notions 'similarity' and 'con­ tiguity'. The contrast between the oppositions of similarity and contiguity, or, using Jakobson's terms, of "metaphorical and metonymic fields", permeates Jakobson's works on aphasia and poetics. Jakobson introduced the distinction in a general semiotic sense between aphasic disorders during the selection of linguistic elements through similarity and their combination through contiguity. Contiguity relationships mainly concern coding, whereas similarity relation­ ships concern decoding in speech disorders. The similarity and contiguity, or, in other words, metaphor and metonymy, according to Jakobson, constitute the bipolar structure of language, as well as other semiotic systems. Radwañ­ ska-Williams even holds that, due to Jakobson, Kruszewski's theory maintains its strength in the capacity of explanatory principles of the 20th-century neurolinguistics.

3

Radwanska-Williams (1993:160) specifies that they were books and offprints from For­ tunatov's rich personal library.

MIKOLAJ KRUSZEWSKI AND 20TH-CENTURY LINGUISTICS

229

6. Concluding remarks Evaluating Kruszewski's general theory of language and its impact on the further development of linguistics, Radwanska-Williams writes (1993:177): The theory which Kruszewski sketched as an alternative helped to lay the foundations for 20th century structuralism [...] Kruszewski's theory is a Tost paradigm' in the history of linguistics because his major work, Oèerk nauki o jazyke, had the poten­ tial to become a 'classical' text or 'exemplar' for linguistic science. That this did not happen was the result of a combination of a number of historical factors, including Kruszewski's early death, and the simultaneous consolidation of the neogrammarian paradigm along different lines than those which Kruszewski had envisaged. That Kruszewski's work was seminal in the history of linguistics is attested by the fact that his ideas influenced Saussure and Jakobson and have through them indirectly be­ come a part of the foundations of modern linguistic theory.

That Jakobson valued Kruszewski's theories highly may be gathered from his testimony of 1966, some eighty years after Kruszewski's departure from the linguistic scene: Kruszewski [...] grew into one of the greatest theoreticians of language among the world linguists of the late nineteenth century [...]. The cardinal novelty of Kruszew­ ski's theory is displayed both in his morphological analysis of words and in the phonemic (strictly, morphophonemic) analysis of morphological units, which in his studies found a "more exact and more scientific" treatment than in the original sug­ gestions of his teacher, as Baudouin himself repeatedly confesed. [...] in his later Pe­ tersburg teaching and writing he [i.e., Baudouin de Courtenay] vindicated and devel­ oped the chief ideas of his deceased associate. These two Polish searchers were the only linguists in the world who approached a genuine theoretical conception of lan­ guage, according to Saussure's acknowledgement of 1908, and his Geneva courses in general linguistics evince a deep and fruitful influence of Kruszewski's thought. Yet in such crucial questions as, for instance, the creative aspect of language and the rela­ tionship between verbal signs and concepts, Kruszewski stands closer than Baudouin and Saussure to the scientific vistas of today. (Jakobson 1971:449-450)

REFERENCES Anan'ev, Boris Gerasimovic. 1947. Očerki istorii russkoj psixologii XVIII i XIX vekov [Sketches of the history of the Russian psychology in the 18th and 19th centuries]. Moskva: Ucpedgiz. Boduèn de Kurtenè, I[van] A[leksandrovic] (= Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan). 1881. Podrobnaja programma lekcij v 1877/78 ucebnom godu [A detailed program of lectures for the academic year 1877-1878]. Kazan & Warsaw. Boduèn de Kurtenè, I. A. 1963. Izbrannye trudy po ob ščemu jazykoznaniju [Selected works in general linguistics]. Ed, by V[iktor] P. Grigor'ev & Afleksej] A. Leont'ev, 2 vols. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk. Deese, James. 1965. The Structure of Associations in Language and Thought. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

230

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

Godel, Robert. 1957. Les sources manuscrites du Cours de linguistique générale de F. Saussure. Geneva: Droz. Guxman, M[irra] M[oiseevna]. 1964. 'Istoriceskie i metodologiceskie osnovy Strukturalisma [Historical and methodological grounds of structuralism]". Osnovnye napr.avlenla struktur alisma [Main trends in structuralism], 5-45. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo "Nauka". Jagic, V[atroslav]. 1983. Korrespondencija Vatroslava Jagića. Vol.III. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti. Jakobson, Roman. 1971. Selected Writings. Vol.11: Word and Language. The Hague: Mouton. Jakobson, Roman. 1985. Izbrannye raboty [Selected writings]. Moscow: Iz­ datel'stvo "Progress", Jakobson, Roman & Krystyna Pomorska. 1983. Dialogues. Cambridge, Mass,: MIT Press. Kilbury, James. 1976. The Development of Morphophonemic Theory. Amster­ dam: John Benjamins. Koerner, Konrad. 1989. Practicing Linguistic Historiography. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Kruszewski, Mikolaj Habdank [in Russian: Nikolaj Vjaceslavovic Kruševskij]. 1881a. "K voprosu o gune: Issledovanie v oblasti staroslavjanskogo vokalizma [On the question of the 'guna': A study in the domain of Old Slavic vocalism]". Russkij filologićeskij vestnik 5.1.1-109. Kruszewski, Mikolaj. 1881b. Ueber die Lautabwechslung. Kazan: Universi­ tätsbuchdruckerei. (English transl, by Robert Austerlitz in Kruszewski 1995.534.) Kruszewski, Mikolaj. 1883. Oeerk nauki o jazyke [An outline of the science of language]. Kazan: Tipografía Imperatorskago Universiteta. (English transl, by Gregory M. Eramian in Kruszewski 1995.43-172.) Kruszewski, Mikołaj. 1891. "Očerki po jazykovedeniju. 1: Francuzskaja grammatika [Essays in linguistics: French grammar]". Posmertnoe izdanie s predisloviem i pod redakciej Prof. V. A. Bogorodickogo. Russkij Filologie eskij Vestnik 28:2.253-271, 28:4.173-186 (1891). [This and the following 2 entries were posthumously published by V[asilij] A[lekseevic] Bogorodickij, together with an introduction by him (248-252).] Kruszewski, Mikołaj. 1892-1894. "Ocerki po jazykovedeniju. 2: Antropofonika [Essays in linguistics: Anthropophon(et)ics]". Russkij Filologie eskij Vestnik 28:4.266-290 (1892); 29.332 (1893), and 31:1/2.66-83 (1894). [This and the subsequent item also appeared separately, Očerki po jazykovedeniju (Warsaw: Tipografija Varšavskago Ucebnago Okruga, 1893), 48 pp. Kruszewski, Mikolaj. 1894[1880]. "Ocerki po jazykovedeniju: Pribavlenie. Predmet, delenie i metod nauki o jazyke [Essays in linguistics. Supplement: The subject, division and method of the science of language]". Russkij Filologićeskij Vestnik 31:1/2.84-90. [Appendix to Kruszewski 1892-1894.] (Repr. in Istorija jazykoznanija XIX i XX vekov v oćerkax i izvlecenijax [History of linguistics in the 19th and 20th centuries in sketches and extracts] ed. by Vla­ dimir] A[ndreevic] Zvegincev, 3rd enl. ed., vol.1, 284-289. Moscow: Izd. "Prosvesccenie", 1964, and in Xrestomatija po istorii russkogo jazykoznanija ed. by F[edor] P[etrovic] Filin, 412-417. Moscow: Vysšaja škola, 1973, and in the 2nd ed., prepared by F[edor] M[ixajlovic] Berezin, 1977, pp.376-381.)

MIKOLAJ KRUSZEWSKI AND 20TH-CENTURY LINGUISTICS

231

Kruszewski, Mikolaj. 1995[1881b, 1883]. Writings in General Linguistics: On Vocalic Aternations: An Outline of Linguistic Science. Ed., with an introduction, by Konrad Koerner. (= Amsterdam Classics in Linguistics, 1800-1925, 11.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Kuryiowicz, Jerzy. 1960. Esquisses linguistiques. [I]. Wroclaw & Kraków: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolinskich. Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akad. Nauk. Leont'ev, A[leksej] A[lekseevic]. 1968. "Predislovie [Foreword]". Ocerki po istorii jazykoznanija v Rossii (konec XIX - naalo XX v.) [Sketches in the history of linguistics in Russia (end of the 19th — beginning of the 20th century)] by F. M. Berezin, 3-24. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo "Nauka". Mill, John Stuart. 1843. A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive; being a connected view of the principles of evidence and the methods of scientific investigation. London: Parker. (6th ed. in two vols., vol.1, London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1865.) Polivanov, E[vgenij] D[mitrievic]. 1968. Stat'i po obscemu jazykoznaniju [Articles in general linguistics]. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo "Glavnaja redakcija vostocnoj literatury". Potebnja, A[leksandr] A[fanas'evic]. 1881. "A. V. Popov: Nekrolog [Obituary]". Aleksandr Vasil'evic Popov, Sintaksiceskie issledovanija [Syntactic studies], i-ii. Voronez: V. I. Isaeva.. Radwañska-Williams, Joanna. 1993. A Paradigm Lost: The linguistic theory of Mikoiaj Kruszewski. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Scerba, L[ev] V[ladimirovic]. 1957[1929]. "I. A. Boduèn de Kurtenè i ego znacenie v nauke o jazyke [J. Baudouin de Courtenay and his significance in the science of language]". Izbrannye trudy po russkomu jazyku [Selected writings on the Russian language], 85-96. Moscow: Ucpedgiz. Scerba, L. V. 1974[1930]. "I. A. Boduèn de Kurtenè: Nekrolog [J. Baudouin de Courtenay: Obituary]". Jazykovaja sistema i recevaja dejatel' nost [Language system and speech activity] by L. V. Scerba, 381-394. Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo "Nauka". Troickij, M[atvei] M[ixajlovic]. Logika [Logic]. A course of lectures of from the academic year 1883/84. Moscow: Section of Rare Books, Russian National Library. Ufimceva, A[nna] A[mfilof'evna]. 1961. "Teorii 'semantic eskogo polja' i vozmoznosti ix primenenija pri izucenii slovarnogo sostava jazyka [The theories of the 'semantic field' and the possibility of their use while studying the vocabulary of the language]". Voprosy teorii jazyka v sovremennoj zarubecnoj lingvistikie [Problems of the theory of language in modern linguistics abroad], 30-63. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo "Nauka".

CHAPTER 8 MIKOŁAJ RUDNICKI'S GENERAL LINGUISTIC CONCEPTIONS* JERZY B AŃCZEROWSKI Adam Mickiewicz University 1.

Introduction The history of linguistics knows of cases in which credit for certain lin­ guistic theories has gone not to their original founders but to scholars who formulated them subsequently and yet were first to succeed either in making these theories widespread or in finding disciples who would later accomplish this propagation in their names. As we probe into the works of Mikolaj Rudnicki (1881-1978) today, it is easy to establish that he was the founder of a number of original theories in reference to which his name deserves to be men­ tioned in linguistics textbooks. In the period during which these theories emerged, the world of linguistics was not yet suitably prepared to appreciate their true value and indeed Rudnicki's general linguistic ideas have not coin­ cided with subjects of broad academic discussion or in-depth linguistic analysis to date. This should not be stated without a certain degree of embarrassment. In reconstructing Rudnicki's linguistic theories we encounter a variety of difficulties, some of them serious. The problem of adequately restoring the spirit of a theory formulated, in a time other than that in which our own out­ looks have been formed, is seldom an easy undertaking. We cannot simply re­ strict ourselves to word-for-word recapitulations of someone's works or to quoting sections of text. The most important thing is to present a correct inter­ pretation of a given theory in terms we know, so that it is rendered compre­ hensible and comparable when set alongside other theories. Verbatim excerpts from a text may well appear incongruous. As we have mentioned, many of Rudnicki's conceptualizations are of con­ siderable importance and should be granted a corresponding status in Polish linguistics. The fact that they are passed over in silence in favor of the persisThis article first appeared in Lingua Posnaniensis 24.7-27 (1981). It is being republished here, with the permission of both the author and the editor of the journal, after a certain number of revisions in form and presentation have been made. (A parallel Polish version appeared in Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 38.11-32 in the same year.)

MIKOLAJ RUDNICKI'S GENERAL LINGUISTIC CONCEPTIONS

233

Mikolaj Rudnicki

tent importation of notions from abroad evokes a certain bewilderment. By this I do not mean to say that we ought to disregarded whatever happens elsewhere in the world, but I would like to assert in no uncertain terms that it is an inex­ cusable mistake to be forgetful of one's native heritage and its creative devel­ opment. This is all the more true when this heritage is so authentically original and inspiring.

234

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

I do not know whether I will succeed in faithfully reconstructing some of Rudnicki's theoretical linguistic ideas below. It seems that a satisfactory ap­ proach to such an undertaking would require still deeper consideration of the issues at hand. In any case I have sought throughout my discussion to present the main principles behind his theories, to infer their natural consequences, and to resolve minor discrepancies whenever possible. 2. Language as a form of consciousness In Rudnicki's linguistic conceptualizations, a distinctly language subjectoriented relativization of linguistic notions comes to the fore. This is due to his understanding of language as one of the forms of consciousness. Thus, terms such as 'the consciousness of the language subject' or 'language conscious­ ness' are often to be found pervading his works (1927:54). Rudnicki's ap­ proach to language consciousness probably does not stray far from contempo­ rary approaches, which speak rather of 'language competence', understood as language knowledge, which is essentially a form of cognition. It would be a mistake to say that Rudnicki was speaking exclusively of in­ dividual language consciousness. Beyond the consciousness of language sub­ jects, he clearly discerned the social (super-individual) consciousness of a given language community which is reflected in the language consciousness of the individual. He wrote fairly early in his career (1913b:5): Clarity of apperception depends, in the final analysis, strictly on the will of the lan­ guage subject. It does not follow as a consequence of this assertion that language is simply governed by arbitrariness. Certainly we can and should speak assertively of sound laws. For no one will arbitrarily devote special attention to a particular phone, and were anyone to do so, he might thereby produce certain effects on his own indi­ vidual language alone, but without having any impact on the whole development of language. In his deliberations upon how social language consciousness is reflected in various individual language subjects, Rudnicki (1927:56) accounted for the difference in these reflections as follows: The memory of the language subject embraces the whole of the native language, i.e. its phonology, morphology, syntax and lexicon. Although, the psycho-language content of any two language subjects of the same language, or even of the same language subject at different periods of his life, is never constant, the basic, essential features are the same, and it is these very features which constitute the basis and the prerequisite for regularity in language change. In Rudnicki's conceptualization, language consciousness is set in opposi­ tion to language reproduction, which should be conceived of as language use, that is, language performance.

MIKOŁAJ RUDNICKI'S GENERAL LINGUISTIC CONCEPTIONS

235

Language, according to Rudnicki, is a cultural phenomenon. Its place lies in the realm of human culture, of which it unquestionably forms the most im­ portant part. It follows, therefore, that the governing principles of language ought to be applicable across the entire domain of cultural phenomena (1955a: 191). Rudnicki openly opposed the tendency to reduce linguistics to the outer sciences. In connection with this he wrote, T only want to indicate that the re­ lationship, the bond, of language facts with philosophy or with biology is dis­ tant enough that we should, first of all, at least attempt an interpretation of lan­ guage facts on the basis of language concepts and relationships' (1915: 255). Yet he himself was not always consistent in this respect. For, as the history of linguistics teaches us, metatheoretical knowledge does not always go hand in hand with the theoretico-empirical activity of linguists. 3. Language consciousness as the space of reproductive images In Rudnicki's consciousness-oriented conception of language, a fundamen­ tal role is played by reproductive and reproduced images. The reproduced im­ ages are simply individual, concrete language objects in articulatory and acous­ tic forms. The reproductive images are to be understood as entities which have an existence within language consciousness. It might be added (without tam­ pering with Rudnicki's thoughts) that these entities are formed on the basis of the substantial as well as asubstantial properties of the reproduced images. Re­ productive images thus fulfil a role, speaking somewhat metaphorically, as patterns, matrices, or programs for reproduced images. They are entities of consciousness (mental phenomena) which can never be empirical. There are probably no grounds for doubting the interpretation given above of the terms 'reproductive image' and 'reproduced image'. Besides, Rudnicki leaves no room for doubt as he writes, "... every word, every phone, and ev­ ery language phrase has two images: image w\ and image W2. Secondly, these images are in a maximally intimate relationship with each other. Furthermore, phones, words, phrases, etc., when they have no image wl, do not belong to the language at all and they find themselves in the language as transitory phe­ nomena which have no deeper relevance. Image w\ is the image of the pho­ netic element, the phone, word, phrase, sentence, etc., which we store in our consciousness or subconsciousness and which is the foundation for producing iteratively the given phonetic element, phone, word, phrase, sentence, etc, Im­ age w2 is just the newly enunciated image, i.e., the actual execution of the phonetic element, phone, word, etc. It is clear that the direct connection be­ tween these two images is a natural and necessary thing. They are joined as

236

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

closely as possible by the relative identity of these very elements phones, words, etc." (1911:55; cf. Rudnicki 1925:39; 1972:49-50). Language consciousness, in Rudnicki's approach, should be interpreted as the space of reproductive images. This space might be seen as the mode of ex­ istence of language consciousness which, as language knowledge simultane­ ously is a form of epistemic ability. Language consciousness has limitations (1927:69). Between a reproductive image and the reproduced image built on its basis, there is obtains a relation of precedence in time, i.e., the former is always prius and the latter posterius. On the other hand, a relation of coexistence in time and space holds between reproductive images themselves (1927:54). Reproductive images differ in the degree to which they are brought to con­ sciousness by languaging subjects. Rudnicki notes, for instance, that the de­ gree of awareness (or cognitive salience) is greater for words than for phones ("... die Erkennbarkeit für das Wort wichtiger ist, weil das letztere viel inten­ siver das menschliche Bewußtsein erregt als der Laut, der ja nur ein Bestandteil des Wortes ist" [1912:119; 1913b:100]). This issue is intimately connected to the problem of the psychological reality of linguistic units as discussed within the framework of psycholinguistics proper. A word for Rudnicki is a psycho­ logical whole not only from the semasiological point of view, but also from the point of view of phonetics (1911:188). When attention is focussed on the word itself, its initial phone manifests a greater degree of awareness than any of its component phones. Word-medial phones display, in turn, a greater degree of awareness than word-final phones (1911: 176, 193; 1913b:71-72). The degree of awareness is strongly correlated with the degree of semasiological rele­ vance. 4. Language reproduction The selection of the terms 'reproductive' and 'reproduced' in the works of Rudnicki is nothing accidental. He understood language performance (also called language use) as a set of countless acts of language reproduction, in the course of which individual language objects are repeatedly emitted and received (1955a: 188). Language reproduction is characterized by a certain psycho-phys­ iological parallelism. That is to say, a chain of images makes its way through the consciousness, and correspondingly there is a chain of movements of the speech organs (1913b: 109-110). In the context of psycho-physiological paral­ lelism Rudnicki also considers psychophysiological disproportion. In this context, it is worthwhile considering the following words of Rudnicki: "The act of speaking follows two parallel courses: on the one hand, meaning ele­ ments, in a stricter sense, proceed through the a focal point of consciousness

MIKOLAJ RUDNICKI'S GENERAL LINGUISTIC CONCEPTIONS

237

and, in principle, suitable means of expression are sought for them, while on the, other hand, there proceeds a chain of phonic images (contours of sen­ tences, of constructions, of words, and finally, of phones and their elements). It is obvious that in this act of recollection and searching for the word (or higher units, the sentences or constructions) most suitable for the rendering of one's thoughts, the most important role is played by word-initial phones, and it is precisely from this that their semasiological relevance derives, for after all it is they which, before all others, render themselves available to consciousness during this recollection process" (1911:193). At the same time, Rudnicki em­ phasized that any speaking at all must have within it elements of reflection and volition (1913b:63). The term 'reproduce' as used by Rudnicki is close to one of the senses of the term 'generate', i.e., 'to produce'. The term 'reproduce' is probably more adequate for Rudnicki's purposes than is 'generate' since it specifically con­ notes a capacity for repetition of the process of emitting and receiving individ­ ual language objects on the basis of reproductive images and, besides, does not exclude creativity. Thus, at the foundation of all acts of language reproduction (that is, of acts of language use) there lies language consciousness, which finds itself in a state of unstable equilibrium. Language reproduction is an operation that continually maps the space of reproductive images onto the space of reproduced images. In the course of acts of reproduction certain forces are activated in image space. These forces may not only disturb, but also destroy the state of equilibrium oc­ curring in language consciousness and so lead the way to changes therein (1927:55). Because of these forces, language entities (images) act upon each other. The main forces in question are: (i) identification, (ii) differentiation. They act, on the one hand, in the joint space of reproductive and repro­ duced images, and on the other, in the space of reproductive images alone. As a consequence we come to a specification of four forces: (i) identification of reproductive images with the reproduced images created on their basis; (ii) differentiation between reproductive images and the reproduced images created on their basis; (iii) identification of reproductive images; (iv) differentiation of reproductive images. Force (i) lies at the foundation of synchronic stability and diachronic conti­ nuity of a language. Forces (ii)-(iv), however, condition the synchronic vari­ ability and diachronic mutability of language. Both the force of identification

238

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

and the force of differentiation have a gradational character in Rudnicki's works. The identification force is a kind of force of attraction while the differ­ entiation force a one of repulsion. As a result of the former, differences be­ tween language entities are ignored and the entities succumb to assimilation, but as a result of the latter, these differences are reinforced, and the entities un­ dergo dissimilation. The four types of force do not act in isolation but are intimately connected with each other. Now let us consider somewhat more precisely these forces which might just as well be interpreted as relations. (i) For the correct understanding of the force of identification of reproduced images with their respective reproductive images, Rudnicki's following state­ ments, among others, are of importance: 1) A reproduced image stands in a certain fixed relationship to its reproductive image, and 2) this relationship concerns their unity, that is, the acknowledgement of their basic sameness. 3) The feeling of unity of these two images stands in an in­ versely proportional relationship to the magnitude of change that arises between the reproduced image and the reproductive one. In practice, then, the greater the change arising in the reproduced image in comparison to the reproductive, the weaker the feeling of identity or unity of these images, and vice versa. The very fact of the differentiation, or better still of identification, of the two images may be called a memory phenomenon. Yet in using this term, by no means do I want to take it for granted that behind this fact of identification there inheres some psychic »power«. Still, if the identification of these images obtains, that is, if the language subject recognizes their sameness, it means that, by memory, he recognizes the reproduced image as the same thing which already exists within his mind (the reproductive image). (1927:53) Rudnicki realizes that there is no absolute factual identification of the two images. He states (p.54): If, however, the reproduced image is identified by the language subject with the re­ productive image — in spite of differences arising between them, the unquestionable proof of which is language change - this shows that the attention of the language subject, while recognizing the reproduced image and identifying it with the reproduc­ tive one, either disregards or does not notice the difference or differences that may arise between one image and the other. Thus, this divergence interjecting itself between the reproductive image and the reproduced cannot overstep a certain permitted quantum, namely, that which still does not disfigure the reproduced image to such an extent it could no longer be identified with the appropriate reproductive image (1954:20). These imperceptible deflections at the time of acts of reproduction can eventually transform themselves into perceptible, durable changes in image space.

MIKOLAJ RUDNICKI'S GENERAL LINGUISTIC CONCEPTIONS

239

(ii) During acts of language reproduction, reproduced images succumb to divergence in relation to their corresponding reproductive images in phonetic, semantic, or morphological respects. As a result of the action of the differen­ tiation force, this divergence may proceed to such an extent that reproduced images cease to be identified with the reproductive. Finally, the reproduced im­ age takes the place of the reproductive image, i.e., new reproduced images be­ come the basis for creating new reproductive images, which expel the old ones. This process continually repeats itself, which conditions the perpetuity of language change (1927:53-54), In this perpetual replacement of the reproduc­ tive image by the reproduced, Rudnicki perceives various inherent possibilities for change, A change becomes victorious at the time it achieves a social status (throughout the language community) (1972:51). Language change is thus tied to change in language consciousness, in other words, to the appearance of the new reproductive image qua object of that consciousness. The above deliberations indicate that the space of reproduced images and language reproduction as well are not unambiguously specified by language consciousness, which thus not only allows for variability in acts of reproduc­ tion, but also allows for language change. What is more, language change is inevitable. (iii) As the force of identification operates in the space of reproductive im­ ages (i.e., it causes coexistent reproductive images to be attracted to each other), this may lead to the obliteration or elimination of differences between certain images and consequently to partial or total assimilation (absorption). Yet the condition required for such an identification would be the same as that re­ quired for the identification of reproductive and reproduced images, that is, that there be such a small difference between the given, simultaneously (spatially) existing im­ ages that the language consciousness could disregard it or fail to notice it, just as it is not noticed in the space of time-sequential images (reproductive and reproduced). Undoubtedly, this is one of the roads along which homonyms and synonyms develop: the first thanks to the formal (material-phonic) identification of initially phonically and semantically differing roots, the second on the basis of semantic proximations, finally reaching full identity, while sufficiently strong formal (material-phonic) differences are maintained. In the field of morphology it is possible to observe this law functioning in nu­ merous cases of the process of so-called analogical levelling. (1927:53-54)

In this way, excessively small differences (nimis parvae differentiae) between reproductive images may disappear. These images are composed of certain substantial and asubstantial proper­ ties. Identification may concern both kinds of properties. In the case of partial identification, images assimilate with respect to certain properties, but in the

240

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

case of total identification, complete assimilation is achieved, appealing as ei­ ther a mixing, a merger (fusion), or an elimination (absorption) of images. Rudnicki saw one of the most glaring examples of identification to be the mix­ ing or fusion of certain sound classes in Lekhitic dialects (belonging to the Western group of Slavonic languages) (1971a:213). This phenomenon is known under the names of Mazuration, Kashubiation, Chelminskiation, etc. (iv) The force of differentiation acting on reproductive images repels them from each other, which may consequently lead to a strengthening of difference between them (1927:69). Rudnicki saw the effect of this force's action in, among other things, dissimilation processes. The above discussion directly indicates that the synchronic variability of language reproduction and the historic mutability of language consciousness belong among the fundamental properties of language, together reflecting its dynamics. Language consciousness is revealed in individual acts of language reproduction, at which time the forces of identification and differentiation are activated. As a result of the first force's action, excessively small differences between images may disappear, and as a result of the second force's action, they may undergo strengthening. The action of the identification force is expressed by Rudnicki in the form of a law known as 'the law of identification of insufficiently distinct images'. It is formulated in the following way: The tendency towards identifying two (or more) distinct images is stronger, the smaller the differences between these images are; or, more theoretically, the force of the tendency towards identifying two or more distinct images stands in an inversely proportional relationship to the magnitude of differences obtaining between them (that is, between the images succumbing to the identification tendency). (1927:55; cf. Rudnicki 1972:50)

Although Rudnicki does not formulate a corresponding law that refers to the differentiation of insufficiently distinct images, he is nevertheless clearly aware of the existence of such a law, stating that the law of identification of in­ sufficiently distinct images is joined with, or is rather the reverse side of, the second law by the effect of which excessively small differences between im­ ages are reinforced (1927:69). It is worth emphasizing that Rudnicki extends the application of the law of identification of insufficiently distinct images to such cultural phenomena as folk, legendary, and literary motives (1972:51). Thus, for example, the mech­ anism for transforming prehistoric or historical events into legends would be similar to that of language change.

MIKOLAJ RUDNICKI'S GENERAL LINGUISTIC CONCEPTIONS

241

5. Theory of structural phonetics In his works, Rudnicki developed two types of structural phonetics: an articulatory type and an auditory type. The latter he presented in quite a system­ atic form. In these deliberations, he started with the assumption (accepted at that time by such linguists as Meringer, Mayer, Grammont, and Meillet) that the phones of every language differ from each other on the one hand, and ex­ hibit certain common features on the other. Rudnicki distinctly relativizes these differences and similarities as well both to the articulatory plane and to the auditory plane. Rudnicki's following statements have a fundamental significance for his theory of articulatory structural phonetics: (i) The psychophonetic system of each language forms a certain whole. The phones condition each other reciprocally: d : t,b : p, g : k,t : t, p : ƒ. This reciprocal relationship of phones lays the groundwork for the socalled articulatory bases of languages (1925:65). This relationship could be interpreted as a relation of phonetic opposition connecting phones; (ii) Phones possess a different articulatory energy (1913b: 16). The most necessary element for closure and localization is, of course, a certain de­ gree of muscular tension (1913b:35); (iii) Various degrees of similarity among phones may be distinguished (1913b: 18, 19). Thus, phones may be articulatorily similar (related) to varying extents. (iv) In linear structures, phones can be combinatorily reinforced by other phones which happen to be to a large extent similar to them (1913b: 1618, 21, 35). Consequently, some phone clusters are more compact than others; (v) The sound system of each language lends itself to division into phone classes distinguishing themselves articulatorily by the degree of aperture of the oral cavity, the degree of duration in time, the degree of activity of the vocal cords, the degree of sonority, and the degree of muscular ten­ sion (1913b: 31, 40-42); (vi) Each phone belongs to several classes simultaneously (1913b:l 10); (vii) The phone is a psychological whole. Every phonetic element (feature) partaking in the make-up of the phone itself possesses a certain degree of independent psychological reality (1913b:63). 6. Frameworks of the theory of language diacrisis and phonology From Rudnicki's works, a theory of diacrisis and phonology emerges in quite an advanced form. It should be remembered here that this was back in 1911. In order to avoid misunderstandings, it is necessary to point out that by 'features of words' Rudnicki understood phones and phonetic elements. These latter elements are quite simply articulatory and acoustic features in our under­ standing today. Instead of the term 'phonetic element', we will generally be

242

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

using the term 'phonetic feature', unless we are concerned with a quotation. It should be emphasized, however, that Rudnicki himself occasionally uses the terms 'phonetic feature' and 'phonetic element' inter- changeably (1913b: 110). Inherently connected with the theory of diacrisis is the notion of the semasiological meaning of a phone, also called its semantic value or relevance. Rudnicki understood it in the following way: 'The semasiological meaning of the phone, and of virtually each phonetic element, derives from the fact that each phonetic element constitutes one of the features which distinguish a given word from all other similar words' (1912:119; cf. Rudnicki 1913b:5). Thus, a given word is distinguished from all other similar words by phones and phon­ etic features. A phone fulfilling the role of distinguishing a word from other words constitutes one of the word's distinctive features. We might say of words which are phonetically differentiated that they stand in a relation of diacrisis with respect to each other. Words are thus set in opposition to each other with the help of phones. In­ stead of the term 'semasiological meaning of a phone' introduced by Rudnicki, it would be possible rather to use such terms as 'diacritic value of a phone', 'diacritic range of a phone', or 'diacritic load of a phone'. It seems that this concept could then be defined as the number of words in which the phone ap­ pears and differentiates them from all other words. The notion of the semasiological meaning of a phone has a gradational character, that is, two phones X and Y may be differentiated by the degree of diacrisis in a given language. A series of linguistic laws results from the sema­ siological differentiation of phones (1913b: 109). By differentiating words, phones are set in opposition to each other or, as we would say today, they stand in a relation of phonological opposition. The following statements by Rudnicki are of importance for the theory of phonology: (i) The psychophonetic system of every language forms a certain whole (1925:65). Phones may be psychophonetically equivalent or non-equiva­ lent (1913b:58ff). (ii) Every phone makes sense if it constitutes a feature of a given word (1925:39). In this way, the existence of phones is justified on the plane of units of a higher language level. (iii) Phonetic features exhibit various degrees of semasiological relevance. This gradation depends most of all on other simultaneously existing words which are more or less similar, predominantly with respect to phonetic shape, but also with respect to meaning and syntax. If, for in­ stance, through the changing of one of its elements, a word were to be­ come phonetically identical to a word semantically and syntactically close to it, the semasiological relevance of this element would then certainly be

MIKOLAJ RUDNICKI'S GENERAL LINGUISTIC CONCEPTIONS

243

considerable. This is especially true when an element of this kind distin­ guishes a whole sequence of words from each other. Thus, in Polish for instance, the substitution of tenuis for media would provoke a great revo­ lution in the reciprocal relations of the semasiological system of the lan­ guage and the phonetic complexes symbolizing it, because very many words would become identical, for instance tama, : dama, hura : góra, grzywa : krzywa, etc. Thus, the psychic force maintaining the tenuis / media distinction is considerable in Polish (1913b: 25, 63-64). (iv) Certain classes of phonic images are foregrounded in the language consciousness of a given community, and by virtue of that dominance in the image sphere, they assign a dominant role to certain phonetic features and to the relationships between phonetic features in the language's pho­ netic system and its phonic development (1913b:43). (v) The longer a word is, that is, the greater the number of phones making up its phonetic mass, the lesser semasiological relevance each phone (or phonetic element) has for the word (1913b: 108). (vi) another basis for differentiating the semasiological relevance of the phones in a word is their membership in the various morphemes entering into the composition of the word. The degree of semantic relevance of such morphemes varies (1913b:73). (vii) Phones and phonetic features possess actual and absolute semasiolog­ ical relevance. The actual relevance results from their appearance in par­ ticular words, the absolute from their position in the language as a whole. The actual relevance is thus relative and may fluctuate in accordance with the word and the position in the word (1913b:68-70). (viii) The phone possesses greater semasiological relevance than the pho­ netic feature (1913b:69). The above assertions clearly point to a certain hierarchy in the semasiologi­ cal relevance of phones, phonetic features, and relations in the psychophonetic system of language. They also seek to specify the factors determining this hier­ archy. 7. Auditory (perceptual) phonetics The deliberations upon auditory phonetics in Rudnicki's works are inti­ mately bound up with his phonological inquiries. The phones of a language are auditively differentiated and, what is more, may be recognizable to varying de­ grees. The degree of recognizability is a category within the language con­ sciousness. The recognition or apperception of phones, according to Rudnicki, is an operation accomplished through the participation of the consciousness of language subjects. The act of recognition embraces the comparison of a heard or pronounced phone with its image fixed in the language consciousness (1913b:99). Theoretically, the duration of a phone must be at least sufficiently long to enable its perception, that is, a phone may not be shorter than the time

244

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

required to become aware of it and to effect suitable articulatory movements (1925:39). For Rudnicki, the notion of a phone's recognizability is a consequence of the notion of the phone's semasiological meaning (1913b:5). Although it should be noted that the reciprocal relationship between these two notions is not entirely clear, Rudnicki's writings point rather toward a sort of feedback mechanism between them. The ascertainment of factors determining the recognizability of phones is a problem of first order significance for several of Rudnicki's conceptions. For he considered the formulation of a phonetic law (and a language law in general) to define nothing other than just those conditions which enhance the clarity of' phone apperception (1913b:5). A phone's recognizability must finally be re­ duced to the conditions of apperception and to the specifics which each phone renders on command to the attention of the speaking or listening subject, and on the basis of which he can recognize the phone as identical to its image stored in his consciousness. Of apperception nothing can be stated in advance other than that it is singular and has limitations (1913b: 101). Clarity of apperception depends in the final analysis only on the volition of the language subject. Conditions or causes for greater concentration of atten­ tion to certain phones are, in Rudnicki's view, generally constant, and thus certain phones and their combinations are constantly more clearly apperceived. He thus arrives at the conclusion that the so-called regularity ('exceptionlessness') of sound laws is a consequence of the constancy of phonic features and combinatory conditions (1913b:5; cf. also Rudnicki 1911:253). A phone's recognitive value is, in Rudnicki's opinion, directly proportional to its semasiological relevance. The easier a phone is to recognize, the greater must be its semasiological relevance, because the word of which it forms a part is then easier to recognize on account of its presence. And conversely, the more difficult a phone is to recognize, the less its semasiological relevance, for it is thereby also more difficult to recognize a word in which the phone appears — more difficult, anyhow, than when a phone more easily recognizable ap­ pears there (1913b:99). The more a heard or pronounced phone differs from its (reproductive) im­ age, the more difficult it is to recognize as identical to the image, and vice versa. The law of relative variability of reproduced images with respect to re­ productive ones comes into force here (1913b:99-100; 1911:239). A phone possesses a recognitive value (i) for itself, (ii) for the word it constitutes a feature of, and (iii) for a grammatical or semantic category. Theo­ retically, the following contingencies may arise in this context:

MIKOLAJ RUDNICKI'S GENERAL LINGUISTIC CONCEPTIONS

245

1) a phone's recognitive value for itself goes hand in hand with its value for the word, that is, the more easily a phone is recognized, the easier it is to recognize a word in which it appears as a feature; 2) these recognitive values are in disagreement with each other; a phone which is by nature less recognizable may have greater recognitive value for a word or a category than does a phone which is by nature more eas­ ily recognizable. Apperception (1913b: 111-112), in Rudnicki's view, pays the highest de­ gree of attention to just one image at a time. If, however, there exists in con­ sciousness an element not in a relationship of sufficient opposition to just a perceived image, this element may then also assume a clarity at least similar to that of the main image, for, on the whole, it is more weakly opposed. Apper­ ception becomes more widely aware of those images whose changes are more readily noticed. Observation of change depends on the concentration of atten­ tion on the phone as well as the change. A greater concentration of attention, in turn, ensues when certain phones (i) yield to language consciousness better external conditions for becoming aware of their nature; (ii) more effectively return to it their image content; (iii) are more suitable to the means of externalizing phonetic images possessed by the consciousness; (iv) induce an interest in their affective novelty (1913b: 109) — this rule can be interpreted in terms of information theory; (v) are connected (more than other phones) to elements possessing a higher degree of cognitive salience than phones or phonetic features generally do. The clarity of an image, according to Rudnicki, depends on the following conditions: (i) on the intensity of the nervous energy consumed in the apperception (of the image); (ii) on the length of time for which attention is directed onto the image; (iii) on the degree of 'alienity' (otherness, unfamiliarity) which elements of the image have for the consciousness; (iv) on the frequency with which a given image absorbs the consciousness; (v) on the interest the image induces by its own affective freshness; (vi) on the purposes for which the image serves or is able to serve the con­ sciousness. Rudnicki's considerations clearly show that the auditory differentiation of phones and the degree (the force) of their recognizability connected therewith are determined, approaching the matter in a most general way by two kinds of properties (cf. 1971a:211):

246

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS (i) substantial properties (that is, articulatory-acoustic and distributional); (ii) asubstantial or functional properties (that is, diacritic-distinctive).

The first kind of property results from such factors as articulatory energy, stress, duration, sonority, the linear arrangement of the phones in a word while the second kind results from their semasiological relevance. Referring to sonority, for instance, Rudnicki states, The dominant, element of a phone (or a class of phones) is the phonetic feature which most forcibly obtrudes upon the consciousness at the time of enunciation of the given phone [...]. The most striking feature of a phone, and therefore most often its dominant element, is the degree of sonority. (1913b: 110-111) The following statement is important in reference to the position of phones in lineai' structures: 'A following phone always has decisively more psychic force than an antecedent phone' (1913b:62). The dependency of the recognizability of phones upon their asubstantial properties also causes the recognition of phones to be, in a certain measure, an operation specific to the language, that is, an operation which must to some extent be relativized to the given language. Besides the recognizability of phones, Rudnicki also raises the question of the recognizability of other language objects, such as words. He reaches the conclusion that objects having a higher degree of cognitive salience are more easily recognizable than objects having a lower degree of salience. That is why words are more easily recognizable than phones (1913b: 100; 1912:119). 8. The historical mutability of language consciousness Relatively speaking, Rudnicki devoted a great deal of attention to lan­ guage's susceptibility to historical change, which is comprehended as a muta­ bility of the language consciousness, that is, as a temporal mutability of the space of reproductive images. In his writings, he placed emphasis on the vari­ ability of acts of language reproduction and on the historical mutability of the consciousness of language subjects. Nonetheless, alongside this mutability he assumed, at the same time, the continuation of the essential features of that consciousness (1927:56). Unquestionably, he was concerned here with an explanation for the fact that language changes are not noticed by the individual consciousness. This means, for instance, that the Polish language, in spite of changes, will still remain the Polish language. Rudnicki, referring to the demarcation between synchrony and diachrony introduced by Saussure, wrote, In the face of the law of reproductive and reproduced images, the term 'synchrony' does not really lend itself to use in an entirely strict manner. For instance, thirty two million Poles are speaking Polish at probably every moment, every second of each

MIKOLAJ RUDNICKI'S GENERAL LINGUISTIC CONCEPTIONS

247

day. This means that at every moment, they reproduce language images which imme­ diately become the basis for subsequent reproduction. In every such act, certain im­ perceptible changes and hesitations arise. As a result, only momentary cross-sections could be called synchronic, for they are immediately absorbed into the past and, turn into diachrony. (1971a:213)

Rudnicki thus saw limitations with regards to the use of the term 'syn­ chrony'. This term refers to language consciousness, that is, to the space of reproductive images, rather than to the space of reproduced images. Worthy of special attention are Rudnicki's outlooks on language change, which occur, in his view, through the generalizations of innovations initiated by some language subjects, that is, through the acceptance of the innovation by the social language consciousness (1972:51). We will quote his words on these matters in extenso here because they are quite noteworthy. For every language change has its ultimate source in the consciousness of indi­ vidual language subjects, in the consciousness of particular co-linguators. Actually, this by no means denies that in the final resort, the body sanctioning all language change is the whole community of co-linguating members, but this community is made possible, and is conditioned by, the existence of particular co-linguators. It is clear, after all, that if there were none of these, it would be necessary to part with the whole language community. Already in the preface to my Slovincian texts (MPKJ VI, 130-131 [1913a]) I set forth and explicated the view that even so-called regular phonetic changes, displaying the consistency and 'exceptionlessness' of so-called sound laws, proceed along a path of selection, the path of the slow emergence into the foreground of one form and, of the gradual fading away of another form. A similar course of alterations is all the more necessary when such cases arise as metathesis or dissimilation or other similar phonetic processes. It is difficult even to conceive of the process in another light, for certainly each co-linguator makes use of a given word, but it is hard to believe that each one carries out identically the same change in the word. And what is even more important and should be accepted as axiomatic is that one and the same member of the language community definitely does not use a given word in always the same form, with al­ ways exactly the same change, in all stages of his language ontogenesis. (1915: 262263; cf. also Rudnicki 1954:20)

Therefore, 'sound processes are protracted, [...] sound changes emerge spo­ radically and are then ever more widely propagated until they finally become exceptionless' (1955a: 189-190). In the light of the above considerations, sources of language mutability in­ here in the structure of language consciousness and in the variability of lan­ guage use as well. At this point it is worth considering Rudnicki's statement that 'the most general source of assimilation processes (and of all other lan­ guage changes) is the semasiological structure of language' (1913b:98). (To-

248

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

day we would refer to a functional or language-internal plane rather than a se­ masiological structure.) Elsewhere Rudnicki states, 'that the entire phonic de­ velopment of a language is actually based on the phone's value to a word as its recognitive feature, that is, on the phone's semasiological relevance' (1913b: 105). The language subject is not aware of variability in acts of language repro­ duction because reproduced images diverging from their respective reproduc­ tive images do not go beyond a certain quantum which still does not disfigure the reproduced image to the extent that it could no longer be identified with the reproductive image. This is a condition for the universality of sound changes in a certain domain (1954:20; cf. Rudnicki 1971a:212-213). Rudnicki distinguished between phonetic and phonological changes, al­ though in his opinion it is not possible to establish a strict boundary between phonetic and phonological phenomena in the history of languages. In his view, every phonological phenomenon is simultaneously phonetic, but not vice versa. If historical changes concern the phoneme as a whole, then we are dealing with historical phonology, but when changes concern phonetic ele­ ments (features), we are dealing with historical phonetics. Descriptive phonol­ ogy is a superstructure imposed upon descriptive phonetics. The reason for this is that the focus in phonology is the idea of the phone-phoneme, while the focus in phonetics is the phonetic element (feature) (1952/54:57). Sound processes, such as palatalization, during which one phonetic feature is added to or replaced by another, belong to historical phonetics. However, such processes as 'derailment' (replacement of a weakly established phone by a better established one), dissimilation, and sometimes assimilation, metathe­ sis, contamination, and finally, fusion of series of phones, all of which operate on phones or phonemes as whole entities in the sense that one phone or phoneme is replaced, respectively, by another phone or phoneme — all belong to historical phonology (1952/54:57-61; cf. Rudnicki 1954:20-21). Rudnicki formulates the general principle of phonetic development in the following way: independent (spontaneous) phonetic development, to a large extent, is a correlate of dependent development (1954:24). Also of interest are Rudnicki's remarks concerning the development of vo­ cabulary, In reference to lexical items, he states that the shorter the semantic distance between phonetically identical words, the more easily and quickly one word can expel the other. However, the more distant they are, the slower the tempo at which this expulsion may transpire (1913b: 107). Referring to recon­ structed forms of Proto-Indo-European, he states that reconstructed PIE words

MIKOLAJ RUDNICKI'S GENERAL LINGUISTIC CONCEPTIONS

249

are symbols of the relations between IE languages, rather than words which once actually existed (1955a: 192). Within the framework of his theoretical interests in historical linguistics, Rudnicki tried to discover and, formulate laws governing language processes, such as assimilation, dissimilation, metathesis, and palatalization (1913b: 43ff.; 113ff.). These processes, in his view, are merely various manifestations of the action of the identification-differentiation forces operating as causa movens in the space of language images (cf. 1972:50). In the results of these processes Rudnicki sought empirical confirmation of the language laws he had estab­ lished. 9. Rudnicki's theory of assimilation Rudnicki considered assimilation and dissimilation to be visible results of one and, the same basic process (1912:124), which consequently, led him to postulating a common source for both of them. He looked for this source in the reciprocal relationship between assimilating or dissimilating phones and in their relation to the entire phonetic mass of the word (1913b:6-7). Both assimilation and dissimilation may concern phones qua reproductive images and qua com­ ponents in linear structures (cf. 1925:23ff.). We will consider only some of the aspects of assimilation below, and even these in summary, since an exhaustive presentation of the theory of assimilation in Rudnicki's approach would require not only more space, but also deeper analysis. Assimilation is a process, which, according to Rudnicki, does not essen­ tially distinguish itself from all other sound changes (1913b: 108-109). The most general basis for assimilatory processes (as for all language changes) is the semasiological structure of language (1913b:98). Therefore, the behavior of phones in a process of assimilation is dependent upon their semasiological relevance, which is tied, in turn, to their degree of recognizability. That phone always assimilates (exerts an assimilating attraction) which possesses the greater semasiological relevance in a given combination, that is, the one which pre­ sents the apperception of the speaking subject with better information and better fea­ tures to ensure the focusing of awareness upon its nature. (1913b:101)

The idea of a phone's recognizability, which as we recall, was, for Rud­ nicki, just, a consequence of the idea of the phone's semasiological relevance, allowed him to subordinate so-called assimilation laws to conditions of apper­ ception. That is, it allowed him to state the fact that the formulation of a pho­ netic law (or language law in general) determines nothing other than those con­ ditions which enhance clarity of apperception (1913b:5).

250

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

Knowing the laws governing the recognizability of phones, we can thus define laws of assimilation. These laws depend both on substantial and on asubstantial properties of phones. It should be remembered though, that the degree of recognizability of phones is a category of the language consciousness not accessible to direct observation. Only in language processes such as as­ similation or dissimilation does the degree of recognizability manifest itself, that is, as Rudnicki says, assimilation laws cast a certain light on the features of apperception (1913b:111). Language changes are thus instrumental in the establishment of a phone's degree of recognizability. In other words, historical changes in language consciousness project upon previous synchronic states of that consciousness. 10. Rudnicki's theory offusion of phones The force of identification acting in the space of reproductive images may lead, as has already been stated, to the elimination of certain images, often by way of absorption into other images (1971a:213). Such an absorption appeal's in Lekhitic dialects in the form of a mixing or a fusion of two of the following three phone series (1928, 1934):

š(š) : ś(s') : s ž(ž) : ź(z') : z č(č) : ć(c') : c :

3(3')

:3

This absorption, being a particular case of assimilation and remaining bound to processes of palatalization and depalatalization, is manifested in the mentioned dialects in diverse ways, such as 1) Kashubiation (substitution of series s for series s'); 2) Chelminskiation (substitution of series ś for series s' and ś); 3) Mazuration (substitution of series s for series ś); 4) Jablonkovation (substitution of series ś for series ś and ś; 5) Shadzenje (substitution of series ś for series s); 6) Tsekanje (substitution of c for ć). Thus, the ternary phonetic opposition of type ([ś, ś, s]), which was prob­ ably a phonological opposition only to a small extent, became reduced to op­ positions of the type ([ś, s]), ([ś, s]) or ([s, ś]). Theoretically, the type ([ś, s]) is also possible. In effect, we have to deal in particular dialects with an elimi­ nation of one series, ś, s or s, or with the emergence of a new series in place of two series existing previously. In explaining this phenomenon, Rudnicki assumes that the difference be­ tween some pair of the three phone series under consideration, let us say, be-

MIKOŁAJ RUDNICKI'S GENERAL LINGUISTIC CONCEPTIONS

251

tween c, z. c, and, š, ž, č, respectively, was not brought to conscious­ ness or even if it was, then it did not seem sufficiently important in the com­ municative system of the language (1954:20). The differences between phones, as we recall, are determined by their substantial and asubstantial prop­ erties. If a phone has little or no semasiological relevance, then there is no rea­ son, according to Rudnicki, for maintaining it as an independent psychological entity (1913b:23). In the case of the fusion processes considered here, sub­ stantial and asubstantial differences between respective phones were too small to prevent total assimilation, that is, identification (1927:62; cf Rudnicki 1954: 23, 1955a:185ff., 1955b:231). These phones were too similar to each other to be distinguished. An image with weak psychological individuality undergoes absorption by the closest image stronger than it (1927:57). We might say then that the explanation of phonetic changes discussed here is to a significant extent a functional, language-internal one. The replacement of series š, ž, č, by series s, z, c,3,respectively, has, in Rudnicki's view, a spontaneous, independent character. One phone becomes replaced by another phone. It is not then a process in which series š, ž , č, slowly transits to series s, z, c,3,respectively, as in the case of the palataliza­ tion k + i > k' + i > ć + i > č + y, but rather it is a process in which sporadi­ cally, and then ever more regularly, one series of phones is replaced by another series. It is thus a process substitutional in character. One phone as a whole is replaced by another phone, first in individual words and then universally (1954:20). The starting point for the fusion of the series of phones which has been discussed earlier is certain combinatorial conditions in which assimilation, dissimilation or analogical influences operate, Dependent phonetic development initiated independent phonetic development (1954:23-24). The fusion at first appeared sporadically in particularly favorable positions, from which it spread over the entirety of a given dialect (1955a:190-191). The speaker identifies in­ sufficiently distinct images firstly in positions especially prone to such an iden­ tification, and later across an ever wider range 1955a:190). 11. Rudnickïs theory of metathesis Rudnicki did not share the opinion of many linguists for whom it was a hopeless enterprise to seek some persistent and definite causes for the purpose of explaining metathetic processes. In his view, such causes — astonishingly precise in nature and inherent in the structure of all languages — may be easily demonstrated. He saw, in metathesis, an almost conscious linear ordering of the phones of a word in agreement with general anthropophonic norms (1911: 173-260; 1915:269; 1921a:85-117; 1921b:l 17-120). Hisresearch in metathe-

252

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

sis indicates that to achieve an adequate explanation for this phenomenon, one should start with, among others, the following assumptions: (i) Phone clusters possess an independent psychological reality and are thus able to influence the formation of other phone clusters (1911:208; 1915:253-254). That is to say, some phone clusters may be rebuilt under the analogical influence of others existing in the language which are par­ tially similar to them, but which appeal' more frequently; (ii) Some phone clusters may have a more established status in a given lan­ guage than others do; consequently, certain linear orderings of phones may be preferred over others; (iii) Phones may bear various degrees of similarity to each other. Certain phone clusters as well as certain sets of phones may display stronger similarity than do, respectively, other phone clusters or sets of phones. Phones with a high enough degree of mutual similarity may be called affined phones. Affined phones constitute independent psychological en­ tities in the language consciousness. Affined phones, mutually separated within linear structures, attract each other (1915:260); (iv) A phone X which separates two affined phones Y and Z without being affined to them itself is susceptible, in that position, to elimination ten­ dencies (1915:260); (v) A phone which does not possess sufficiently independent psychological reality in a given language, that is which does not play a role in the recognition of words, is susceptible to elimination tendencies (1971b:70); (vi) A phone succumbing to elimination in a given word position may be compensated by the appearance of a corresponding phone in the same or in a different position. The relevance of the above assumptions for the explication of metathesis is illustrated by the following examples. The metathesis of Old Polish gzło "shirt" into Modern Polish zgło (žgło) arose as a result of the action of auditory assimilation, in other words, of pho­ netic analogy. Influence is exerted here by such words as zgtosic, zgladzic, zglupiec, and others (1911:208ff; 1915:253-254; 1952/54: 59). These same causative forces may be evidenced in the metamorphosis which the Slavonic kopriva ("nettle") underwent, finally yielding pokrzywa in Polish. That is, the development koprzywa 3 pokrzywa is provoked by auditory anal­ ogy to the structure of words of the type po + krz-, which are richly repre­ sented in the lexicon, whereas the configuration ko + prz- is either scarce or altogether missing (1911:210ff.; 1952/54:60). The metathesis of Old Polish plcha "flea" into Modem Polish pchta resulted from the tendency towards grouping affined phones next to each other. The ef­ fect is that voiceless, less open phones cluster together into the combination pch-, and voiced, more open phones into the combination -ła. The voiceless ł

MIKOŁAJ RUDNICKI'S GENERAL LINGUISTIC CONCEPTIONS

253

occurring in picha, which did not possess a sufficiently independent psycho­ logical reality, became eliminated in that position. Concurrently, this elimina­ tion was recompensed through the appearance of the voiced ł in pchła. In the final reckoning, the linear arrangement of phones became such that the closer to word-initial position, the greater obstruence and the less sonority we find. However, the closer to the end of the word we get, the greater the sonority and the less the obstruence (1915:268). The following metatheses are best explained in a similar way: in Czech: hmla # mhla "fog"; in Old Icelandic: huls # húsl "sacrament"; in Danish: vand # Old Norse vatn "water"; in Anglo-Saxon: tanc # tcácn "token". 12, Final remarks The above presentation of the general linguistic conceptions of Mikolaj Rudnicki certainly does not lay claim to completeness. Nevertheless, a sense of the breadth and depth of his theoretical inquiries emerges from the matters herein presented. Several of his original theories deserve to enter permanently into world linguistics as a genuine contribution of Polish linguistic thought. In spite of his unquestionable achievements and lucid, perspectives, Rud­ nicki gradually withdrew from problems of general linguistics sensu stricto. After arriving in Poznan in 1919, he reached the conclusion that it was more important to contribute to the establishment of a reborn Poland than to continue with general theoretical research (1971a:219). With this in mind he turned to the Slavonic world, more specifically, to West Slavic studies. One of his aims was to present scientific evidence, mainly based on linguistic and onomastic sources, confirming the Polishness of the Western territories severed from Poland in the course of the tragic events of history. No-one else could have succeeded better in this field. No-one could have more effectively converted his mental capacity into visible scientific results of permanent value. BIBLIOGRAPHY OF MIKOLAJ RUDNICKI'S WORKS ON THE TOPICS COVERED IN THE PRESENT CHAPTER* 1911. "Z zagadnień psycho-fonetycznych. (Na tle konkretnych wypadków polskich i slowiańskich)". Materyaly i Prace Komisyi Językowej Akademii Umiejętn ości 5.173-260. * For a complete bibliography of Rudnicki's writings, see the list in Slavia Occidentalis (Poznan) 20:2.19-27 (1960), supplemented by Zygmunt Brocki in Slavia 32.119-123 (1975) and 36.9-14 (1979).

Occidentalis

254

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

1912. "Psychophonetische Studien. I: Assimilation". Bulletin de l' cadémie des Sciences de Cracovie, juin-juillet et octobre 1911, 111-124. Cracow. 1913a. "Przedmowa do tekstów sîowinskich". Materyaly i Prace Komisji Językowej Akademii Umiejętnosci w Krakowie 6.130-131. 1913b. Studya psychofonetyczne. I. Assymilacya". Rozprawy Wydzialu Filologicznego Akademii Umiejętnosci 3:5(50).98-214. 1915. "Jedna z ogólnoantropofonicznych przyczyn metatezy". Materyaly i Prace Komisyi Językowej Akademii Umiejętnosci 7.253-270. 1921a. "Metateza w językach zachodnioslowianskich, przede wszystkim lechickich". SIavia Occidentalis 1.85-117. 1921b. "Ekskurs o ogólnoslowiañskiej przestawce płynnych". Slavia Occiden­ talis 1.117-120. 1925. Fonetyka Opisowa wedtug wykladów Prof, dr M. Rudnickiego. (Część 2). Poznań: Wydawnictwo Akademickiego Kola Językowego Uniwersytetu Poznańskiego. 1927. "Język jako zjawisko pamięciowe (Prawo identyfikacji wyobrazeñ niedostatecznie róznych)". Symbolae grammaticae in honorem loannis Rozwadowski, vol.I.53-69. Krakow: Gebetnner & Wolff. 1928. "Mieszanie szeregów, s, z, c, (dz), s, z, c, (dz) oraz ś, ź, ć, (dz) w języku literackim". Język Polski 13.45-48. 1934. "Nowe materjaly do mieszania szeregów s..., ś..., š...: Prawo identyfikacji i dyfferencjacji 'wyobrazeñ niedostatecznie róznych'". Prace Filologiczne 16. 175-197. 1952/54. "O historycznej fonologii i fonetyce". Sprawozdania Poznanskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciól Nauk 1 (43).57-61. 1954. "Rola wielkosci artykulacyjno-słuchowych w rozwoju fonetycznym w związku z mazurowaniem". Poradnik Językowy 3,19-25. 1955a. "Najnowsze prace o mazurzeniu i wlasne uwagi. (Z historii metod badań dialektologicznych w Polsce)". Poradnik językowy 5.185-193. 1955b. "Najnowsze prace o pochodzeniu polskiego języka literackiego". Przeglqd Zachodni 9:1/2.209-232. 1971a. "Językoznawstwo polskie w dobie uzyskiwania niepodległosci". Slavia Occidentalis 28/29.209-220. 1971b. "Metateza". Lingua Posnaniensis 15.69-71. 1972. "Wyobrazenia reprodukujące i reprodukowane". Lingua Posnaniensis 16.49-51.

CHAPTER 9 JERZY KURYŁOWICZ AS INDO-EUROPEANIST AND THEORIST OF LANGUAGE* WOJCIECH SMOCZYŃSKI Jagiellonian University, Cracow 1. Early life and career Jerzy (Wladysław) Kurylowicz was born on 26 August 1895 in Stanisiawow, a city which then belonged to the Austro-Hungarian Empire (Stanislau) and now is part of the Ukraine (Ivano-Frankivs'k). His father, Roman, was a merchant by trade. His mother, Flora née Kleczeñska (the daughter of a high school principal), took care of their six children. Jerzy had two brothers and three sisters. His brothers in time became, like him, university professors (one of electrical engineering, the other of bacteriology), while his sisters took up schoolteaching. He attended school in 1901-1913 in Lwow (Lemberg, L'viv), the capital of the province, first going to the German ('Evangelical') elementary school. In the classical Gymnasium, where the language of instruction was German, he took equal interest in Greek and Latin and in mathematics. He even thought of studying mathematics in Göttingen or Paris, but his father per­ suaded him to choose a 'more practical' profession. In the end he went to Vi­ enna and entered the Hochschule für Welthandel in the autumn of 1913. Apart from economics and commerce, correspondence in foreign languages was taught: Kurylowicz took examinations in six; English, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Russian. As if this were not enough, he also studied Arabic and Persian at the Lehranstalt für orientalische Sprachen of the Univers­ ity of Vienna and attended lectures in law at the Juridische Fakultät. Scarcely had he finished his first year at the three different Faculties when the First World War broke out. He entered the Austrian army and went to the front with * The original version of this article, translated into English by Wayles Browne (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.), appeared as "Jerzy Kurylowicz 1895-1978: On the hundredth anni­ versary of his birth" introducing the Kurylowicz Memorial Volume, Part I ed. by Wojciech Smoczynski (Cracow: Universitas, 1995), xi-xxiv. For the present purposes a number of minor changes have been introduced, including the addition of a select bibliography of Kurylowicz's writings, thus also reducing the number of bibliographical footnotes. To round out the picture of Kurylowicz the scholar, readers may wish to consult the contributions by Jerzy Rusek, Jan Safarewicz, and Adam Heinz to Historiographia Linguistica 25:1/2 (1998), pp. 141-146, 147-152, and 153-160.

256

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

the rank of lieutenant. Twice wounded, he spent a year and a half in Russian captivity.1 After the war he finished his studies at the Institut für Welthandel and the Lehranstalt (1920), but did not take up a 'practical' profession. He had realized that the languages he had been studying for purely practical reasons were interesting in their own right. Hence he undertook further studies at the age of 25. Officially he was enrolled in Romance and Germanic Philology at the Faculty of Philosophy of the Jan Kazimierz University in Lwów. In addi­ tion to this he pursued Indic studies with Andrzej Gawroñski (1885-1927) and Semitic studies with Zygmunt Smogorzewski (1884-1931) and Mojzesz Schorr (1874-1943). He completed his doctorate in three years (1923)2 and married, subsequently travelling to Paris on a scholarship from the French Government, intending to continue with Romance languages. When he learned of Antoine Meillet's (1866-1936) lectures, and then at the Collège de France encountered this scholar who moved with equal ease in Greek, Sanskrit, Slavic, and Armenian, he decided to leave Romance studies for Indo-European liguistics.3 His two years of study under Meillet, as well as under Joseph Vendryes (1875-1960) and Jules Bloch (1880-1953), the Semitist Marcel Co­ hen (1884-1974), and the Romance scholar Mario Roques (1875-1961), con­ cluded with a diploma from the École Pratique des Hautes Études for his work Traces de la place du ton en gatique (Kurylowicz 1925b). The same work gained him the Habilitation in Indo-European linguistics (Lwow, 1926). For a while, he was a Privat-Dozent, working as a lecturer of German, When An­ drzej Gawroñski died prematurely in 1927, Kurylowicz took over the chair of Indo-European Linguistics. He became an 'extraordinary' in 1928 and 'ordi­ nary' professor in 1934. One of his students during his Lwow period was Zygmunt Rysiewicz (1911-1954), who later held the chair of Indo-European at Warsaw University (from 1949). During the 1930s Kurylowicz spent much time abroad. A stipend from the Rockefeller Foundation took him first to the U.S.A. (Yale, 1931/32), then to Vienna (1932) and London (1935/36). He was active in international linguistic life, giving papers at all the Linguistic Congresses held before World War II: The Hague 1928, Geneva 1931, Rome 1 While in military hospital, he perfected his knowledge of Russian. At that time, too, as we know from his memoirs, he turned his attention to aphasia resulting from head injuries, particularly because he noted that manifestations of aphasia were different in German speakers than in native speakers of Polish or Russian. 2 His dissertation, written under Edward Porębowicz (1862-1937), bore the title Étymologies romanes, but it did not appear in book form. His first two articles (Kurylowicz 1925[19191924], 1925a) recall these studies; see also Kurylowicz (1926). 3 Before long Meillet was quoted as saying: 'I see that you are turning from the new to the old?' See "Rozmowa z prof dr. Jerzym Kurylowiczem: Od nowego ku staremu", ITD; Tygodnik studencki, p.8 (Warsaw, 1977).

JERZY KURYŁOWICZ: A SKETCH OF HIS LIFE AND WORK

257

1933, Copenhagen 1936, though not for the one scheduled for Brussels in 1939, which had to be cancelled because of the outbreak of the Second World War. During these year his scholarly achievements were appreciated in Poland, too: he was chosen a corresponding member of the Polish Academy of Arts in Krakow in 1931, and a regular member in 1938. In 1937 he was made a Com­ mander of the order 'Polonia Restituía'. But his flourishing career was soon experience a downturn because of the war and its political after-effects. 2. The Second World War and the years until 1956 In view of his age, Kurylowicz was not drafted. He spent the Second World War in Lwow, where he witnessed first the Soviet occupation and then the German. He taught general linguistics at the University of Lwow in 19391941 and again at the newly renamed Ivan Franko Ukrainian University in 1944-1946. During the German occupation (1941-1944) he was officially em­ ployed as a teacher at the Polish Commercial School, but simultaneously took part in the underground Polish university. The political after-effects of the war, sketched out in Teheran (1943), were made definitive at the Potsdam Conference of summer 1945. Poland found it­ self under the control of Soviet Russia, and the new borders drawn for it by Stalin and Churchill shifted its borders 200 km farther to the west, leaving the eastern borderlands together with Vilnius (Wilna) and Lvov (Lwow) in the USSR. The result was a great exodus of millions of people and lasting several years. In June 1946 Kurylowicz had to leave Lwow and move westward in order to live on the territories which official propaganda termed 'recovered'. The inhabitants of Lwow were to live in Wroclaw, a city left empty by the ex­ pulsion of the Germans and heavily destroyed (Festung Breslau). 1946 marked a curious episode, illustrating his uncompromising attitude in judging questions where scholarship bordered on ideology. Shortly before leaving Lwow (27 March), Kurylowicz gave a lecture on the so-called 'stadial theory' of language development. It was in fact a broadside criticism of the of­ ficial Soviet linguistic line, Marrism. N. J. Marr (1865-1934), a noted special­ ist on Caucasian languages, had held the unfortunate view that the Indo-Euro­ pean languages represented a younger, more advanced state of development than the Caucasian languages, which he termed the 'Japhetic family'. One of the central claims of this hypothesis was that the nominative structure charac­ teristic for Indo-European languages had developed from an older ergative construction. Man's pupils built up a theory of stages of development through which all languages supposedly passed as a result of changes in social struc­ ture (not due to their belonging to a particular family, tenitory, or period). De­ spite the risks, Kurylowicz subjected the theses of Manism to detailed analysis

258

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

and criticism from a strictly linguistic point of view, that of the general theory of syntax. The appearance of this criticism in the annual of the Academy in Moscow (Izvestija AN SSSR 1946:5, 387-393),4 and its reprint in Polish in a more polemic version (Kurylowicz 1947b)5 contributed to the rapid rejection of this doctrine, the signal for which was given by Stalin himself in his famous "Pravda" articles in 1950. In September 1946 Kurylowicz began to lecture at the newly founded Uni­ versity in Wroclaw. First he was an assistant to the professor of Romance Philology. Not until the following year was a chair of Indo-European created for him. Among his students from this period were the general linguist Leon Zawadowski (b.1914) and the Anglicist and general phonetician Wiktor Jassem (b.1922). Immediately before the start of the Cold War Kurylowicz was elected a foreign member of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Copenhagen (1947). This was surely a sign of solidarity from Hjelmslev and a recognition of Kurylowicz's intellectual connection with Glossematics. After two years in Wroclaw he was appointed Professor of General Lin­ guistics in Kraków (1948). This city, unlike Warsaw and Wroclaw, had mirac­ ulously escaped destruction in the war. Further, it recalled Lwów, both in architecture and in its intellectual and artistic atmosphere. From then until his death Kurylowicz remained connected with the Jagellonian University and the Polish Academy of Scinces and Arts6 of which he had been a member since 4

A French translation of this article appeared in Italy (Kurylowicz 1949d). We will cite one of its characteristic paragraphs: "La pensée ne se reflète que partiellement dans la langue. Les diffrences existant dans la langue existent nécessairement dans la pensée. Au contraire du manque d'une distinction linguistique on ne peut conclure à l'absence de la catégorie cor­ respondante de la pensée. Ainsi tout le monde distingue les sexes sans que toutes les langues connaissent le genre grammatical [...]". 5 Here are a few sentences illustrating the tone of the criticism: The scheme of stadiality is a conglomerate of a-priori Hegelian dialectic and a series of concrete traits wrongly regarded as characteristic for certain 'primitive' or archaic languages. Modern linguistics knows of no languages whose structure would be built on principles more primitive than that of others.' Further: 'According to Marr's school it was collective (organized) labor which played the fundamental role in the origin of language. Such an explanation has nothing in common with the exact methods of contemporary linguistics, not because of its speculative character [author's emphasis], but because it does not remain within language but goes beyond its bounds' (p.5). Any linkages to current social or political slogans (cf. the "language-race" question in the Third Reich) deforms the direction of objective scholarly investigation from the very beginning' (p.6. Kurylowicz contrasts Marrism with the work of I. I. Mescaninov (1883-1967), whose general linguistic doctrine is based on morphological typology and the priority of the sentence, and hence 'occupies a place of honor alongside Western European linguistics' (p.7). — Years later Kurylowicz recalled, in a humorous tone, that it was criticiz­ ing Marrism that lost him a place in the Soviet Academy of Sciences. 6 Abbreviated to PAU. In 1953 the centralist state took control of this previously selfgoverning society of scholars and gave it a status modelled after the Soviet academy. The change in name (from then on, the Polish Academy of Sciences, PAN) and its move to

JERZY KURYLOWICZ: A SKETCH OF HIS LIFE AND WORK

259

1931. Thanks to the surviving students of a number of outstanding pre-war scholars, like Jan Rozwadowski (comparative grammar), Kazimierz Nitsch and Jan Los (Polish studies), Tadeusz Lehr-Spławiński (Slavic), Adam Kleczkowski (Germanic) and Tadeusz Kowalski (Oriental studies, including Turkish), Kraków after the war was the strongest linguistic centre in Poland. Linguistics here was primarily historical, mostly oriented to factual material, but in spirit was close to the Junggrammatiker. What Kurylowicz brought to Kraków in 1948 was something new and something of his own; we can call it the structurally-oriented theory of language,7 No such discipline had existed at the university before, and therefore, alongside the Chair of Indo-European (oc­ cupied since 1937 by Jan Safarewicz), a new Chair of General Linguistics was created. Kurylowicz was to occupy it until his retirement. Here, as well as in the Linguistic Committee of the Academy of Sciences and the "Bulletin of the Polish Linguistic Society", he would indefatigably disseminate the theoretical aspects of the study of language. The flourishing of such study in Poland, beginning in the 1960s is largely due to Kurylowicz's inspiration and backing. We should not skip over 1949-1956, the years of Stalinization, when scholarship, teaching, and culture in general went through a period of chaos and degradation. This was the result of efforts to bend Polish scholarly tradi­ tions to suit Soviet organizational patterns. The value of science was to be measured by "social demand", i.e., its usefulness for rebuilding social relation­ ships, for such was the ambitious task the new State had set itself, ruled by a 'Marxist-Leninist' monoparty. For humanistic disciplines like philosophy, so­ ciology and linguistics, the 'reorganization' sought to harness them in the ser­ vice of ideology and propaganda. Hand in hand with this went the imposed primacy of Soviet science, a stifling of the freedom of research and even of the freedom of scholarly discussion, the removal of the freedom to travel, etc. A consequence in university philological studies witnessed the closing of English and Germanic departments (Romance somehow remained). But Russian stu­ dies were privileged. Though weak in scholarship, they were useful, since they provided schoolteachers for schools in which Russian had been made obligatory. As for Indo-European comparative linguistics, it was eliminated as a separate field of study by a special decision of the Minister of Education. The Warsaw were both the result of this. In 1989 following the political turnaround, the PAU was reactivated in Cracow as a social institution. 7 In Kurylowicz's work from 1945 to 1950 there is a clear turn towards theoretical and methodological questions. Compare the following chronology: criticism of the stadial theory, discussing in turn poetic language, the nature of consonant shifts, the theory of the syllable, the syntactic group and the sentence, the classification of cases, linguistics and the theory of the sign, the concept of isomorphism, the nature of so-called analogical processes. The rel­ evant articles were collected in Esquisses linguistiques (Kurylowicz 1960).

260

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

reason for this was that it suddenly found itself in conflict with the new version of historical linguistics, propagated in Soviet Russia under the name of Mar­ xism. As a result, Kurylowicz taught mainly general linguistics. He lectured on historical linguistic topics only to the modest extent that they were required for students of modern languages and Orientalists. This is also why he had no Kraków students at that time in comparative linguistics in the strict sense. But among the students specializing in general linguistics under his direction were Adam Heinz (1914-1984), Witold Mańczak (b.1924), Zbigniew Gołąb (19231994), Tadeusz Pobozniak (b.1916) and others, particularly Anglicists, whose numbers were not replenished, since new admissions had been halted in 1949. In these times, marked by a planned and intrusive ideologization of university teaching, Kurylowicz remained unbowed, and naturally presented linguistics in the same style as he practiced it himself.8 Cut off from foreign contacts, but constantly communing with 'bourgeois doctrines' through his private library, Kurylowicz devoted himself to intensive writing. This surely alleviated his per­ ceptions of chaos and of his own powerlessness against it. His monographs on accent (1952) and apophony (1956), of unchallenged stature, are the fruits of these dismal years. 3. Rejoining the West and the American experience After the political 'thaw' of 1956 Kurylowicz immediately took up new projects seeking to build Western European philological studies up again. He put particularly great efforts into reactivating English studies at the University, and watched over them for many years (his students included Claire GreceDąbrowska, Ruta Sikorzanka [Nagucka], Alfred Reszkiewicz, and Jerzy Strzetelski).9 When travel in the West became possible again after 1956, he renewed his scholarly journeys.10 He attended the Linguistic Congresses in Oslo (1957) 8

Kurylowicz's character as a teacher and a human being is described by his student from the 1950s, Wojciech Skalmowski, "Remembering Professor Kurylowicz", in Kurylowicz Memo­ rial Volume, Part l td. by Wojciech Smoczyński (Cracow: Universitas, 1995), pp. xxv-xxx. 9 Cf. Jacek Fisiak, "Professor Kurylowicz's Contribution to Research and Teaching in the Area of Modern Languages", in Jerzy Kurylowicz (1895-1978): Materials from the scientific session ... (Wroclaw, etc: Ossolineum, 1980), 47-52, 10 The archives of the Jagellonian University preserve Kurylowicz's application, dated 11 March 1957, asking the Rector for leave until the end of the semester for the purpose of his first scholarly travel to the West since the War. He enumerated the institutions where he planned to lecture: the Institut de Linguistique at the Sorbonne, the School of Slavonic and Oriental Studies in London, Brasenose College in Oxford, and the Institute of Linguistics in Ann Arbor, Mich.; however, remarkably, the most important information is missing: that at least part of the purpose of his trip to Paris was to receive an honorary doctorate from the Sorbonne. We do not know why. Did he not want to tempt fate? Or perhaps he did not yet know of the honour awaiting him?

JERZY KURYŁOWICZ: A SKETCH OF HIS LIFE AND WORK

261

and Cambridge, Mass. (1962), and accepted invitations to lecture as a visiting professor in Ann Arbor, Michigan (1957), Hamburg (1960), Stanford (1961), Cambridge, Mass. (MIT, 1962, Harvard, 1964, 1965) and Innsbruck (1967). Proofs of recognition continued to come to him. His first honorary doctorate, in 1957, was from the Sorbonne, the next from the University College Dublin (1959), then the Universities of Vienna (1965), Chicago and Michigan (1967), Edinburgh (1970), Liège (1973) and, finally, Krakow (1975). He was a mem­ ber of ten foreign Academies of Sciences and the recipient of many prizes, among them the Prix Volney (1956). In 1964 the Jagiellonian University celebrated its 600th anniversary, On Kuryiowicz's initiative, a symposium "The notion of law in linguistics" was organized in Kraków for the occasion. He himself spoke on the laws of 'isomorphism'; other speakers included students of his (Leon Zawadowski, Adam Heinz, Wojciech Skalmowski) and guests (Josef Vachek, Karl Ammer). A written questionnaire was distributed beforehand, asking the following ques­ tion (among others): 'If one accepts the possibility of prediction (causality) as the main characteristic of laws in the natural sciences, can this notion be ap­ plied {mutatis mutandis) to: (a) the synchrony of a given language, (b) the diachrony of a given language, (c) general linguistics?' Another question con­ cerned the permissibility of deduction in addition to induction in linguistic re­ search. At this point one must recall the discussion about the laws of analogy, begun by Kuryiowicz (1947a) and taken up by his student Witold Mańczak.11 Kuryiowicz, referring to such theoretical concepts as the hierarchical status of function vs. form and formal polarization, expressed analogical changes as a series of formulae. Central among them was the one stating "Les actions dites 'analogiques' suivent la direction: formes de fondation → formes fondées." Mariczak objects to the deductive and hypothetical nature of Kurylowicz's for­ mulae, and contrasts them with his own scheme of nine 'tendencies' which he discovers by inductive analysis, checking his conclusions by statistical data.12 This controversy, which unfortunately set the two scholars at loggerheads,13 became a significant benchmark for later research. It has been examined in an

11 W. Mańczak, ''Tendances générales des changements analogiques", Lingua 7.298-325, 387-420 (1958-1959). 12 More recently Mañczak has reduced his scheme to five laws; see his "Laws of Analogy", Historical Morphology ed. by Jacek Fisiak (The Hague: Mouton, 1980), 283-288. 13 At times the discussion verged on sharp polemics; cf. Mañczak, "Odpowiedz Prof. J. Kurylowiczowi", Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawzego (Cracow) 19.191-201 (1960) and Kuryiowicz, "Odpowiedz jezykoznawstwa", ibid., 203-210.

262

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

Jerzy Kurylowicz (Comtesy of Universitas, Cracow)

JERZY KURYLOWICZ: A SKETCH OF HIS LIFE AND WORK

263

unprejudiced manner in the dissertation of K.-H. Best,14 and has become a mainstay in historical linguistics textbooks.15 As Paris had before the war, America in the 1960s became a source of in­ spiration for him: here he associated with Roman Jakobson and Monis Halle, and here he wrote Inflectional Categories (Kurylowicz 1964b). He granted American linguistics a 'leading place on the international scale' (Kurylowicz 1963b), popularized its achievements in Poland, and arranged for translations and reviews to appear'. Well acquainted with the tradition of S apir, he followed closely the reorientations after World War II, and could not help reacting to de­ velopments which seemed not to agree with his concept of professionalism.16 His multiple guest lectureships in America brought him a lasting group of pupils there (the most prominent is Calvert Watkins, professor at Harvard Uni­ versity). His openness and sociability gained him many friends, as can be seen from his honorary membership in the Linguistic Society of America (1957), his election to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in Boston (1965) and two honorary doctorates (1967).17 In 1965 he reached the age of 70 and retired from the University. The fine Festschrift published for the occasion had many contributors from Poland as well as those of friends from his Paris and London days (Émile Benveniste, Pierre Chantraine, Jean Fourquet, Louis Renou; C. E. Bazell, C. S. Stang) and colleagues from America (Roman Jakobson, Monis Halle, I. J. Gelb,

14

K.-H. Best, Probleme der Analogieforschung (Munich: Hueber, 1973). Cf., for instance, Hans Henrich Hock, Principles of Historical Linguistics (Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1986), 210-237. 16 At the celebration of his own 80th birthday, which coincided with the 50th congress of the Polish Linguistic Society in Cracow, Kurylowicz gave a speech sketching the present state of linguistics in the world, in America, and in Poland (Biuletyn PTJ 34.3-6 [1975]). He criticized American structuralism for shying away from semantic considerations, asking with Spang-Hansen: 'How can one abstract away from something that is the whole point? Avoid­ ing semantic analysis with the aid of formal equivalences, which supposedly leave function untouched, was for Kurylowicz a break with the European linguistic tradition resulting from the Second World War. 'Hand in hand with this went a certain intellectual arrogance, identifying conclusions drawn from English data with those of general linguistics, as seen in the expression Take any language, take English!' (ibid.). He finished with the words: The methods applied in generative-transformational grammar should for the present be treated with caution' (ibid.). In his oral presentation, which is still remembered, we heard him add the in­ structions in English: Shake well before using! His love of jokes served him well on all oc­ casions that arose; on that day, 29th October 1975, he had before him practically all the Polish linguists. 17 That he is still remembered is clear from Eric P. Hamp's memoir on pp.395-395 of his contribution "Albanian dha 'gave"' in Kurylowicz Memorial Volume, Part I ed. by Wojciech Smoczynski (Cracow: Universitas, 1995), pp.395-398. 15

264

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

Joseph H. Greenberg).18 Retiring from his post at the University did not upset the rhythm of his productive and wide-ranging scholarly work: in the thirteen years that followed, he wrote four books (one on Semitic) and about 80 arti­ cles. Freed from didactic concerns, he concentrated on a planned new Indo-Eu­ ropean grammar. Based on the principles of structural linguistics and standing in opposition to the German comparative tradition, it was nevertheless to be written in German and published by Carl Winter's Universitätsverlag in Hei­ delberg. Calvert Watkins, Warren Cowgill, and Vjaceslav Vs. Ivanov were among those invited to contribute. The project leader himself quickly produced a treatment of accent and ablaut (1968), and although Watkins' volume on ver­ bal inflection followed soon after (1969), the plan for the Indogermanische Grammatik came to a standstill in the following years. Kuryłowicz accordingly decided to write his own views on the topics still left untreated. The methodol­ ogy of morphological studies, verbs, nominals, and main questions of IndoEuropean phonology formed the four sections of his Problèmes de linguistique indo-européenne (1977), a book crowning his oeuvre and serving as a sort of scholarly testament.19 Two months after its appearance, Kuryiowicz died in Cracow at the age of 83 (on 28 January 1978). The last text he had worked on was "Lecture du Mémoire en 1978: Un commentaire" (Kuryiowicz 1978); it was intended for the conference in Geneva planned for May 1978, commemo­ rating the 100th anniversary of the appearance of Saussure's precocious work. 4. Kuryłowicz's legacy Kuryiowicz's oeuvre has not yet been the subject of a monograph, though it well deserves one, both for the new research methods he created and for the scope of his work, not met with in other linguists: the general theory of lan­ guage, phonology, the theory of syntax, metrics, onomastics, broad and de­ manding areas of Indo-European and Semitic studies. For the present article we will limit ourselves to summarizing Kuryiowicz's views from before World War II, as reflected in his monograph Etudes indoeuropéennes (1935).20 18

Symbolae linguisticae in honorem Georgii Kuryiowicz. ed. by Adam Heinz et al. (= Polska Akademia Nauk, Oddzial w Krakowie; Prace Komisji Językoznawstwa, 5.) Wroclaw, etc,: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolinskich, 1965. 19 "Il paraît que les collaborateurs engagés en 1965 à continuer ce qui en a paru jusqu'ici (vol. II et III, 1) ont abandonné le projet pour des raisons différentes, soit à cause de devoirs didactiques trop lourds, soit divertis par des changements d'interêts scientifiques" (Kuryiowicz 1977:5). - Fortunately, the publication has recently been resumed by Manfred Mayrhofer, see Indogermanische Grammatik, vol.1:1: Einleitung by Warren Cowgill; vol.I:2: Lautlehre [Segmentale Phonologie des Indogermanischen] by M. Mayrhofer (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1986). 20 It is labelled Part I, but no continuation ever appeared.

JERZY KURYLOWICZ: A SKETCH OF HIS LIFE AND WORK

265

The first impression from reading the Études is that their author was not a comparativist of the Meillet type, far less of the Brugmann type. They show him, rather, as a general linguist. He looked at the building of Indo-European studies from the outside and tried — like an architect — to decipher its struc­ ture. Although he knew its timbers perfectly (and was a noted polyglot), he had no enthusiasm for material qua material. He was decidedly theory-minded, with a rationalist, Gallic mind-set. He was also stirred by the challenge of the new linguistics which was born in Prague in 1926 and first gained broader recognition at the International Congress of Linguists held in The Hague in 1928. It called for looking at language as a functional and goal-directed system ('un système de moyens d'expression appropriés à un but'). 21 Kurylowicz, who had witnessed the birth of functionalism, first in Europe and then in America, must have clearly seen the deepening gap between the general theory of language and Indo-European comparative grammar.22 Everything suggests that he had a bold plan to change this state of affairs: moving functional analy­ sis, the gain of the previous decade, onto the plane of diachrony, in particular of comparative grammar. Études begin with considerations of the classical questions of the Indo-Eu­ ropean sound system (the status of the labiovelars, the relations among the guttural consonants, including the schwa), which the author diagnoses from the standpoint of phonology. Turning next to morphological questions, he sketches the subtle boundary which he feels separates morpho(pho)nological alternation (apophony) from phonetic alternation. The last to be dealt with is accent with its morphological involvements: here he seeks to discover the phonological condi-ions which permit the morphologization of prosodemes.23 With Saussure, he sees accent as a characteristic of a morpheme which func­ tions within a word belonging to a particular inflectional or derivational cate­ gory. Kurylowicz's detailed methodological postulates can be summarized as follows. The point of research is not the genealogy of elements, but the ge­ nealogy of particular systems (phonemic, inflectional, derivational). The first step must be the definition of an element's functional role within the system of contiguous elements. But the elements being compared within a system must 21

Cf. Adam Heinz, Dzieje językoznawstwa w zarysie [An outline history of linguistics] (Warsaw: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1978), p.286. 22 The criticism of previous methods is aimed particularly at Herman Hirt's Indogermanische Grammatik (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1927-1934), which sought to compete with Brug­ mann's Grundriss. 23 Accent is discussed in the chapter on inflection, "Accentuation et vocalisme des para­ digmes nominaux" (Kurylowicz 1977:136ff.)

266

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

belong together in some objectively definable manner. Membership in a system is recognizable by the opposition relationships which the forms of a language are involved in. Discovering such oppositions and stating their functional do­ mains (including their area of neutralization) is the key to any analytical work. With respect to morphology, one should further take into account that opposi­ tions can be formal-semantic (e.g., that between the basis and the derivative), or purely formal (as between forms of the same paradigm). The hierarchical principle miming through language requires one to keep the relation of determ­ ination constantly in view, a unidirectional and irreflexive relation which holds between the members of an opposition. It is this which decides the various statuses of language forms in synchrony; since historical change is a change of oppositions, the determination relationship can sometimes also indicate the di­ rection for diachronic research. Morphological change is differentiation closely associated with previous identification. Identification can be semantic (the merger of two morphological categories into one) or phonological (phono­ logical ambiguity of several forms of one category). All this taken together serves to demonstrate a method which gives primacy to synchronic diagnosis over diachronic deduction (a reply to the challenge of Baudouin de Courtenay and Saussure). This method of drawing historical con­ clusions without, or prior to, external comparison is called 'language-internal analysis'.24 The goal of such analysis is to establish a chronology, a relative chronology of changes recognized as belonging to the system. The greatest de­ gree of probability is assigned to the chronology of changes immediately pre­ ceding the oldest attested data.25 The significance of the book is that it points out a new method in a very broad area and on almost all levels of language (apart from syntax), taking language to be a structure of relatively autonomous subsystems. A student of Kurylowicz's, a historian of linguistics, calls the Études 'something like a theoretical outline of the structural basis of Indo-Eu­ ropean grammar '.26

24 He will later on call it 'internal reconstruction', in agreement with the term established by Pisani and Hoenigswald (Kurylowicz 1964 a). 25 In the first sentence of the preface to Études, we read: "Il paraît clair qu'une chronologie relative de faits aussi bien phonétiques que morphologiques doit former le problème central de toute recherche qui se pose le but de décrire la langue-mère indoeuropéenne" (p.iii). It is note­ worthy that when the author states that he will use certain new formulations of phonetic and morphological differentiation, he cites discussions found in Edward Sapir, Karl Bühler, and N. S. Trubetzkoy as having helped to shape his views. No other names are mentioned. 26 Cf. Adam Heinz, "Professor Jerzy Kurylowicz as a Theorist of Language", in Jerzy Kury­ lowicz (1895-1978): Materials from the scientific session ... (Wroclaw, etc.: Ossolineum, 1980), p.16.

JERZY KURYLOWICZ: A SKETCH OF HIS LIFE AND WORK

267

We note further that neither the preface to Études nor the title indicate its precise subject. But anyone who looks at Études today with the rest of Kury­ lowicz's bibliography in mind can scarcely avoid seeing in it a plan for the scholar's whole later life. Its chapters touch on problems which will intrigue him for the rest of his life. Some will develop into large monographs (accen­ tuation, apophony, inflectional categories). Others will come back as articles, often refined two or even three times. And so on untiringly until the Problèmes (Kurylowicz 1977), in which the now venerable author sums up his life's plan and does not hesitate to tell us what still remains to be done. At a time when Indo-European morphonology is flourishing, references to the Études are not infrequent. Particularly often cited in present-day literature is Chapter II, "Sur les éléments consonantiques disparus en indoeuropéen" (27-76). This some­ what enigmatic title covers all that was then known of ' a consonantique': on the one hand, Albert Cuny's (1869-1947) results gained from criticizing cer­ tain contradictions in Saussure's theory; on the other, the conclusions drawn from Kurylowicz's own brilliant discoveries during 1927-1930. Contempo­ rary laryngealists cite this chapter as a sign of affirmation of the "young Kury­ lowicz".27 The doctrine of consonantal schwa gives rise to a new theory of the root: it is monosyllabic, always consonant-initial, and in morphological struc­ tures realized in one of two shapes. As we know, Benveniste announced a similar conception of the root ('monosyllabique, trilitère') independently in the same year, 1935. The fact that his theory agrees with Kurylowicz's on several important points28 irresistibly leads us to think of a Zeitgeist governing the in­ terests of linguists. Such coincidences are important in principle because they favour the more rapid objectivization of new scholarly results. The Études are a concise book, highly difficult to read. But the reader is struck by the author's sense for construction. The careful selection of material from many languages and the internal logic of the arguments are impressive, occasionally thrilling. The author has many opportunities to criticize but always stays within schol­ arly bounds. Études saw ten reviews, by Meillet and Sturtevant among others, 27 Cf., e.g., Manfred Mayrhofer, Indogermanische Grammatik, vol.I (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1986), p.l25n.ll3; p.l47n.200. 28 Cf. Émile Benveniste, Origines de la formation des noms en indo-européen (Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve, 1935), chapter IX: ''Esquisse d'une théorie de la racine". - In "Additions et corrections" (p.211) Benveniste writes: "La plus grande partie de cette étude était imprimée quand nous avons reçu en septembre 1935 l'ouvrage important de J. Kurylowicz. Il nous plaît de relever entre maintes de nos analyses — dont le détail ne saurait être indiqué ici — des concordances qui semblent en garantir le bien-fondé. Mais l'objet de M. Kurylowicz étant beaucoup plus large que le nôtre, son ouvrage est tout autrement orienté [...]. Il en résulte entre nous des divergences notables dans la définition des structures et dans le classement génétique des différents types nominaux. Nous tenons d'autant plus à souligner les mérites de l'œuvre neuve, riche et brillante que sont les Études indo-européennes".

268

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

and brought Kuryiowicz his first foreign award — membership in the Acadé­ mie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (Paris, 1939). 5. Kuryiowicz's contribution to the theory of Indo-European laryngeals Finally, let us return to 1927, after which Kuryiowicz's name became widely known in historical linguistics. In his Paris years he was one of the few Indo-Europeanists who familiarized himself thoroughly with the newly avail­ able Cuneiform Hittite texts. Further, his Semitic studies made him competent to follow the discussion of Saussure's 'coefficients sonantiques' (they also played a certain role in the context of the hypothesized Semitic-IE relationship). Thanks to the history carefully worked out by Oswald Szemerényi (1913— 1996), 29 we now know that the discussion gained impetus after the contribu­ tion of Hermann Möller (1850-1923) of 1879, who added a third phoneme, E, to Saussure's A and 0 and interpreted this triad as consonants; in the end he called them phonemes 'corresponding to the Semitic laryngeals' (1911). Möl­ ler's theses gained the support of Cuny (1912), who further argued the conso­ nantal nature of these phonemes by the criterion of distribution, and was the first to express the thought that the Balto-Slavic acute intonation is often moti­ vated by a length of laryngeal origin. Kuryiowicz joined in the discussion in 1927 with his 10-page article, 'ə indoeuropen et hittite' (Kuryiowicz 1927b). The most important innovation in this article is the proof that the PIE phoneme *A (= Hi) is empirically confirmed by the Hittite material, where it corre­ sponds to the consonant transcribed as Let us recall the sentences announc­ ing this discovery (p. 101): La question du initial résolue affirmativement, il s'en pose tout de suite une autre. Est-ce que \ et 2 sont l'origine tous les deux des coups de glotte? En quoi consis­ terait alors leur attitude différente en face de la voyelle suivante? Cette question serait insoluble dans l'état actuel de la grammaire comparée si, par suite d'un accident presque invraisemblable, le hittite ne semblait pas avoir conservé le caractère consonantique de 2 Il s'agit du son noté h. On n'a qu'à comparer: ... There follow the famous examples antezzi, uis, ark ... initial position and is. iia, pa š, pa ur ... for medial position, It is true that Kuryiowicz over­ looked the fact that the same sign renders Saussure's phoneme *O (= H3, cf. astai "bone"), but he correctly observed that the so-called first laryngeal (Möller's and Cuny's E=H1) left no trace in the Hittite material, at least ini­ tially. The identification of the IE laryngeal with the Hittite consonant was

29 Cf. Oswald Szereményi, "La théorie des laryngales de Saussure à Kuryiowicz et Benveniste: Essai de réévaluation", Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 68.1-25 (1973).

JERZY KURYŁOWICZ: A SKETCH OF HIS LIFE AND WORK

269

called a "découverte qui transforma l'hypothèse en vérité démontré".30 It meant a triumph for phonological reconstruction based on the analysis of ablaut rela­ tionships between morphemes within the same morphological category. It was at the same time a posthumous triumph for Saussure, who was the first to use such a method. The article on Hittite and Benveniste's theory of roots opened new horizons for laryngeal theory. Thanks to greatly increased efforts in the last decades, the theory's material base is much broader, and it has finally be­ come a topic for university teaching.31 It is noteworthy that the theory as in Saussure's time still meets the skepticism of 'broad masses' of our linguistic community. These are in part conservative representatives of particular phil­ ologies, in part those who find the use of a deductive method in linguistics dif­ ficult to accept.32 1978, the year Kurylowicz died was also the centenary of the publication of Saussure's Mémoire. The coincidence of dates seems symbolic, recalling the intellectual kinship of these two scholars and of the problems they worked on. In hindsight we see clearly that the mainstream of 20th-century Indo-Euro­ pean studies took the path of developing and perfecting the method of investi­ gation which Saussure had first demonstrated in his Mémoire. This method was later dubbed structuralism. There can be no doubt that Kurylowicz's writ­ ings, with their felicitous synthesis of theoretical framework, methodological rigor, and mastery of the material, did much to establish the approach to histor­ ical linguistic studies perhaps best characterized as 'diachronic structuralism'. It is interesting to note that Kurylowicz also managed to graft this methodology onto the trunk of Semitic studies.33 30

Szereményi, op cit., p. 15. - Let us add that the same author gives a detailed discussion of Kurylowicz's work in Richtungen der modernen Sprachwissenschaft, Part 2: Die fünfziger Jahre (1950-1960) (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1982), 127-137. 31 Cf. the treatment of phonology in Vol.1 of Mayrhofer's Indogermanische Grammatik (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1985), Helmut Rix's Historische Grammatik des Griechischen (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1976,21992). Frederik Otto Lindeman's In­ troduction to the "Laryngeal Theory" (Oslo: Norwegian University Press, 1987) has played a useful role in both popularizing and criticizing the theory. 32 The critics have recently been joined by a one-time pupil of Kurylowicz's; cf. Witold Mańczak, "Critique de la théorie des laryngales", Analecta Indoeuropaea Cracoviensia Ioannis Safarewicz memoriae dedicata (Cracow: Universitas, 1995), 237-247. 33 Cf. Andrzej Zaborski, "Professor Kurylowicz and Semitic Linguistics", Jerzv Kurylowicz (1895-1978): Materials [...] (Wroclaw, etc.: Ossolineum, 1980), 53-56. The" author there cites Gene Schramm (Current Trends in Linguistics ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok, vol.VI, p. 260. The Hague: Mouton, 1970), who, speaking of L'Apophonie en sémitique (Kurylowicz 1961), voices the opinion that the only truly great work in comparative Semitic grammar is from the pen of an Indo-Europeanist and not a Semiticist. Kurylowicz himself used to say that L'Apophonie was only 'leaving his visiting-card with the Semiticists'; as we know, however, it was followed by Studies in Semitic Grammar and Metrics (Kurylowicz 1972).

270

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY OF JERZY KURYLOWICZ'S WRITINGS34 1925[1919—1924]. "Quelques mots romans d'origine orientale". Rocznik Orjentalistyczny 2.251-259. 1925a. "Sur quelques mots pre-romans. A propos de Va celtique". Melanges J. Vendry es, 203-215. Paris: H. Champion. 1925b. Traces de la place du ton en gathique. (= Bibliothèque de l' École des Hautes Études, 244.) Paris: H. Champion. 1926. "Notes d'etymologie romane". Prace Filologiczne 10.322-336. 1927a. "Les effets du ə en indoiranien". Prace Filologiczne 11.201-243. 1927b. "a indo-européen et h hittite". Symbolae grammaticae in honorem Ioannis Rozwadowski ed. by Andrzej Gawronski et al., vol.I, 95-104. Cracow: Gebethner & Wolff. 1935. Études indoeuropéennes. Vol.I. (= Polska Akademia Umiejętności; Prace Komisji J ęzykowej, 21.) Cracow: Gebethner & Wolff. 1936. "Dérivation lexicale et dérivation syntaxique: Contribution à la théorie des parties du discours". Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 37:1.79-92. 1938. "Struktura morfemu". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 7.10-28. 1947a. "La nature des procès dits 'analogiques'". Acta Linguistica 5. 17-34. (Repr. in Readings in Linguistics II ed. by Eric P. Hamp, Fred W. Householder & Robert Austerlitz, 158-174. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press, 1966. — English transl, by Margaret E. Winters, "The So-Called Laws of Analogy", Diachronica 12:1.122-144 [1995].) 1947b. "Językoznawstwo rosyjskie ostatniej doby". Język Polski 27.1-7. 1948a. "Le sens des mutations consonantiques". Lingua 1:1.77-85. 1948b. "Contribution à la théorie de la syllabe". Biuletyn Polskiego Towa­ rzystwa Jçzykoznawczego 8.80-114. 1948c. "Les structures fondamentales de la langue: Groupe et proposition". Studia Philosophica 3.203-209. 1949a. "Linguistique et théorie du signe". Journal de Psychologie 42.170-180. (Repr. in Readings in Linguistics II ed. by Eric P. Hamp et al., 227-233. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press, 1966.) 1949b. "Le problème du classement des cas". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Jçzykoznawczego 9.20-43. 1949c. "La notion de l'isomorphisme". Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague 5.48-60. 1949d. "La construction ergative et le développement 'stadial' du langage". Annali delia Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Serie 11, vol. 18:1/2.1-9. 1952. L'accentuation des langues indo-européennes. (= Polska Akademia Umiejętności, Prace Komisji Językowej, 37.) Kraków: Nakładem PAU. (2nd ed., as Prace Jçzykoznawcze No. 17 of Polska Akademia Nauk, Komitet Językoznawczy, Wroclaw & Krakow: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolinskich & Wydawnictwo PAN, 1958.) 1955. "Zametki o znacenii slova". Voprosy Jazykoznanija 4:3.73-81. 34

For a much more substantial listing, see "A Selected Bibliography of the Works by Jerzy Kuryiowicz", which also includes reviews of his major works, see Kurylowicz Memorial Volume, Part One (Cracow: Universitas, 1995), pp.xxxv-xlv.

JERZY KURYŁOWICZ: A SKETCH OF HIS LIFE AND WORK

271

1956. L'apophonie en indo-européen. (= Polska Akademia Nauk, Komitet Językoznawczy; Prace Jçzykoznawcze, 9.) Wroclaw: Zaklad im. Ossoliñskich; Warszawa: Wydawnictwo PAN. 1958a. "Alofony i alomorfy". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 18.3-10. 1958b. "Le hittite". Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Lin­ guists ed. by Eva Sivertsen, Carl Hj. Borgstr0m, Arne Gallis & Alf Sommerfeit, 216-243. Oslo: Oslo University Press. 1960. Esquissess Linguistiques. (= Polska Akademia Nauk; Komitet Językoznawczy, Prace Językoznawcze, 19.) Wroclaw-Warsaw-Cracow: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich & Wydawnictwo PAN. (2nd ed., Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1973.) 1961. L'Apophonie en sémitique. (= Polska Akademia Nauk; Komitet Językoznawczy, Prace Jçzykoznawcze, 24.) Wroclaw-Warszawa-Kraków: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich & Wydawnictwo PAN. 1963a. "Le mécanisme différenciateur de la langue". Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 20.47-54. 1963b. "Kilka uwag o językoznawstwie amerykańskim [Some remarks on American linguistics]". Nauka Polska 11:4.161-164. 1964a. "On the Methods of Internal Reconstruction". Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, Cambridge, Mass., August 27-31, 1962 ed. by Horace G. Lunt, 9-36. The Hague: Mouton. 1964b. The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. (= Indogermanische Bi­ bliothek, Dritte Reihe: Untersuchungen, [unnumbered].) Heidelberg: Carl Winter. 1968. Indogermanische Grammatik. Band II: Akzent. Ablaut. (= Indogerma­ nische Bibliothek, Erste Reihe: Lehr- u. Handbücher, [unnumbered].) Heidel­ berg: Carl Winter. 1972. Studies in Semitic Grammar and Metrics. (= Polska Akademia Nauk; Ko­ mitet Językoznawczy, Prace Jçzykoznawcze, 67.) Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich & Wydawnictwo PAN. 1975. Metrik und Sprachgeschichte. (= Polska Akademia Nauk; Komitet Językoznawstwa, Prace Językoznawcze, 83.) Wroclaw-Warszawa-Kraków-Gdañsk: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich & Wydawnictwo PAN. 1977. Problèmes de linguistique indo-européenne. (= Polska Akademia Nauk; Komitet Językoznawstwa, Prace Językoznawcze, 90.) Wrocław-Warszawa-Kra­ ków-Gdañsk: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich & Wydawnictwo PAN. 1978. "Lecture du Mémoire en 1978: Un commentaire". Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 32.7-26.

CHAPTER 10 ASPECTS OF LUDWIK ZABROCKI'S LINGUISTIC WORLD* JERZY B AÑCZEROWSKI Adam Mickiewicz University 1. Introductory remarks The achievements of Ludwik Zabrocki (1907-1977) place him among the most prominent scholars of linguistic science in the 20th century. His ideas have exerted a profound impact on the development of linguistics in Poland, for not only did he initiate important research movements, but he also con­ tributed a great deal to the organization of language education. Zabrocki's scholarly activity came at a time when Polish linguistic thought was in the as­ cendant. An exceptional person, he was highly influential both among his col­ leagues and linguists of younger generations and he possessed a rare gift for shaping the linguistic imagination of his students. The linguistic legacy of Zabrocki is a creative continuation of the Polish linguistic tradition which reaches back to the ideas of Baudouin de Courtenay, which he learnt about under the supervision of one of his teachers, Henryk Ułaszyn (1874-1956), another eminent Polish linguist. Zabrocki created a wide range of original theories which constitute a lasting achievement in vari­ ous fields of linguistics. He devoted himself to both data-oriented, empirical, and theoretical research. With time, however, he put more and more emphasis on theory construction in accordance with his conviction that without a widened theoretical perspective linguistics could not securely progress. Yet it should be added without hesitation that he never shunned efforts to look for confirmation of his hypotheses by testing them against empirical evidence. The inseparable combination of theory with practice can be viewed as a characteris­ tic trait of the linguistic inquiries of Zabrocki, a man intensely committed to the academic discipline of his choice, who put forth a number of compelling theo­ ries. He combined the qualities of an enthusiastic researcher with those of an indefatigable propagator of new linguistic ideas. The author would like to take this opportunity to thank Michael A. Farris, who kindly re­ vised the English of this study. My thanks are as intense as were his labours.

274

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

Ludwik Zabrocki

It is far from easy to make an exhaustive characterization of his contribution to linguistics as it was multifaceted and covered a wide range of topics; more­ over, it has often been presented in condensed form. Nevertheless, there is a thread which is traceable through nearly all his theories, indicating a sui generis continuity of his general linguistic conceptions. It seems that that thread is lan­ guage codematics, in which Zabrocki's peculiar views of the dynamics of lan­ guage and language communication are reflected.

THE LINGUISTIC WORLD OF LUDWIK ZABROCKI

275

Among the areas of linguistics to which Zabrocki's contribution is of rele­ vance, the following should be listed: (i) general linguistics, (ii) comparative (historical, typological, contrastive, confrontative) linguistics, (iii) psycho- and sociolinguistics, (iv) cybernetic linguistics, (v) Indo-European linguistics, and (vi) applied linguistics (glottodidactics). Subsequently, we shall endeavor to characterize some of Zabrocki's ideas, which mainly concern the first four of the fields enumerated above, and which will be presented here in terms of (i) linguistic codematics, (ii) synchronic structural phonetics, (iii) diachronic structural phonetics, (iv) diacritology, (v) communicative and language communities, (vi) aspects of language comparison, (vii) cybernetic systems of language communication. Regretfully, our survey will not be exhaustive, even as regards the four fields selected by us for consideration. Thus, for example, Zabrocki's concep­ tions concerning proper names, onomastic transpositions, or the category of person will be omitted from our current inquiry. In approaching the presentation of Zabrocki's linguistic legacy, we face a variety of difficult problems, finding solutions to which is not always feasible or possible. Sometimes one has the impression that some of his thoughts have not always been developed explicitly enough; rather it is often as though they were written down in a hurry, as if he trusted the reader to find an adequate interpretation himself. Besides, Zabrocki's conceptions evolved throughout his lifetime, and this is mirrored in the different approaches to or different formu­ lations of the same problems, not to mention certain inconsistencies which arise occasionally in his statements. Most of Zabrocki's works were written in Polish or German. We have en­ deavored to render the terminology he used into English as faithfully as possi­ ble. Sometimes, however, we have added certain concepts which seemed to us to be implicitly present in his considerations, and we hope that they will not change the spirit of his original theories.

276

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

2. Linguistic codematics1 The science of codes was referred to by Zabrocki as codematics. Conse­ quently, linguistic codematics, the subject matter of which are codes operating in language and language communication, forms only a subdiscipline of code­ matics in general It would probably also be appropriate to say that linguistic codematics describes the code knowledge of language users as a part of their language knowledge. It is extremely important to understand the principles of Zabrocki's code­ matics since it influenced many of his general linguistic, psycholinguistic and glottodidactic ideas to a considerable extent. By virtue of the concept of code Zabrocki intended to capture the dynamic aspect of language and language communication. Thus, this aspect finds re­ flection in dynamic as opposed to static linguistic models. He also postulated the existence of both these models at the level of langue as well as at the level of parole. In language communication not only are units of various kinds in operation but so too are various processes transposing units of a certain kind into units of another kind. The concept of code itself underwent an evolution in Zabrocki's theories. Originally, he claimed that "the essence of the code is the ability to transpose certain signs into others. This ability includes a law according to which the transposition is applied, in addition to the process of transposition itself' (1961a: 23). However, it follows from the various contexts in which this term was used that he understood it in a somewhat broader sense. Thus, when he says that the sound structure k-o-t, consisting of three sounds, namely, k, o, and t, is transposed into a unit of a higher level, namely the word kot (cat), by speakers of Polish, he certainly does not mean a transposition of some signs into others. Finally, under language code he understood the rules of conver­ sion of certain language units into others, and of certain information carriers into others (1966:6). In addition to the term 'code', the following concepts (among others) play a fundamental role in Zabrocki's codematics: (i) code chain (Kodefüge, uktad kodowy), (ii) code unit (Kode-Einheit), (iii) code symbol (Kode-Zeichen, znak kodu), (iv) codal chain (Kodal-Gefüge, uklad kodalny), (v) acodal chain (Akodal-Gefüge, uklad akodalny).

1 The following works of Zabrocki's listed at the end of this chapter are devoted to this sub­ ject: 1960, 1961a, 1961c, 1966, 1967b, 1967c, 1969, 1975b, and 1980.

THE LINGUISTIC WORLD OF LUDWIK ZABROCKI

277

A code chain is a linearly ordered string (arrangement) of language objects which, if taken as a whole, constitutes a unit of a higher language level. Illus­ trating this with the example already quoted above, Zabrocki says that the sound chain k-o-t, consisting of three sounds, is transformed by speakers of Polish into a higher level unit, a certain phonic and semantic whole, namely, the word kot "cat". A person, who does not master Polish, will treat the phonic object k-o-t merely as a certain string of sounds, without being able to convert it into a sign, that is, to associate it with an appropriate meaning; in other words, such a person will not be able to use the Polish word-code. Thus, the sound chain or graphic chain k-o-t is a code chain only for those who know how to use the Polish word-code. In a similar way, the word chain kot-biegnie-przez-pole "cat-runs-acrossfield", which consists of four words, is transposed by users of Polish into a higher level unit, namely, the sentence Kot biegnie przez pole "The cat is run­ ning across the field". This word chain is thus converted by virtue of a sen­ tence-code into a certain phonic whole and is associated with a sentential mean­ ing or sentential semanteme. Consequently, a code chain is more than just a string of randomly juxta­ posed objects, since it is convertible into a whole, that is, a higher level unit, which fulfills a different function in comparison to its constituent objects. The higher level units resulting from the conversion of code chains are called code units. A word is thus a code unit which results from the corre­ sponding sound chain as is a sentence which results from the corresponding word chain. The objects, which code chains consist of, are referred to as code symbols. Thus, we can say that a code chain is transformed by virtue of a code into the corresponding code unit. We could also say that a code unit is en­ coded as a code chain, that is, a certain linear arrangement of objects. Conse­ quently, the word kot is encoded as the sound chain k-o-t. Apart from code chains, Zabrocki distinguished structures of the following two kinds: (i) codal chains, and (ii) acodal chains. The former are founded upon the asubstantial properties of objects, and the latter upon their substantial properties. It should be stressed, however, that objects acquire asubstantial properties due to their occurrence in code chains, while their substantial properties are independent of this occurrence. Sounds as members of a code sound chain are not only (i) in contrast to their neighboring sounds, but they are also (ii) in opposition to sounds in other code sound chains.

278

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

It is by virtue of contrast that they acquire distributional properties and by virtue of opposition that they acquire distinctive properties. The properties of both these kinds form, in turn, a basis for the corresponding relations and make it possible to arrive at phonemes. Thus, sounds within code sound chains acquire asubstantial, that is, distributional and distinctive properties, in addition to their substantial properties, which, as has already been mentioned, are independent of code chains. Zabrocki referred to phonemes as cross-prod­ ucts of substantial and asubstantial relations, which he divided into linear and lateral and, consequently, considered phonemes as originating from the functionalization of substance in linear and lateral projection. Sound chains can be transposed into phoneme chains by means of replac­ ing sounds by their corresponding phonemes. In a similar way word chains can also be transposed into semantic-categorial or syntactic-categorial chains. Both phoneme chains and word-categorial chains are already kinds of codal chains. Generally speaking, codal chains are derived from code chains by means of replacing the constituent objects in the latter by corresponding objects which are based upon the asubstantial properties of the objects being replaced. More attention will be devoted to acodal chains subsequently. Zabrocki made a clear distinction between code and cipher, Under the latter he understood certain signs which, by virtue of a code, can be transposed into usual language signs. In other words, the cipher is a code chain of a certain kind, into which the usual language signs are transposed, but the code of this transposition is, for some reason, kept secret. Various kinds of codes were distinguished by Zabrocki, and among them the following can be found: (i) transposition and transformation codes, (ii) synthetic and analytic codes, (iii) intra- and interlingual codes. Generally speaking, the transposition code is applied if a code chain is converted into another code chain by means of replacing the objects in the for­ mer by other objects, equivalent in certain relevant respects. If this condition is not satisfied during the conversion of code chains, the transformation code is used. In interdialectal communication within the same language, speakers of neighboring dialects avail themselves of the transposition code. They are usu­ ally able to make themselves quickly understood due to the mutual transposi­ tion of sounds exhibiting nearly equivalent distribution in the corresponding words, Thus, for example, the Gemían word Zeit "time" has in Low German tîd as its translative equivalent. Since the corresponding sounds display equiva-

THE LINGUISTIC WORLD OF LUDWIK ZABROCKI

279

lent distribution, the sound ts is transposed into t, as is ei into î, and t into d. In a similar manner hess "hot" is transposed into hît, and weiss "white" into wît. The transposition code develops in the course of transposition practice, and subsequently the transposition operation becomes automatic. Zabrocki adds, that not only sounds but also desinentail morphemes can be transposed. Codes which enable code chains to be converted into code units are called synthetic codes, and those whose application effects the inverse conversion are called analytic codes. In the former case, we are dealing with a kind of synthe­ sis, since a chain of smaller objects results in a larger unit of a higher level; in the latter case, on the other hand, what is in question is a kind of analysis, since an inverse operation is performed. Thus, for example, by virtue of the synthetic word code a sound chain may be converted into a word, and by virtue of the analytic code a word may be decomposed into its constituent sounds. Both the synthetic and the analytic code are clearly transformation codes, and both belong to intralingual codes. The translation code used be­ tween two languages is clearly an interlingual code. The interlingual translation code is, according to Zabrocki, a transpositiontransformation code. In translation practice, the word is the minimal unit with which the translation code operates. In literal translation each word is replaced by another. To put it more precisely, a word chain forming a sentence in one language is transposed word for word into a corresponding word chain form­ ing a sentence in another language. The translative transposition presupposes the translative equivalence of the words being translated. However, the words appealing in such sentences as translative equivalents may: (i) categorially coincide, or (ii) categorially differ to a certain extent. In the former case, the translation is also structurally adequate. Not only is word translated for word, but also, for example, genitive is rendered by genitive, substantive by substantive, adjective by adjective, and so forth. In the latter case the translation cannot be structurally adequate. Thus, for example, the Polish sentence Nie widzę kamienia "I do not see the stone" can be trans­ lated into German as Ich sehe den Stein nicht. The words kamienia and den Stein, appealing here as translative equivalents, differ categorially in that the former is genitive and the latter accusative, not to mention the differences in definiteness. The situation is similar when a certain category is grammaticalized in one language but not in the other. Thus, for example, the category mascu­ line/human, which is grammaticalized in Polish but not in German, cannot be rendered in the same way in the latter as it is the case in the former. If the translative transposition code cannot be applied, we have to resort to translative

280

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

transformation code, that is, to interlingual paraphrasis. This is often the ease if two languages differ in the signification of the same content which has (i) a word-significator in one language, and (ii) a phrasal or sentential significator in the other. Of course the missing word can be replaced by a loanword. Zabrocki's codematics seems to lend itself to formalization, including axiomatization. However, such an approach would of necessity require a refor­ mulation of some aspects of his conception. Both the synthetic as well as the analytic code could be conceived of as operations (functions) mapping sets of objects of a certain kind onto sets of objects of another kind. For the sake of illustrating a possible formal approach to codematics, albeit in a simplified manner, let us consider some operations involved in articulation and percep­ tion. For this purpose let us avail ourselves of the following symbols, which, of course, should be relativized to any particular language: (i) Fon - the set of all sounds, (ii) pot (Fon) - the set of all subsets of sounds, (iii) Fnu - the set of all sound units, (iv) Wrd - the set of all words, (v) Fch - the set of all sound chains, (vi) FCH - the set of all phone chains, (vii) FPT - the set of all phone pattern chains or phone form chains. A sound (i.e., an element of the set Fon) will be treated here as an individ­ ual, spatio-temporal physical object, produced by a definite speaker in a defi­ nite place and time. Consequently, it exists only once. Sound units may consist of one or more sounds as their parts. Words only form a subset of sound units, formally: Wrd c Fnu. A sound chain is a sequence of sounds such that its consecutive members are also temporally consecutive parts in the corre­ sponding sound unit. A phone chain in turn is a sequence of phones. More­ over, a phone could be conceived of as a set of homophonous sounds. Conse­ quently, to each sound there corresponds exactly one phone. And, since a phone is represented by the corresponding sounds, a phone chain is repre­ sented by the corresponding sound chains. Each phone can be associated with the set of all properties shared by all sounds belonging to this phone. Such a set of properties could be viewed as the pattern of the phone in question. And, since to each phone there corresponds exactly one phone pattern, the phone chain can be converted into the phone pattern chain by replacing the phones which are members in the former by their corresponding phone patterns. Con­ sequently, sound chains represent phone chains, as well as phone pattern chains.

THE LINGUISTIC WORLD OF LUD WIK ZABROCKI

281

Both the speaker and the hearer possess language knowledge, which de­ termines the properties of empirical language objects being articulated and per­ ceived during language communication. Let us suppose that the speaker in­ tends to articulate a word w having certain phonic and semantic properties. In order to do so, he activates some necessary part of his language knowledge, and stalls with what could be called a mental image of w, which certainly con­ tains semantic and phonic information about w, and which has a counterpart in the hearer's language knowledge as well. The phonic information for the in­ tended word w could be represented as a phone pattern chain C. The intention of the speaker is thus to produce a sound chain c, which as an empirical object should become a representation of the phone pattern C. Some of the opera­ tions, which the speaker performs, could be represented in symbols as fol­ lows: so1 : pot (Fon) —> Fch, so2 : Fch -> Fnu, s03 : Fnu -> Fch, s04 : Fch -> FPT, s05 : Fnu ->Wrd Thus, a subset of sounds X (e pot (Fon)) is selected and sequentialized during articulation to assume the shape of a given sound chain c (e Fch). This chain appeal's as a sequence of sounds, which are elements of X and such that the consecutive sounds which are members of this sequence are also tempo­ rally consecutive. What is more, this chain is simultaneously converted into a certain whole, namely, a sound unit u (G Fnu). This unit is identified as the intended word w, if the sound chain c, from which u resulted, turns out to be the representation of the phone pattern chain C. The identification of u as w presupposes the operation of checking auditorily u for its sound structure (i.e., it requires that it be associated with its sound chain, which must be then asso­ ciated with the corresponding phone pattern chain Ci). If Ci happens to be identical with C, that is, C\ - C, then the articulation has been effective, and the word w which is sought turns out to be IL The operations so1 - so5 are not performed consecutively but rather simultaneously or nearly so. All the operations performed by the speaker qualify as code operations, since each of them converts objects of one kind into objects of another kind. In particular, the operation so2, which converts a sound chain into a sound unit, is clearly a synthetic code. A sound chain does not consist of randomly chosen sounds, but of sounds selected intentionally to form a whole, that is, a word which has to differ from other words phonetically and semantically. However, the speaker avails himself also of an analytic code, while performing operation

282

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

so3, which is inverse to so2, and which enables him to auditorily monitor his articulatory output. While speaking we have the impression that we articulate sound units as successions of sounds, that is, sound by sound, and at the same time we treat these units as certain wholes by opposing them to other lingual units. Some of the operations which the hearer performs could be represented in symbols as follows: ho1 : Fnu -> Fch, ho2 : Fch -> Fnu, ho3 : Fch -> FPT, ho4 : Fnu -> Wrd Thus, listening to the speaker, the hearer perceives the sound unit u, while recoding an acoustic into an auditory object, immediately sequentializes it into a sound chain c, and converts it into a sound unit u, while checking it articulatorily, in silent articulation, for its sound structure. The unit u is identified as the word w, intended by the speaker, if its sound chain c happens to represent a phone pattern chain Ci, which is identical with C. Consequently, the word received auditorily and that produced articulatorily coincide in their phonic properties. Hence, communication in this respect has been effective. The operation ho1, by virtue of which a sound unit u is associated with its sound chain c, is clearly an analytic code. Listening to speech is similar to ar­ ticulation because it gives the interlocutor the impression of hearing succes­ sions of sounds,and this impression is so definite that we can easily say what these sounds are. The hearer also applies the synthetic code, while performing operation ho2, integrating a sound chain into a sound unit, which is inverse to ho1, and which enables him to articulatorily monitor his auditory output. Zabrocki did not consider it correct to view language as a code, and we cannot disagree with him, If language is conceived of as language knowledge, then the code knowledge is certainly only a part, although a considerable part, of the former.

3. Synchronic

structural

phonetics2

Zabrocki's inquiry into the organization of sound substance appealing in phonetic space resulted in the formulation of the principles of a subdiscipline, which he called synchronic structural phonetics. This branch of phonetics deals with the properties of acodal chains which may be constructed for ethnic lan­ guages, and are based entirely upon the substantial (material), that is, articula­ tory and acoustic properties of phonetic objects such as sounds, phones, phone 2

Cf. Zabrocki (1959a, 1960, 1961a, 1980).

THE LINGUISTIC WORLD OF LUDWIK ZABROCKI

283

clusters, etc. Although phonetic objects as members of the acodal chains ulti­ mately originate from code sound chains, the internal structure of the former is independent from that of the latter. In other words, the internal characteristics of the acodal chains are specified immanently in that only the differences in the substantial make-ups of the objects involved are taken into consideration and their functional differences exhibited in the code chains are completely disre­ garded. The entire phonetic substance does not possess in itself, according to Zabrocki, any justification for its existence. Such a justification is phoneticexternal, that is, it is delivered only at the semantic level, due to the interference of which code sound chains are convertible into signs as well as into codal sound chains. Each sound, according to Zabrocki, has a specific phonic substance of a physiological (articulatory) and acoustic nature. He concentrated primarily upon the former, while constructing acodal sound chains of various kinds. Both codal and acodal chains have their bases in the codal and acodal fields, re­ spectively. However, instead of the term 'field' we prefer to use the term 'space' as being more appropriate. In acodal space the properties of the phonic substance of sounds, in particular their physiological substance, is specified. Zabrocki distinguished various kinds of physiological substances. The magnitude of a substance is determined by him by means of the magnitude of a corresponding mass, in order to arrive at a uniform measure for various substances. Among other masses he operated with the following: (i) the mass of aperture/closure, (ii) the mass of articulator, (iii) the mass of articulator's path, (iv) the mass of time of articulation, (v) the mass of the air path. As may be noticed, the kinds of physiological substance correspond to the following articulatory dimensions: (i) the supraglottal aperture/closure, (ii) the articulator, (iii) the length of the articulator path, (iv) the time of articulation, (v) the place of articulation. However, by conceiving of the qualitative articulatory dimensions in terms of mass, Zabrocki intended to quantitatively capture the properties of sounds ap­ pealing in the articulatory space, in order to be able to construct corresponding acodal sound chains. Every dimension consists of homogeneous properties

284

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

and each particular sound must be characterized with respect to each dimen­ sion. The particular properties or, more correctly, the carriers of particular properties within a sound, form the elementary constituents of this sound. In other words, the sound is thus decomposed into elementary substantial con­ stituents, the mass of which is measurable. Thus, based on the differences in the magnitude of the mass of these constituents, the substantial or acodal sound chains are established. These chains depend exclusively upon the substantial mass of sounds, which are ultimately gained from code sound chains. Acodal sound chains can be constructed with respect to each articulatory dimension. Thus, for example, the degree of supraglottal aperture specifies the following acodal sound (phone) chain: k X n p— c— s — ƒ — m — / — r — h — i — u — e — o — a t Ө n In this chain the degree of aperture increases from left to right. Stop conso­ nants occur at one point, and fricatives are together at another point. The for­ mer are indistinguishable or neutralized with respect to the dimension in ques­ tion as are the latter. Needless to say, the degree of aperture of each sound should be determined by experimental phonetics. The dimension of the mass of the articulator, that is, of the movable organ, specifies, among other chains, the following: k—p — t g—b—d X— f — è n— m — n In each of these chains, each consecutive sound displays a smaller mass of the articulator than its predecessors. Thus, the back of the tongue has the great­ est mass and is followed by the lips and the front of the tongue. The vocal cords have the smallest mass. Incidentally, complicated articulatory movements can be executed more easily with an organ of a smaller physiological mass. Therefore it is not surprising that most affricates in the languages of the world are articulated with the front of the tongue, which is the most mobile supraglot­ tal organ. The neutralization points in the chain based upon the dimension of the de­ gree of supraglottal aperture can be eliminated if we utilize the dimension of the mass of articulator and establish an acodal sound chain which rests simultane­ ously on these two dimensions. Such a chain will assume the following shape: k—p—t—c—s—x—ƒ—Ө— n — m — I — r — h — i — u — e — o — a

THE LINGUISTIC WORLD OF LUDWIK ZABROCKI

285

Thus, depending on the number of dimensions involved, acodal sound chains can be mono- or polydimensional. What is more, primary chains serve as a basis for constructing secondary chains. The members of the latter are sound combinations, in particular, bi- or triconsonantal clusters. Thus, for ex­ ample, from the last adduced chain, if the consonant k is taken as constant and if it is combined with all other consonants starting from r, the following sec­ ondary chain can be derived: rk—Ik—nk—mk—nk— Өk—fk—%k—sk—ck—tk—pk—kk Also various other principles can be applied, while constructing secondary acodal chains. These chains are in no case accidental, since the primary chains serve as a foundation for them. Consonant clusters display various degrees of articulatory compactness de­ pending on the degree of phonetic similarity of their constituent sounds. Thus, for example, within the considered secondary chain, since n has a greater mass of closure than l,and l is greater than r, the cluster nk is more compact than the cluster lk, and lk is more compact than rk. The summation of aperture / closure mass, also takes place to a certain degree between consonants and vowels. And, since articulatory compactness depends upon phonetic similarity, the combination ku is more compact than the combination ka. However, the more compact a given sound is articulatorily, the more its constituent sounds lose their individuality. Putting it differently, excessive ar­ ticulatory similarity of two sounds in a cluster reduces their auditory conspicuity. Thus, the articulatory properties of a cluster influence its auditory proper­ ties. Acodal sound chains mirror the substantial organization of sounds appear­ ing in articulatory space. On the basis of a comparative analysis of code sound chains, from the perspective of acodal sound chains, a classification of lan­ guages into phonetic types can be established. Structural phonetics as conceived of by Zabrocki also deals with the rela­ tionships between acodal sound chains and phonetic processes. It aims to ex­ plain the course of these processes in these chains and their substantial results. However, since this aspect of structural phonetics is of special importance for language diachrony, it will be discussed in the next section. 4. Diachronic structural phonetics3 Both the description and explanation of sound changes occurring in the languages of the world are among the tasks of diachronic phonetics and pho3

Cf. Zabrocki (1947, 1950, 1951a, b, c, d, 1957a, b, 1960, 1961b, d, e, 1962a, b, 1963a, c, 1963f, 1964, 1965c, 1974, 1980).

286

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

nology. The principles of synchronic structural phonetics, as established by Zabrocki, turn out to be instrumental in explaining both the mechanics of the course of phonetic processes in acodal sound chains and their substantial re­ sults, that is, the changes caused by them in the sound substance of various languages. Within the framework of his diversified investigation he managed to formulate a number of laws or regularities operating within diachronic pho­ netics and universal to all languages. They concern, among other aspects of sound development, the following: (i) the general nature of sound processes, (ii) fortition and lenition, (iii) syllabic nucleation, (iv) nasal preservation and denasalization, (v) voicing, (vi) assimilation. Let us now discuss the enumerated points above in more detail. 4.1 The general nature of sound processes Zabrocki's ideas regarding this problem will be formulated in terms of the following postulates, the contents of which will be additionally elucidated as the need arises. Po 1 There are two kinds of sound processes: (i) purely phonetic (physiological-phonetic) processes, and (ii) phonetic processes initiated and controlled by a particular phonological system. Po 2 The purely phonetic processes are universal. They proceed mechani­ cally in acodal sound chains, that is, they affect the sound substance ac­ cording to the degree of its susceptibility to them. Po 3 The phonetic processes having their source in a phonological system ought to be understood as a reaction to mechanical changes caused by purely phonetic processes, which occasionally lead to the functioning of the phonological system being threatened. Po 4 Phonetic processes are not merely external manifestations of changes which have occurred previously in the phonological system. Po 5 Phonetic processes should be considered with respect to those acodal sound chains with which they are congruent. Consequently, for each pho­ netic process, those sound chains which are congruent with it should be determined. Po 6 The susceptibility of sounds and sound combinations to a given pho­ netic process can be determined within acodal sound chains, which are congruent with this process.

THE LINGUISTIC WORLD OF LUD WIK ZABROCKI

287

Po 7 Every phonetic process operates on masses of sounds and it is more ef­ fective in the case of a smaller rather than larger masses. Po 8 Every purely phonetic process affects the whole substance of a given language, that is, it is not limited to an isolated case. However, substantial manifestation of a process, that is, the observable changes it leaves in the sound substance, may vary in various sound classes. Thus, the process of monophthongization affects all biphonic sound com­ binations, while the process of diphthongization affects all monophonic sounds. However, the former will yield observable results firstly within vowel diphthongs, since they are more susceptible to it than other combi­ nations, and for the same reason, the latter will yield observable results within vowels. Po 9 Phonetic processes proceed linearly in acodal sound chains; they have a stalling point and they leave no gaps. If, however, a gap does occur, it means that either: (i) the process is not congruent with a given acodal sound chain, or (ii) it proceeds simultaneously in several sound chains, or (iii) its course has been modified by the phonological system, Po 10 Every phonetic process is bipolar. 4.2 Fortition and lenition The process of fortition/lenition is congruent with acodal sound chains constructed on the basis of (i) the degree of the supraglottal aperture/closure, and (ii) the mass of the articulator. Scanning the course of this process in the chain specified by the former di­ mension it can be stated that the more open a sound is, the greater the relief of the tension of the reinforced air stream coming from the lungs. As a result, the sound substance of less open sounds is susceptible to a higher degree to forti­ tion/lenition than that of more open sounds. Consequently the sound substance of less open sounds is changed more strongly and/or earlier than that of more open sounds. In accordance with this, stops are affected by fortition/lenition more strongly and/or earlier than spirants, spirants more strongly and/or earlier than nasals, consonants more strongly and/or earlier than vowels, and so on. Scanning the course of fortition/lenition in the sound chain specified by the dimension of the mass of the articulator it can be stated that:

288

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

(i) (ii)

sounds produced by the front part of the tongue are more susceptible to this process than labial sounds, and labial sounds are more susceptible than sounds made with the back part of the tongue.

Consequently, dentals are affected by fortition/lenition more strongly and/or earlier than labials, and labials more strongly and/or earlier than velars. The differentiation in the degree of susceptibility for fortition/lenition also concerns consonant clusters. Generally speaking, more compact consonant clusters are more resistant to this process than are less compact ones. Thus, for example, since the clusters of the type liquid + stop are less compact than the clusters of the type nasal + stop, the stops in the former clusters are affected more strongly than stops in the latter ones. And, obviously, stops in clusters of the type spirant + stop are affected less strongly than stops in clusters of the type nasal + stop. In light of his theory of fortition/lenition Zabrocki analyzed Indo-European and Finno-Ugric languages and came to the conclusion that the consonant shifts which occurred in these languages can be convincingly explained in terms of this theory. Thus, for example, in Proto-Germanic the PIE stops in the following positions: initially, intervocalically, after liquid, and after nasal, underwent a process of fortition, but after spirant s, and after another stop they remained intact. In contradistinction to stops, the spirant s, the nasals, and the liquids were not affected by fortition at all. Thus, the different results this pro­ cess achieved in Proto-Germanic in various classes of sounds and in various consonant clusters seem to confirm the theory in question to its full extent. Also, the further development of consonants in Germanic languages proceeds in agreement with Zabrocki's theory. Thus, for example, this theory makes clear why in Middle High Franconian k shifted to a spirant%,after r and /, but, after n only to an affricate k%. Therefore we have here nk% as well asr%and lxIt is also understandable why in East Franconian mpf besides nk is found, that is, p was shifted here to pf after m, but k after n remained intact. It is also un­ derstandable why the High German consonant shift affected t stronger than/?, and p stronger than k, also in territorial spread. 4.3 Syllabic nucleation The formation of the nucleus of a syllable will be referred to here as syl­ labic nucleation. The nucleus of a syllable is usually formed by a vowel. How­ ever, some consonants may nucleate as well, and among these the sonants especially likely to take on this function. In various IE languages, sonants developed from the tautosyllabic combinations of m, n, l} r with preceding or succeeding vowels, due to the reduction and subsequent loss of

THE LINGUISTIC WORLD OF LUDWIK ZABROCKI

289

these vowels. What is more, the sonants did not prove phonetically stable, and they often underwent either (i) denucleation, that is, they ceased to function as syllable nuclei, by virtue of the development of pre- or postsonantal vowels, or (ii) vocalization, that is, they became vowels. These processes can be exemplified as follows: Latin: ager "field" * agerz * agrs = PIE * agyros ky mtόn In order to explain the Old Indic: śatam "hundred" PIE * Zabrocki uses synchronic structural phonetics, in particular the acodal sound chain established on the basis of supraglottal aperture, and the principles un­ derlying the syllable. These latter can be expressed in terms of the following postulates: Po 1 The syllable is a functional unit which rests upon a certain substan­ tial (articulatory, physiological, acoustic) basis. Po 2 The more open a sound is, the more advantageous a basis it forms for syllable nucleus. Po 3 The natural tendency within the syllable as such is to base its nucleus upon more open rather than more closed sounds. Po 4 Although the syllable rests upon a substantial basis, it is not identical with its basis. Po 5 The syllable results from the co-action of two language planes: (i) the phonic plane; and (ii) the semantic plane. Hence, it is clear why the boundaries of the syllable cannot be determined in an objective manner, that is, experimentally, since they are co-determined by semantics. In agreement with the above postulates the vowels form the most advanta­ geous basis for nucleation, while the stop consonants form the most disadvan­ tageous. The majority of the world's languages employ vowels as syllable nu­ clei. In cases in which the vowel becomes reduced and disappears in the sylla­ ble closed by a liquid or nasal consonant, this latter can turn into a sonant in order to take over the function of the nucleus. However, since it is less open than vowels, it forms a less favorable basis for nucleation. Therefore the syl­ lable tends to broaden its material basis and develop a vowel again. Thus, the syllabic function is the driving force behind the reappearance of a vowel. The tension between the material basis and the syllabic function causes the repeti­ tive formation of vowels in the immediate vicinity of sonants. If the influence of the syllabic function upon the formation of new vowels is investigated, one can easily predict that this process should concern the

290

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

sonants, the syllabic basis of which is the narrowest, that is, the nasals and The liquid sonants and exhibit a larger aperture than and and by virtue of this they form a better material basis for forming a syllable. The his­ torical evolution of languages confirms this hypothesis to its full extent, In Old Indian the PIE nasal sonants were vocalized, while the liquid sonants were pre­ served intact (cf. matá "thought" = * m to-; y kas "wolf = w qwos). How­ ever, in the course of posterior evolution, the liquid sonants also developed a vowel in the Prakrits, and subsequently the resulting combination changed into a diphthong. The situation was similar in Slavic languages, where a vowel developed before m; and This vowel subsequently became nasalized and the nasal disappeared. However, and were not denucleated everywhere. The latter is preserved in Czech and Serbo-Croatian, and the former only in certain Serbo-Croatian dialects and partially also in Czech. Thus, recapitulating, it can be said that under the influence of syllabic func­ tion, the sonants tend to develop new vowels, since their substantial basis is too narrow for syllable nuclei. However, the sounds from s to k, in the acodal chain based upon the degree of supraglottal aperture, are unable to assume the syllabic function, and this is why the disappearance of a vowel here may lead to syllable disappearance, if the phonological plane or other factors do not intervene (cf. Old Indic upa-bdás "sounds made by footsteps" —pad "foot"). The regularities established by Zabrocki, concerning the diachronic aspect of syllabic nucleation, can be formulated in terms of the following postulates: Po 1 The disappearance of a vowel between two consonants, which are neither liquids nor nasals usually leads to the disappearance of the syllable. Po 2 The disappearance of vowels in the immediate vicinity of liquid or nasal consonants does not cause the disappearance of a syllable, since these consonants may become sonants and thereby form its nucleus. Po 3 Sonants may develop new vowels due to the tension operating between the syllabic function and the material basis of the syllable. Po 4 The tendency to develop a vowel should concern nasal sonants to a stronger degree than liquid sonants. Po 5 Among the sonants, it is the liquid which, as the most open, can remain without a vowel for the longest time. Zabrocki emphasizes that the regularities he established do not have an absolute character like the laws of physics. Phonetic phenomena are complex, and the interplay of various physiological, psychological and intellectual fac­ tors determines their diachronic course. Language structures are founded upon the semantic function of the phonic plane. Taking all this into account he con-

THE LINGUISTIC WORLD OF LUDWIK ZABROCKI

291

sidered it appropriate to speak solely of the degree of probability for phonetic changes. 4.4 Nasal preservation and denasalization The process of denasalization is congruent with the acodal sound chain built on the basis of the degree of supraglottal aperture/closure. Before Zabrocki was able to explain the results of denasalization in this chain, he in­ vestigated the phonetic stability of nasal sounds both individually and in com­ bination with other consonants. His inquiry takes into account the following observations: (i) Not all oral sounds have nasal counterparts in the languages of the world, (ii) Nasal consonants occur in most languages of the world and they can be considered as nasalized voiced oral stops. Thus, , d, and g have their corresponding nasalized counterparts in m, n, and . (iii) The nasal spirants and liquids only rarely occur in the languages of the world, (iv) Nasal vowels are not unusual sounds and occur fairly often. These preferences for certain classes of nasal sounds have their source in the nature of nasal articulation and its acoustic effects. These effects depend on the ratio between the phonic substance produced by the oral resonator, and that produced by the nasal resonator. In the case of spirants this ratio is not advan­ tageous for the oral resonator, since the quantity of air flowing through the nasal cavity is too high in relation to that flowing through the oral cavity and, in consequence, the acoustic effect of the nasal resonator drowns out the acoustic effect of the oral resonator. Nasal spirants may come into existence as transitory sounds during lenition, which changes m, n, and into the oral voiced spirants , , and , respectively. Nasal vowels are in a better situation since the aperture of the oral cavity is sufficiently large in relation to the nasal resonator. However, nasal vowels are not uniform sounds but actually consist of two components, which may be articulated synchronically or asynchronically. In consequence, they are less stable than nasal stops, which appear as uniform sounds. Their stability is, however, differentiated, and depends on the mass of the moving organ with which they are articulated, which decreases in the following order: , m, and n. Nasal vowels are also differentiated with re­ spect to their susceptibility to nasalization in the sense that a more open vowel forms a more advantageous basis than a less open one. An even still less ad­ vantageous basis is held by the liquids r and /. The degree of susceptibility for nasal resonance can be represented graphi­ cally as follows:

292

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

Fig.l: The degrees of susceptibility to nasal resonance

Thus, there are two poles favorable for nasality: voiced stops and vowels. The higher degree of susceptibility of the former is marked by the double + following sign. Vowels are followed by the liquids r and /, and the least susceptible are spirants. As a consequence, three susceptibility areas A, B, and C may be distinguished. Thus, the degree of stability of nasal sounds de­ creases in the order: (i) stops, (ii) vowels, (iii) liquids, and (iv) spirants. In sound combinations the stability of nasal stops and vowels depends upon the succeeding oral consonants. Spirants exert the most disadvantageous influence upon the preservation of preceding nasals, both stops and vowels. The position of the nasals before oral stops is more favorable. What is more, voiced consonants create a more favorable position for the preceding nasals than do voiceless ones, and heteroarticulation with respect to the place of articulation is more favorable than homoarticulation. Consequently, n is more stable before ƒ than before s, but m is more stable before s than before/. Summarizing Zabrocki states that: (i) occlusivity, (ii) voicedness, and (iii) heteroarticulation with respect to the place of articulation are all factors con­ ducive to the stability of nasals, while (i) spirantity, (ii) voicelessness, and (iii) homo articulation with respect to place of articulation are factors non-conducive to the stability of nasals. The differentiation of sounds with respect to their degree of susceptibility to nasalization established within synchronic structural phonetics finds confir­ mation in the diachronic development of these sounds in quite a large number of IE languages examined by Zabrocki. Thus, nasal stops are also diachronically more stable than nasal vowels. The latter are more likely to disappear

THE LINGUISTIC WORLD OF LUDWIK ZABROCKI

293

than the former. In sound combinations nasals disappear more easily before oral spirants than before oral stops. Based on the principles of synchronic structural phonetics, it cannot be predicted with certainty whether nasal preservation or denasalization will fol­ low exactly their corresponding susceptibility chains. Thus, for example, there is no necessity that a given change will actually occur earlier than the other, as is expected. Synchronic structural phonetics merely establishes the degree of probability of a given change with respect to others. Consequently, its laws are of a probabilistic nature. 4.5 Voicing The process of voicing is congruent with the acodal sound chain specified by the dimension of the degree of supraglottal aperture. A wider supraglottal opening forms a more favorable basis for voicedness, and thereby makes a sound more susceptible to becoming voiced. Consequently, the stops form the least advantageous basis for voicedness, and the open vowels the best such basis. The susceptibility for voicedness increases thus with the increase of the supraglottal aperture. This law of synchronic structural phonetics is confirmed by both: (i) the distribution of the voiced phones in the world's languages in acodal chains based on the supraglottal aperture; and, (ii) the processes of voicing operating in the diachrony. The results of the synchronic phonetic analysis of voicedness thus prove to be valid for diachronic phonetics. 4.6 Assimilation Assimilation is a sound change, by virtue of which a sound becomes similar to another sound, that is, one sound adopts features from another. The sounds bound by the relation of assimilation may be in direct or indirect (distant) contact. According to Zabrocki, the assimilation process, in contradistinction to fortition / lenition, manifests itself more intensively in more compact consonant clusters than it does in less compact ones. And, it can be said that the com­ pactness of a consonant cluster depends on the number of articulatory dimen­ sions in which two sounds are homoarticulatory, that is, in which they assume identical features.

294

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

Zabrocki established the acodal sound chains with which assimilation is congruent. Thus, for example, for the consonant clusters in which nasal or liquid is followed by voiced spirants, the following chain was constructed: Susceptibility to assimilation decreases in this chain from left to right. Concerning the assimilation of the nasals n and m to the following consonants, he observed that n will be assimilated easier in the cluster np than m in the cluster mt on account of the smaller mass of the articulator. Diacritology4 A theory concerning word diacrisis or word distinction in any language grew out of Zabrocki's inquiry into the concept of the phoneme, which, as has been previously mentioned, he considered to be a component of a codal system. The point of departure for his diacritological considerations was a critique of the Prague School concept of the phoneme, which defined it mainly in terms of distinctive function, that is, the function of distinguishing mean­ ingful segments. Zabrocki came to the conclusion that this distinctive function is performed in language by segments not necessarily corresponding to single sound segments but to units which are sequences of such segments. The words in the universe each ethnic language must cope with are numerous, and the problem of how particular words are kept distinct from each other amidst this vast number of elements is cognitively interesting as well as intellectually fascinating. This universe is not a universe of chaos but it is systematically organized and this finds its reflection in various relations bind­ ing words and their constituents. These relations may be subdivided according to various criteria. One of these criteria will provide for: (i) intra-word relations; and (ii) inter-word relations; another for: (iii) syntagmatic (linear, segmental) relations, and (iv) paradigmatic (asequential) relations; and still another for: (v) the relation of heterophony, and (vi) the relation of homophony. 5.

Heterophony can be conceived of as a phonetic (material, substantial) dis­ tinction or opposition, while homophony can be understood as phonetic indis-

4

Cf. Zabrocki (1962c, 1963d, 1965b, 1967a, 1967b, 1980).

THE LINGUISTIC WORLD OF LUDWIK ZABROCKI

295

tinguishability. All of these relations are relevant to the theory to be surveyed here. Constituents of different words as well as constituents of the same word may be heterophonous or homophonous. Clearly, by virtue of their con­ stituents the words themselves become heterophonous or homophonous. It should also be added that both heterophony and homophony may be total or partial Heterophony, if restricted to meaningful units such as words, and combined with the difference in meaning, that is, heterosignification, could be called word diacrisis. Zabrocki inquired into how words phonetically differ from each other or, more precisely, what the structure is of these differences, which may be total or partial However, in dealing with phonetic distinctions between words he also had to concern himself with phonetic indistinguishability, which may also be total or partial In short, he dealt with the structure of words in respect to both their hetero- and homophonous constituents assuming various lengths. The particular subdiscipline of linguistics or of semiotics created by Zabrocki and the subject matter of which is diacrisis in ethnic languages, may be called diacritology. However, he himself did not use this term. Never­ theless, we consider it to more adequately characterize his contribution in this field than the term 'distinctive morphology', which he himself coined. Some principles of diacritology will be formulated subsequently in terms of postulates. However, before this can be done, some terms must first be introduced. As has already been mentioned, Zabrocki limited his approach to diacrisis in words. Thus, in addition to the set of words, the following terms are necessary to lay the foundation for a diacritological theory: (i) the relation of diacrisis, (ii) the diacritic pak, (iii) diffusivum and confusivum, (iv) phonetic diffusion, (v) diffusive range (load), (vi) diacritic paradigm, (vii) diffusive type. The relation of diacrisis binds words which are heterophonous and signify different meanings. Thus, for example, in Polish the following pairs of words belong to this relation: (dom "house", tom "volume"), (dom, tam "there"), (dom, dym "smoke"), (dom, tak "yes")

296

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

The relation of diacrisis as conceived of here thus belongs to inter-word paradigmatic relations. Any two words bound by the relation of diacrisis form a diacritic pair. What is more, such words obligatorily display heterophonous constituent seg­ ments and may display homophonous segments as well. The maximal heter­ ophonous segments of the words forming a diacritic pair are referred to by Zabrocki as diffusive segments, paradigmatic distinctive units, distinctive morphemes or, simply, diffusiva. And, the maximal homophonous segments of the words forming a diacritic pair he calls confusive segments or, simply, confusiva. Thus, for example, the diacritic pair (dom, torn) displays d- and tas diffusiva and -om and -om as confusiva. And, the diacritic pair (dom, tam) displays do- and ta- as diffusiva and -m and -m as confusiva. The function of distinguishing words which form a diacritic pair, fulfilled by diffusiva of these words, could be understood as phonetic diffusion, or as the relation of phonetic diffusion binding the diffusiva in question. The minimal pair, that is, a pair of words differing in meaning and hetero­ phonous in exactly one sound or minimal segment occurring in the same po­ sition in both these words, is but a particular case of a diacritic pair. As ex­ amples of minimal pairs in Polish, the following diacritic pairs can be given: (kot "cat", pot "sweat") (kot, kos "blackbird") (kot, kat "executioner") The relation of diacrisis, if restricted to homolexical words, which share a non-zero confusivum, could be called the relation of diacritic flection. Ob­ viously, this would not concern words which are totally diffusive. The diffusive range or load of a confusivum is the set of all diffusiva, with which this confusivum can combine to form a word. Thus, for example, the following diffusiva belong to the diffusive range of the confusivum -om in Polish: at-, br-, d-,fant-, gr-, I-, ogr-,pr-, zt-. The relation of diacrisis can be subclassified into diffusive types. The diffusive type is a subset of diacritic pairs, the diffusiva of which exhibit the same proportion in the number of their constituent sounds. Thus, a diffusive type is based upon the relation of diffusive analogy binding diacritic pairs. Some examples of this in German are as follows: Type 0 ~ 1 : Eis ~ Greis, leiten ~ gleiten, Type 1 ~ 1 : Fisch ~ Tisch, leiten ~ reiten, Type 1 - 2 : leiten ~ schreiten, weiss ~ Kreis, Type 2 ~ 2 : gleiten ~ streiten, Gleis ~ Kreis. These types will differ with regard to the number of their elements.

THE LINGUISTIC WORLD OF LUDWIK ZABROCKI

297

The diffusive / confusive dichotomy of words is instrumental in establish­ ing diacritic paradigms. A diacritic paradigm can be defined as the set of all words sharing the same confusivum in the same position. The following Pol­ ish words belong to the diacritic paradigm specified by the confusivum -om: atom "atom" brom "bromine" dom "house,home" fantom "phantom" grom "thunder" lorn "crowbar" ogrom "enormity, vastness, multitude" poziom "level" prom "ferry" zlom "scrap". Some of the fundamental assumptions of diacritology, as conceived of by Zabrocki, can be expressed in terms of the following postulates: Po 1 The function of phonetic diffusion in diacritic pairs may be performed by (i) monophonie as well as by (ii) polyphonic diffusiva. The former consist of one sound, and the latter of a sequence of sounds. Thus, monophonie or minimal diffusiva are but a particular case of diffusiva. Po 2 Both diffusivum and confusivum may be continuous or discontinuous. Po 3 The diffusive / confusive dichotomization of a word depends on other words with which this word enters into a relation of diacrisis. Poly­ phonic words, excepting biphonic ones, will usually exhibit more than one such dichotomization. Po 4 The polyphonic diffusiva of certain words cannot be reduced completely to monophonie diffusiva within diacritic pairs. Thus, for example, in the German word streiten "contend, fight" the segment st- already functions as minimal diffusivum, since there is no such word (i) as *treiten, which would enter with streiten into a diacrisis of type 0-1, (ii) nor is there such a word, which would share with streiten into a con­ fusivum -treiten, and thereby enter with it into a diacrisis of type 1-1. Po 5 Each minimal pair belongs to the diffusive type 1-1. Po 6 The number of minimal pairs in the languages of the world is rather limited, and there are decidedly more diacritic pairs displaying poly­ phonic diffusiva. Po 7 Homonymie words are not bound by the relation of diacrisis since, being totally confusive, their diffusiva are zero-segments. Po 8 The length of a confusivum and its diffusive range are inversely propor­ tional, that is, the longer the confusivum the smaller its diffusive range.

298

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

Consequently, the longer a confusivum, the less numerous the diacritic paradigm specified by it. Thus, for example, in German the confusivum -ten (cf. gleiten ~ bieten) specifies a larger diacritic paradigm than the confusivum -eiten ( cf. gleiten ~ breiten ). Po 9 The boundaries between diffusivum and confusivum are independent of intermorphemic boundaries within words. What is more, a certain boundary between diffusivum and confusivum may be morphologized to become a new intermorphemic boundary (cf. the origin of derivational suffix -ling in German). Po 10 Words sharing a common confusivum may be contaminated, which leads to the formation of a blend, a word made by putting components of these words together (cf. English dandle - dance and handle; German brausen - brauen and sausen, tippeln - tippen and trippeln). Zabrocki's diacritological theory sheds light on the distinctions operating in the universe of words. into the diffusive / confusive structure of words as guage to be the main goal of distinctive morphology

some neglected aspects of He considered the inquiry well as other units of lan­ or diacritology.

6. Communicative community and language communities5 The contribution of Zabrocki to sociolinguistics is in many respects unique. He was the first to work out a comprehensive theory of communicative and language communities. This theory, within which the mutual relationships between both kinds of communities have been identified, and the processes operating within and between them properly recognized, still preserves its validity. The fundamental notion as well as the starting point for Zabrocki's sociolinguistic studies was the communicative community, which he defined as a group of people in which there exist objective conditions for exchange of in­ formation, regardless of the nature of the communication means being em­ ployed. Thus, a communicative community may not necessarily have at its dis­ posal a uniform means of communication, and this, in turn, implies that there may exist various such means within one and the same community. Neither does the concept of a communicative community exclude the possibility of transmitting information by means of gestures, Consequently, the property which establishes a communicative community is the very fact of information transmission and not the manner in which this is accomplished. A language community is a communicative community, which makes use of a uniform means of communication, that is, a common language. Hence, each language community is a communicative community, but not conversely. 5

Cf. Zabrocki (1959b, 1963b, 1963e, 1965a, 1965d, 1967b, 1970b, 1971, 1972a, 1980).

THE LINGUISTIC WORLD OF LUD WIK ZABROCKI

299

The latter is a basis for the former. The language community can be viewed as a product of and a kind of superstructure imposed upon the corresponding communicative community. The period of time that the latter lasts is also the time of the duration of the former. The development of language communities is, to a large extent, determined by processes originating in their bases, namely, in the corresponding commu­ nicative communities, However, language communities as superstructures also influence their bases. The identification of the regularities of this interaction allows for the recognition of significant aspects of language in close relation to social structure. It also makes it possible to forecast language development in communities differentiated by language. Each communicative community is, in turn, determined by its extra-com­ municative basis, which includes geographical, economic, political, religious, ideological, and cultural factors. These factors are of a heterogeneous nature, and the corresponding communities they specify may not coincide. Thus, for example, religious communicative communities may have different territorial extensions than those communicative communities specified by political or economic factors. As a consequence, the extra-communicative factors form a basis for the corresponding communicative community, and thereby also a ba­ sis for the corresponding language community. In modern society, every person is a member of various communicative communities. The smallest natural community of this kind is usually the fam­ ily. Thus, for example, a worker belongs at first to the communicative com­ munity of his family, and then to such communities as his work place, the cir­ cle of his friends, a political party which he may belong to, the city in which he is living, and the state of which he is a citizen. Communicative communities can be subdivided according to their various properties. Among such subdivisions the following are worthy of considera­ tion: (i) active and passive, (ii) durable and indurable, (iii) loose and compact, (iv) primary and secondary, (v) superordinate and subordinate. It is within the active community that the need for information exchange felt by its members are actually carried out. If the needs for establishing mutual communicative contact are not felt, we can speak of a passive communicative community. As a matter of fact, a community can be active or passive to a dif­ ferent degree.

300

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

In civilized societies the family usually forms a relatively durable commu­ nicative community, while, for example, an excursion group is rather tempo­ rary, and thereby indurable. The degree of compactness of a communicative community depends upon the number of the communicative contacts which are accomplished in a certain period of time. In this respect feudal state communi­ ties were looser than modem state communities. The primary communicative community forms in the first place a basis for language acquisition. Thus, for example, school and playground communities are the primary communicative communities for children. Therefore the chil­ dren of Polish emigrants to America speak English among themselves, even if at home only Polish is used. Often these children know Polish only passively. What is more, Zabrocki pointed to a certain hierarchy of primary and sec­ ondary communicative communities, a hierarchy which presupposes a relative meaning of these two terms. Consequently, a community can be primary with respect to one group of people, and secondary with respect to another. Finally, superordinate and subordinate communicative communities are distinguished, which, similar to primary and secondary ones, also enter into hierarchical dependences. Zabrocki also speaks of optimal superordinate com­ munities, and considers the state communicative community as being optimal in comparison to all other communicative communities which may function within the state. In a multilingual state this language community is superordi­ nate: the communicative community on which it is based has the political power. Zabrocki also formulated laws governing communicative and language communities. They mirror the internal structure of, and the mutual depen­ dences between, these communities. Each communicative community, for eco­ nomical reasons, tends towards a uniform means of communication, that is, a uniform language. The more compact this community is, the quicker and easier the homogenization of the means in question is brought about.As a rule, the language which prevails will be that which represents a communicative com­ munity within which communicative contact is established. In other words, the language which is used by the superordinate communicative community be­ comes dominant. In light of this assumption, a Swede speaks Swedish within the Swedish communicative community, but with Englishmen or the persons of other language communities he will shift to English, since the English com­ municative community is superordinate with respect to the Swedish one. No communicative community can function optimally unless a relatively uniform language serving the whole community is available. The following belong to the main processes operating within communicative and language communities:

THE LINGUISTIC WORLD OF LUD WIK Z ABROCKI

(i) (ii)

301

integrational (unifying), and disintegrational (differentiating).

The former lead to the creation of larger communities out of smaller ones, whereas the latter cause the division of larger communities into smaller ones, and thereby facilitate language differentiation. The extra-communicative factors determining communicative communities may act, in different periods of time, to a different degree in an integrating or disintegrating manner. Thus, for ex­ ample, space is today less disintegrational than it was in the past. Also political or religious factors may in various situations differently influence the processes in question. The economy is the primary integrational force, which is ex­ tremely conducive to the formation of a global community, that is, a commu­ nity embracing the whole world. The multilingualism of a communicative community, without a common language serving the whole community, is uneconomical, and as a result this usually leads to lingual unification, in the course of which the language of the optimal superordinate community wins out. The subordinate communities simply take up the language of the superordinate one. Over the course of history, the number of relatively subordinate commu­ nicative communities increases as does, at the same time, the number of the ab­ solute optimal world-wide communicative communities. Since the number of communities to which modern humans belong constantly increases (and this applies particularly to world-wide communicative communities), these com­ munities cannot develop new languages for themselves. Consequently, this development acts towards the reduction of the number of languages. The dependence of language and communicative communities upon their bases is not unidirectional but rather is mutual. Thus, both communicative and (in particular) language communities try not only to resist the forces operating in their bases but even to determine the development of these bases. The su­ perstructure exerts itself to dominate its basis. It could even be said that lan­ guage communities constitute insurmountable barriers in the world-wide inte­ gration process of communicative communities, and in this respect they must be considered as conservative. No communicative community can function normally unless it has at its disposal a uniform means of communication. Lan­ guage communities do not develop and change as quickly as communicative communities, and therefore they are historical relics. They have simply lost the natural basis, which once brought them into existence but which itself ceased to exist. Moreover, the current extra-communicative factors already produce different communicative communities, Thus, language communities are not

302

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

stable, static entities but change over time and depend upon factors which also change over time. However, language communities are something more than just commu­ nicative communities possessing a uniform means of communication. Every people or nation identifies itself through the language in which it has stored its unique historical, spiritual, and material development. History stores in lan­ guages the reflection of extralingual reality, which in turn is uniquely mirrored by particular language communities. One of the ways language barriers can be overcome is certainly bi- or multilingualism. The members of the present day mother tongue communities be­ come multilingual and thus they become members of extra-mother-tongue com­ munities. The multilingualism of these communities is today a necessity and it is determined by the general integrational effects of the operation of world­ wide communicative communities. Another alternative would mean an obstruc­ tion to scientific and economic progress, and this is something no mother tongue community can allow. 7. Aspects of language comparison6 Following ideas held by another Polish linguist Tadeusz Milewski (19061966), Zabrocki held the conviction that descriptive linguistics investigates particular languages independently, that is, as if each language were the only one in the world. Consequently, it delivers a set of isolated monolingual des­ criptions of the languages of the world. However, the science of linguistics strives for a comparative synthesis from which the justification for comparative linguistics may be derived, and comparative enterprise presupposes descriptive linguistics, since the former is based upon the results of the latter. Within comparative linguistics Zabrocki distinguished four subdisciplines: (i) genetic-comparative or historical-comparative, (ii) typological-comparative, (iii) confrontative, and (iv) contrastive. Zabrocki's interest in confrontative linguistics arose from his inquiry into applied linguistics and language teaching methodology. This soon became a search for a general theory of this discipline and for a definition of its status with regard to the remaining three branches of comparative linguistics. Confrontative linguistics is conceived of by Zabrocki as a synchronic com­ parative linguistics oriented towards the description of similarities and distinc­ tions between any particular languages. On the other hand, contrastive linguis6

Cf. Zabrocki (1970a, 1975a, 1976, 1980).

THE LINGUISTIC WORLD OF LUDWIK ZABROCKI

303

tics should only deal with distinctions. Viewed in this theoretical framework the domain of the former is more comprehensive and embraces that of the lat­ ter. In contradistinction to genetic-comparative linguistics, confrontative lin­ guistics disregards the common origin of languages and compares those which are genetically related as well as those which are not genetically related. More precisely, it analyses and describes comparatively homogeneous units and ho­ mogeneous subsystems of any given languages. Typological-comparative linguistics is interested mainly in the similarities between and among the languages compared, and it uses these similarities to determine the degree of their structural affinity. It also makes a typological classification based upon common properties. Confrontative linguistics, by comparing languages with respect to both their similarities and differences, emerges as a foundation for both typological and contrastive linguistics. Further, Zabrocki subdivided confrontative linguis­ tics into pure and applied, and consequently viewed this latter as an integral part of applied linguistics. For language teaching practice the results of bilateral confrontative studies, that is, of bilateral confrontative grammars and seman­ tics, are, according to him, the most important. The goal of confrontative linguistics is an exhaustive comparative descrip­ tion of languages and the determination of their confrontative statuses. This kind of description will differ from the monolingual description of a language, that is, a description elaborated in isolation from other languages. Certain lin­ gual entities, such as conventional (fixed) syntagmas, cannot be identified within a given language except by virtue of comparison with another language. In order to illustrate this aspect of confrontative analysis, Zabrocki avails him­ self of the German syntagma die Mücken stechen "(the) mosquitoes sting", which is a conventional syntagma with respect to its Polish translative equiva­ lent komary gryzq "the mosquitoes bite". The literal translation in German would be *die Mücken beißen. It is just with regard to conventional syntagmas that the principle of creativity in foreign language learning, according to Zabrocki, fails to work. The confrontative status of a given language must be characterized by (i) all the properties of this language which it has in common with other languages, (ii) all the properties, which distinguish it from other languages, and (iii) all the properties, which other languages have but which it does not have, and which are referred to by Zabrocki as negative properties, and viewed by him as an integral component of the confrontative status of a given language.

304

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

Confrontative grammar should also describe, in a comparative fashion, all types of polysemantic or polyfunctional formalization of grammatical and lexi­ cal information at the level of the signal. Each comparative analysis enriches the linguistic perspective on a given language, also by identifying its negative properties, the status of which has thus far been neglected by linguistic analy­ sis. The confrontative description of languages presupposes the availability of a kind of synchronous universal reservoir {Urspeicher), which has an hierarchi­ cal or stratified structure. The higher the stratum, the more abstract the entities it consists of. The most abstract entities, such as phonetic, semantic, and gram­ matical minimally distinctive information, are located at the highest stratum. The aredundant abstract nuclear sentence structure, which encodes no sec­ ondary information and which functions as a basis for the generation of vari­ ous concrete sentence structures, also resides there. The stratum of Urspeicher may be called the level of universals because it is at this level that those lingual informational entities reside which exhibit the highest entropy value. The entities of this level are shared by all or most lan­ guages of the world, and they are considered to be primary. All other entities, according to their entropy value, are secondary to varying degrees. The Urspeicher of all languages of the world is referred to as the language universe {Sprachuniversum) by Zabrocki. All languages of the world can be derived from a properly established language universe. 8. Cy berneticsy stems of language communication1 Zabrocki's cybernetic approach to systems of language communication is relevant to general linguistics, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, and indeed to glottodidactics and language teaching methodology. The concept of a com­ munication system ultimately became an integral part of his studies and it had a decisive influence on the formulation of many of his linguistic ideas. Cybernetics was defined by Zabrocki as the science of abstract optimal information systems. According to him, every cybernetic system must have at least: (i) two knots processing information (transformational knots), and (ii) one tricircuital information channel (tract), within which the following should operate: (a) the circuit of nuclear (basic) information, (b) the circuit of monitor information, and (c) the circuit of control information. 7

Cf. Zabrocki (1962d, 1966, 1967c, 1967d, 1972b, 1975b, 1980).

TEE LINGUISTIC WORLD OF LUD WIK ZABROCKI

305

The monitor and control information function as meta-information with re­ spect to the basic information which they concern. Each of these three circuits may be blocked under certain conditions. The signal is conceived of as a physical process conveying information, and it is clearly kept distinct from the sign, which results from the association of the signal with the corresponding contents of extralingual reality. Apart from general cybernetics Zabrocki also distinguished applied cyber­ netics, resulting, among other things, from the technical applications of the former. Language communication presupposes information transmission. And, since cybernetics deals with informational systems, its principles must also be applicable to the analysis of both: (i) human communication systems; and (ii) language utterances, which function as vehicles of information and which mirror the structure of this system. Consequently, systems of language com­ munication appear as a sub-class of communication systems in general. Next, we shall briefly survey Zabrocki's approach to the analysis of human communication and subsequently of language utterances in terms of cyber­ netics. The recognition of the cybernetic nature of human communication thus al­ lowed Zabrocki to approach its structure on a cybernetic basis. Consequently, every act of language communication appeared as a manifestation of a cyber­ netic system, in which a human sender and receiver accomplish the role of main transformational knots, and which is usually referred to as the speakerhearer system. Speaker and hearer are being bound by an information channel, which extends from the speaker's brain back to the speaker's brain through the following transformation knots: (i) the language center in the speaker's brain, (ii) the articulatory knot of the speaker, (iii) the acoustic/optical knot, (iv) the auditory/visual knot of the hearer, (v) the language center in the hearer's brain, (vi) the auditory/visual knot of the speaker. As a cybernetic system, the speaker-hearer system also avails itself of a tricircuital information channel, whereby it ensures the execution of the following three tasks: (i) transmission of information, (ii) monitoring by the speaker of the reception of information, and

306

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

(iii) appropriate control of the whole process of language communication. The interaction of the three circuits is clearly observable during conversa­ tion. The hearer reacts directly to the message sent by the speaker and vice versa. From the verbal and non-verbal answers which the speaker receives and which convey monitory information, he is able to infer whether communication is effective or not with respect to the intended goal. In the case of com­ munication ineffectivity, the speaker resorts to the control of information trans­ mission in such a way that the intended content is communicated to the hearer. An extremely important property of the circuit of nuclear information in the speaker-hearer system is that it also functions as the circuit of creation of lan­ guage matrices, (i.e., signal matrices as well as grammatico-semantic matrices) due to which it is possible to produce and comprehend language utterances. This second function of the circuit in question lasts as long as the structures of a given language have been acquired completely. The child acquires closed structures until approximately the age of 15. The acquisition of the vocabulary, however, continues for the rest of the learner's life. Thus, the circuit for the creation of language matrices terminates its activity while a person is still young, and subsequently atrophies. Within the speaker-hearer system certain subsystems can be distinguished, the operation ranges of which are limited to either the speaker or the hearer. Thus, within the speaker, two systems operate which avail themselves of in­ formation channels and these channels may be referred to respectively as: (i) acoustic-auditory, and (ii) articulatory-kinesthetic. The former channel connects the acoustic knot with the speaker's language center in the brain, It extends thus from the speaker's lips through his ear and auditory knot. Although all three circuits work in this channel, its main func­ tion is to monitor the emitted information, since it allows the speaker to hear his own utterances. However, the circuit for the creation of language matrices is blocked at this point. We do not acquire language, native or foreign, based on our own pronunciation. This hypothesis has far-reaching consequences for glottodidactics. The articulatory-kinesthetic channel, which might also be called speaker-internal, connects his articulatory tract with the language center in the brain. In this channel only the monitory circuit is active. Zabrocki emphasizes the distinction between the central transformation knot, that is, the language center in the brain, and all other transformation knots. The latter are capable of converting only the physical substance of the signal without changing the content of the sign. The former performs both of these operations, and it functions as an internal store. However, it does not

THE LINGUISTIC WORLD OF LUD WIK ZABROCKI

307

store concrete sentences or texts but rather their contents, that is, sentential and textual semantemes. The internal store also records the paradigmatic systems of language in a direct manner. On the contrary, concrete sentences and texts are recorded in the external store. The invention of script meant a revolution in storing language signs. This additional language store became the foundation of cultural and scientific progress. In the transformation knots processing information, an operation of con­ verting systems of entities of one kind into systems of entities of another kind takes place. Thus, a thought is transformed into a lexico-syntactic structure, the vehicle of which consecutively undergoes the transformation into articulatory, acoustic, and auditory (perceptive) substances. The transformation in question is effected by virtue of the corresponding codes, which, as we recall, were conceived of by Zabrocki as rules of conversion of certain objects into others, and which he divided into synthetic and analytic. The speaker and hearer avail themselves of both these codes but for different purposes. The speaker, in constructing his utterances, uses the synthetic code as basic, and at the same time he resorts to the analytic code as the monitory one. On the other hand, the hearer in understanding the utterances uses the analytic code as basic, and uti­ lizes the synthetic code as the monitory one. Zabrocki dealt with the functioning of the communication system not only in speaking and hearing but also in reading and writing. The execution of these two latter operations is closely bound up with the system of phonic language communication, within which speaking and hearing take place. Consequently, according to him, there does not exist an independent graphic communication system which would not feed back to the phonic one. In emitting a written text, the sender initially converts auditory signs into visual signs, and then repro­ duces them materially as graphic signals, Thus, the internal auditory store is primary in relation to the internal visual store. However, Zabrocki admits that this may be different in those who are deaf from birth. In writing, nerve im­ pulses coming from the brain are converted into movements of the hand, in particular, into those of the fingers. This channel is active within all three cir­ cuits, and includes the circuit of creating matrices as well. In addition to this, the optic channel is also in operation, but it is active only in its monitory cir­ cuit. Thus, in writing, two monitory circuits and one control circuit are at work. In reading, graphic signals are converted into visual signs, and then into auditory signs. Although articulatory movements are blocked in silent reading, they nevertheless are often performed in reduced form. Reading presupposes thus the use of the analytic code as basic, and of the synthetic code as a monitory one. On the contrary, writing presupposes the use

308

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

of the synthetic codes, operating in the systems of phonic and graphic com­ munication, as basic, and of analytic code as monitory. Since cybernetics deals with information and systems of information trans­ mission, then according to Zabrocki, language utterances as vehicles of infor­ mation should also be analyzed in terms of cybernetic principles. The cyber­ netic structuralism resulting from the cybernetic approach to language promises to deliver the most exhaustive linguistic description, both in monolingual as well as in confrontative perspectives. This type of structuralism avails itself of the concept of information and it treats the nuclear sentence structure, under which diathetic sentence structure could be understood, as a kind of communi­ cation system in which the subject mirrors a sender and the object a receiver of a message. This system, which Zabrocki called the basic communication sys­ tem, is, in a certain sense, embedded within the human communication system, and thus the latter becomes a metasystem with respect to the former. What is more, in almost all languages of the world, information about the metasystem is stored in the basic system. Thus, for example, the German sentence Ich trinke Wasser "I drink water" contains information that the sender of the mes­ sage in the metasystem identifies himself with the sender of the basic system. On the contrary, the sentence Der Hund wird vom Knaben geschlagen "The dog is beaten by the boy" informs us that the sender of the metasystem does not identify himself with either sender or receiver of the basic system. Other combinations of sender and receiver of the metasystem with the sender and the receiver of the basic system result in other sentence structures. Cybernetic structuralism strictly distinguishes between semantic and gram­ matical information on the one hand, and the formalization or representation of this information on the other. Consequently, grammar at the level of informa­ tion must be kept distinct from grammar at the level of signal. Or, in other words, the abstract grammatical level is opposed to the formalization level. These two levels are bound by various relations, to which grammatical homonymy also belongs. This kind of homonymy results from the neutralization of the representation of different information. Cybernetic structuralism also investigates concrete utterances from the standpoint of known and unknown information. Thus, for example, in the German sentence, Geben Sie mir die rote Rose, "Give me the red rose", the sender assumes that the receiver of the message knows which roses are red, and the sender simultaneously assumes that the receiver does not know that he wants the red rose. Consequently, the sentence Das Haus ist hoch"Thehouse is high" and the syntagma das hohe Haus "the high house" differ with respect to the information content, if the sender and receiver are taken into considera-

THE LINGUISTIC WORLD OF LUD WIK ZABROCKI

309

tion. Cybernetic structuralism is thus oriented towards the informational struc­ ture of sentences and texts. Of course, the brevity of this presentation has not permitted us to touch upon all the relevant problems posed by the cybernetic approach to language communication. The conception of a 'cybernetic linguistics' is a result of Zabrocki's extensive research into the nature of language and language com­ munication. As the last and the most important stage in his linguistic career it may be seen as a synthesis emerging from his linguistic deliberations and quandaries and appeared as a complex harmonious whole. This is why we have presented it last. 9. Not quite a conclusion In the above, necessarily compact, survey, it has simply not been possible to exhaustively cover all the important conceptual contributions of Zabrocki. Our presentation is thus fragmentary and by no means complete. However, we would like to draw attention to the wide range and variety of his linguistic interests, as well as to the depth and originality of his ideas. What emerges from his linguistic output is the figure of a scholar of wide intellectual horizons who always aimed at the creative development of the Polish linguistic tradition, and who succeeded without slavishly imitating foreign ways of thinking. He was gifted with a most extraordinary ability to perceive coherent patterns lurking behind the surface chaos of language facts, and was able to construct theories, which inspire further explorations, and which should find their permanent position in linguistic science. Zabrocki's passion for research, his tenacity of purpose, and ever-present desire to penetrate into the unknown, can hardly be equaled. The presentation of Zabrocki's linguistic achievements as proposed above is certainly not independent of the interpretation of the author of the present survey. Approached by another investigator it would doubtless take on a different shape. Being aware of this, I nevertheless hope that the reader has obtained some idea about the linguistic world of my teacher and the spiritual mentor of my own linguistic inquiries.

310

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS BIBLIOGRAPHY OF LUDWIK ZABROCKI'S WORKS ON THE TOPICS COVERED IN THE PRESENT CHAPTER*

1947. "Uwagi o rozwoju wyglosu w gockim i nordyjskim w zakresie samogiosek dlugich i dyftongów", Sprawozdania Poznanskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciól Nauk 37.146-154. 1950. Review of Jean Fourquet, Les mutations consonantiques du germanique (Strasbourg: Publ. de l'Université de Strasbourg; Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1948). Lingua Posnaniensis 2.296-311. 1951a. "Samogloski dlugie i dyftongi w wyglosie zachodnio-germańskim". Sprawozdania Poznanskiego Towarzyswa Przyjaciól Nauk I/II 1949, 46-53. 1951b. Review of Jerzy Kurylowicz, "Le sens des mutations consonantiques". Lingua Posnaniensis 3.344-352. [Comment on Kurylowicz's review of Four­ quet (1948) in Lingua 2:1.77-81 (1949).] 1951c, Review of Tadeusz Milewski, "La mutation consonantique en hittite et dans les autres langues indoeuropéennes" (Archiv Orientální 17:2.189-195). Lingua Posnaniensis 3.359-366, 1951d. Usilnienie i lenicja w językach indoeuropejskich i w ugrofińskim. (= Prace Komisji Filologicznej\ 13:3.) Poznan: Poznañskie Towarzystwo Przyja­ ciól Nauk. 1957a. "Z historii monoftongizacji i dyftongizacji niemieckiej". Kwartalnik Neofilologiczny 4.13-14. 1957b. "Uwagi o rozwoju konsonantyzmu germańskiego". Kwartalnik Neo­ filologiczny 4:2.139-144. 1959a. "Systemy języka (Sprachsysteme)". Sprawozdania Poznańskiego To­ warzystwa Przyjaciól Nauk I/II 1957, 52-56. 1959b, "Na marginesie problemów nauczania języków obcych, (jezykoznawcza teoría nauczania jezyków obcych)". Języki Obce w Szkole 6.343-368. 1960. "Zagadnienia fonetyki strukturalnej". Sprawozdania Poznańskiego To­ warzystwa Przyjaciól Nauk. Sesja naukowa Komisii Filologicznej 1958, 165185. 1961a. "Uklad kodowy i jego struktury pochodne". Sprawozdania Poznan­ skiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciól Nauk 1960:1/2.23-26. 1961b."Prawa glosowe, procesy glosowe, onomastyka". Onomastica 7:1/2.1-20. 1961c. "Sprachkode". Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kom­ munikationsforschung 14:1.64-73. 1961d. "Les sonantes à la lumière de la phonétique structurale", Biuletyn Fonograficzny 4.3-20. 1961e. "Zamecanija o razvitii armjanskogo konsonantizma". Voprosy Jazykoznanija 1961:5.34-45, 1962a. "Przesuwki spółgloskowe w dialektach ormiańskich", Sprawozdania Poznanskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciól Nauk 1961:1.38-43.

* For a full bibliography of Zabriocki's works, see Kwartalnik Neofilologiczny (Warsaw) 24. 123-132(1977).

THE LINGUISTIC WORLD OF LUDWIK ZABROCKI

311

1962b. "Zur diachronischen strukturellen Phonetik", Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Helsinki, September 1961 ed. by Antti Sovijärvi & Pentti Aalto, 805-815. The Hague: Mouton. 1962c. "Phon, Phonem und distinktives Morphem". Biuletyn Fonograficzny 5.59-87. 1962d. "Sprachkode in der Erlernung von Fremdsprachen". Preprints of Papers for the IX International Congress of Linguistic Sciences ed. by Morris Halle, 116-116. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT. 1963a. "Stabilnoœć spółglosek nosowych w rozwoju historycznym". Lingua Posnaniensis 9.44-97. 1963b. Wspólnoty komunikatywne w genezie i rozwoju języka niemieckiego, t. I: Prehistoria języka niemieckiego. Wroclaw: Ossolineum. 1963c. "Die Stimmhaftigkeit der Laute (Versuch einer strukturell-phonetischen Betrachtungsweise)". Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kom­ munikationsforschung 16:1-3.261-275. 1963d. "Zagadnienie fonemu". Sprawozdania Poznańskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciól Nauk 1961:2/4.259-264. 1963e. "Theodiscus, diutisc". Studia linguistica in honorem Thaddaei LehrSplawinski, 53-59. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. 1963f. "Z rozwoju dyftongów IE. ai, au, ou w językach germaiiskich". Księga Pamiπtkowa ku czci prof, W. Doroszewskiego {= Prace Filologiczne 18:1), 233-247. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1964. "Die inneren Gesetze der dänischen Lautverschiebungen". Kwartalnik Neofilologiczny 11:2.151-169. 1965a."Rozpad germañskiej wspólnoty językowej". Lingua Posnaniensis 10. 41-78. 1965b. "Aufbau und Funktion der phonologischen Einheiten". Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Münster 1964 ed. by Eberhard Zwirner & Wolfgang Bethge, 598-602. Basel: S. Karger. 1965c. "Die dritte Lautverschiebung im Deutschen". Symbolae linguisticae in honorem Georgii Kurylowicz, 359-368. Wrocław-Warszawa-Krakow: Osso­ lineum. 1965d. "Die Ausgliederung der germanischen Sprachen". III. Internationaler Germanistenkongress: Tradition und Ursprünglichkeit. Amsterdam, 129-131. 1966. "Kodematische Grundlagen der Theorie des Fremdsprachen-unterrichts". Glottodidactica 1.2-42. 1967a. "Phonologie und distinktive Morphologie". Abstracts of Papers, Xth International Congress of Linguists, 415-416. Bucharest. [See also entry 1969 below.] 1967b. "Verkehrsgemeinschaften und Mundarten in Geschichte und Gegen­ wart". II Internationaler Dialektologenkongress, Marburg 1965, 14-18. Mar­ burg: N. G. Elwert. 1970[1967c]. "Kybernetische Sprechmodelle". Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Prague, September 1967 ed. by Bhuslav Hala, Milan Romportl &Premysl Janota, 1047-1050. Prague: Acad. Publ. House of the Czech Academy of Sciences.

312

PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS

1967e. "Cybernetyczny układ komunikacji językowej", Logopedia 7.3-25. 1969. "Phonologie und distinktive Morphologie". Actes du Xe Congrès Inter­ national des Linguistes ed. by Alexandria Graur et al., vol.I, 367-375. Bucharest: Ed. de l'Acad. de la RSR. 1970a. "Grundfragen der konfrontativen Grammatik". Probleme der kontras­ tiven Grammatik ed. by Hugo Moser, 31-52. Düsseldorf: Schwann. 1970b. "Kommunikative Gemeinschaften und Sprachgemeinschaften". Folia Linguistica 4:1/2.2-23. 1971. "Lernschwierigkeiten mit sprachlichen Ursachen". Sprache und Gesell­ schaft ed. by Hugo Moser, 245-257. Düsseldorf: Schwann. 1972a. "Z teorii socjolingwistyki". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 30.17-25. 1972b. "Kybernetische Lernmodelle und programmierter Fremdsprachen-unterricht". Active Methods and Modem Aids in the Teaching of Foreign Lan­ guages ed. by Rudolf Filipovic & Gerhard Nickel, 15-35. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1974. "Die Entwicklung der urgermanischen auu, all im Altsächsischen: Ver­ such einer strukturell-phonetischen Analyse". Kwartalnik Neofilologiczny 21: 1.5-13. 1975a. "Zur Theorie der konfrontativen Sprachwissenschaft". Glottodidactica 7.3-9. 1975b. Kybernetische Modelle der sprachlichen Kommunikation. Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków-Gdañsk: Ossolineum. 1976. "O tak zwanych 'studiach kontrastywnych': Problem językoznawstwa konfrontatywnego". Lingua Posnaniensis 19.9-29. 1980. U podstaw struktury i rozwoju języka [At the foundation of language structure and development]. Edited by Jerzy Bańczerowski with a Foreword by Władyslaw Kuraszkiewicz & Jerzy Bańczerowski. Warszawa & Poznan: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.

Z HISTORII JĘZYKOZNAWSTWA W POLSCE STRESZCZENIA 1. "Rozwój językoznawstwa ogónego w historii nauk o języku w Polsce" (Zdzislaw Wąsik) Przedmiotem niniejszej pracy jest wkiad polskich językoznawców do rozwoju jçzykoznawstwa ogólnego od lat 70-tych dziewiętnastego vvieku do lat 70-tych wieku dwudziestego. Na tle spuścizny naukowego jçzykoznawstwa europejskiego tych czasów w perspektywie epistemologicznej, zanalizowane zostało dziedzictwo nauczycieli akademickich przeszłości, którzy rozwijali swoje wlasne propozycje teorii jçzyka. Podział na poszczególne okresy rozwoju uwzględnia nie tyłko uwarunkowania polityczne, które przyczyniły się do powstania osrodków lingwistycznych, ale takze profesjonalne punkty zwrotne poszczególnych językoznawców, które charakteryzowaly ich naukowe zyciorysy poprzez daty ich publikacji lub daty zajmowania stanowisk na uniwersytetach. 2. "Zródia i rozwój jçzykoznawstwa stosowanego w Polsce" (Franciszek Grucza) Chociaz stosowane aspekty nauki o jçzyku były obecne od najstarszych czasów, historia swiadomego (naukowego) oddzielenia jçzykoznawstwa sto­ sowanego od jçzykoznawstwa 'czystego' ma dopiero ok. 200 lat. Podzial taki zostal najpierw wprowadzony przez niemieckiego uczonego A. F. Bernhardiego w 1801, a w Polsce przez J. Baudouina de Courtenay w 1870. Językoznawstwo stosowane stało się dyscypliną bardzo zlozoną; z jednej strony poprzez rozwiniçcie takich galęzi jak jçzykoznawstwo kontrastywne, głotodydaktyka i translatoryka, a z drugiej strony, rozwijając w kazdej z tych subdyscyplin tak badania podstawowe, jak i ich odpowiedniki stosowane. Artykuł niniejszy przedstawia rozwój historyczny i podstawy wszystkich tych aspektów w Polsce. 3. "Leksykografia w Polsce: Wczesne początki - 1997" (Tadeusz Piotrowski) Artykuł omawia dzieje leksykografii polskiej oraz najwazniejsze słowniki jçzyka polskiego od początków, od wieku XV, do roku 1997. Przedstawiane

314

POLISH SUMMARIES

Są, przede wszystkim siowniki jednojęzyczne, zas dwu- i wielojęzyczne tylko wówczas, gdy odegrały istotną. rolę, w rozwoju slowników jednojęzycznych. Uwypuklona jest takze ciąglość rozwojowa pewnych tendencji, z których w dziejach slownikarstwa polskiego najwazniejsza to zagadnienie normatywizmu oraz liberalizmu. Poszczególne siowniki przedstawiane są na szerokim tle kulturowym. Omawia się takze rozwój technik leksykograficznych stosowanych do opisu materiału językowego. Wiele miejsca poświęcono sytuacji po 1990 roku (po odzyskaniu niezawisłosci Polski), gdy takze w wydawnictwach słownikowych przywracane są, mechanizmy rynkowe. Autor omawia zalety i wady obecnego pro-rynkowego nastawienia wydawców oraz podejmuje probę, okreslenia najblizszej przyszlosci leksykografii w Polsce. 4. "Dialektologia w Polsce, 1873-1997" (Stanislaw Gogolewski) Powstanie i pierwszy etap rozwoju polskiej dialektologii wiązą się z ruchem młodogramatyków. W roku 1873 Lucjan Malinowski (1839-1898) opublikowal w Lipsku pierwszy naukowy opis gwary polskiej. Uczen Malinowskiego (1839-1898) — Kazimierz Nitsch (1874-1958) objął swymi badaniami cały obszar polszczyzny, a w roku 1915 opublikowal pierwszą syntezę Dialekty języka polskiego, W okresie międzywojennym i później powstało kilkadziesiąt opisów gwar pojedynczych wsi i większych regionów. W roku 1973 ukazalo się nowe syntetyczne opracowanie przedmiotu Dialekty polskie Karola Dejny (n.1911). Powstaly atlasy geolingwistyczne poszczególnych dialektów, wyszedl tez obejmujący caly obszar kraju Mały atlas gwar polskich. Wydano szereg slownikow dialektalnych, trwają prace nad obszernym Słownikiem gwar polskich. Rozwija się specjalna dziedzina badan — dialektologia historyczna, badająca problemy udzialu oddzielnych gwar w kształtowaniu się ogólnonarodowej, literackiej polszczyzny. 5. "Onomastyka w Polsce: Od początków wieku XIX-go do czasów współczesnych" (Sławomir Gala) Treścią artykułu jest onomastyka jako dział jçzykoznawstwa, jej przedmiot, zakres badań, metodología badawcza oraz relacje między tym a innymi dzial ami jçzykoznawstwa, takimi jak: historia języka, dialektologia, a takze innymi naukami, np. historią. W drugiej części przedstawiono periodyzację badan onomastycznych w porządku chronologicznym. Ukazano systematyczny rozwój tej dyscypliny badawczej, egzemplifikując ten rozwój przykladami bibliografieznymi oraz przytoczeniem najwazniejszych organizacji i instytucji naukowych. Istotą rozwoju jakosciowego onomastyki polskiej jest podejmowanie coraz to nowych tematów badawczych, swiadczących o po-

STRESZCZENIA POLSKIE

315

szerzaniu zakresu badawczego o nowe klasy znaków mowy, uznawane za nomina propria oraz podejmowanie problematyki teoretycznej — miejsca i funkcji nazw wlasnych w systemie języka. Omówienie zakończono postulatami badawczymi. 6. "Wklad Jana Baudouina de Courtenay do jçzykoznawstwa ogólnego" (Arleta Adamska-Salaciak) Wklad Jana Baudouina de Courtenay (1845-1929) do jçzykoznawstwa teoretycznego pozostaje trudny do oszacowania. Nie stworzył on nigdy syntetycznego dziela, a wiçkszości jego prac nie przetlumaczono dotąd na język angielski. Mimo to, glównie za sprawą. Jakobsona, jego wpiyw na rozwój fonologii jest ogólnie znany. Zdecydowanie mniejsza jest wśród językoznawców świadomość wagi prac Baudouina poświçconych zmianie językowej. Jego poglądy na istotę zmiany, jej przyczyny i cele oraz na rolę, jaką odgrywa w niej system jçzyka, mają dla dzisiejszego językoznawcy nie tylko historyczne znaczenie. 7. "Mikolaj Kruszewski a językoznawstwo dwudziestego wieku" (Fedor M. Berezin) Mikolaj Kruszewski (1851-1887) był, obok Jana Baudouina de Courte­ nay, jednym z prekursorów strukturalizmu. U podstaw jego teorii lezy twierdzenie, iz język to system, a raczej system systemów i to w zakresie struktur, jak i relacji. Swoje poglądy zawarl w szeregu waznych prac, takich jak Zarys nauki o języku czy Szkice językoznawcze. Za szczególnie wazne osiągniçcia uznane zostały: jego teorie o alternacji dzwiçkowej oraz prawa: asymilacji morfologicznej, i apokopy rdzenia na korzysc sufiksu, a takze prawo asocjacji na podstawie stycznosci (relacje syntagmatyczne) i prawo asocjacji na podstawie podobieñstwa (relacje paradygmatyczne). Te dwa ostatnie prawa wyjasniają zmiany w jçzyku jako systemie o charakterze psychologicznym. Mimo tych szerokich i rewolucyjnych pogląydow, jçzyk w jego ujçciu ograniczał się do planu morfologicznego, do morfologii wyrazu, ale w tym zakresie Kruszewski dal wyczepują.cy opis znaczenia pojedynczych morfemów, jak i wzajemnych relacji między morfemami. 8. "O głównych koncepcjach jçzykoznawczych Mikolaja Rudnickiego" (Jerzy Bańczerowski) Artykul jest próbą interpretacji poglądów Rudnickiego w kategoriach współczesnego jçzykoznawstwa. Jçzyk jest formą świadomosci (cf. 'kompetencja językowa') rozumianej jako wiedza językowa — w istocie forma poz-

316

POLISH SUMMARIES

nania. Świadomość językowa jest świadomością danej wspólnoty komunikatywnej i ma swoje odbicie w jednostkowej swiadomosci jçzykowej. Fundamentalne w takiej koncepcji sąwyobrazenia reprodukujące i reprodukowane. Wyobrazenia reprodukowane są, indywidualnymi, konkretnymi obiektami w formie artykulacyjnej i akustycznej. Wyobrazenia reprodukujące to obiekty istniejące w swiadomosci jçzykowej. Wykonanie jçzykowe ('language per­ formance') jest zbiorem niezliczonych aktów reprodukcji jçzykowej charakteryzującej się pewnym paralelizmem psychofizjologicznym — iancuch wyobrazeń przesuwa się w swiadomosci, a odpowiada mu iańcuch ruchów narządów mowy. Język jest podatny na zmiany historyczne rozumiane jako mutabilnosc swiadomosci jçzykowej. Rudnicki próbował sformulowac prawa asymilacji, dysymilacji, metatezy i palatalizacji, które są. jedynie róznymi manifestacjami sil identyfikacji-dyferencjacji dziaiających jako causa movens w przestrzeni wyobrazeń językowych. Rudnicki rozwinął dwa typy fonetyki strukturalnej: artykulacyjna i audytywną., a takze teorię diakryzy i fonologii w zaawansowanej formie. 9. "Jerzy Kuryiowicz jako indeoeuropeista i teoretyk jçzyka" (Wojciech Smoczyński) Kuryiowicz był niewątpliwie jednym z najwiçkszych polskich językoznawców. Był poliglotą (angielski, francuski, niemiecki, wloski, hiszpański, portugalski, rosyjski, arabski, perski, i kilka innych), ale przede wszystkim interesowal się strukturą języka i jego mechanizmami. Studiowal u najwiçk­ szych uczonych swoich czasów (Meillet, Vendryes, Cohen), ale wypracowal wlasną. metodologię i teorie. Jego glówne osiągniçcia były związane z indoeuropejskim i teorią języka, i to we wszystkich obszarach — fonologii, morfologii i skladni. Jedno z jego wielkich dzieł Etudes indo-européennes zostalo okreslone jako 'teoretyczny zarys strukturalnej podstawy gramatyki indoeuropejskiej'. Ale pracą, która przyniosla mu sławç była teoría laryngalna. 10. "Aspekty lingwistycznego swiata Ludwika Zabrockiego" (Jerzy Bańczerowski) Szerokie zainteresowania Zabrockiego obejmują jçzykoznawstwo ogólne, jçzykoznawstwo porównawcze (historyczne, typologiczne, kontrastywne, konfrontatywne), psycho- i socjolingwistykç, jçzykoznawstwo cybemetyczne, jçzykoznawstwo indoeuropejskie i jçzykoznawstwo stosowane (glottodydaktykç). Jego oryginalny wkład to przede wszystkim kodematyka lingwistyczna, synchroniczna i diachroniczna fonetyka strukturalna, diakrytologia, wspólnoty komunikatywne i jçzykowe, aspekty porównania jçzykow,

STRESZCZENIA POLSKIE

317

cybernetyczne systemy komunikacji jçzykowej. Pojçcie kodu pozwoliio Zabrockiemu uchwycic dynamiczny aspekt jçzyka i komunikacji jçzykowej. Procesy dzwiçkowe dzielil na czysto fonetyczne (uniwersalne) oraz inicjowane i kontrolowane przez poszczególne systemy fonologiczne. Zabrocki byi pierwszym, który stworzył caiosciową teorię wspólnot komunikatywnych i jçzykowych. Wspólnota jçzykowa jest wspólnotą komunikatywną, która uzywa jednolitego srodka komunikacji, tzn. wspólnego jçzyka. Kazda wspólnota jçzykowa jest wspólnotą. komunikatywną, ale nie odwrotnie. Cybernetykę definiował Zabrocki jako naukę o abstrakcyjnych optymalnych systemach informacyjnych. W jçzykoznawstwie cybemetyka ma istotne znaczenie w jçzykoznawstwie ogólnym, psycholingwistyce, socjolingwistyce, a takze w glotodydaktyce i metodologii nauczania jçzyka.

INDEX OF AUTHORS* A. Adamska-Saiaciak, Arleta (b.1957): xiii, 17, 20, 105, 175-208 Ajdukiewicz, Kazimierz (1890-1963): xi Aleksandrov, Aleksandr Ivanovic (1861-1917): 212 Ammer, Karl (1911-1970): 261 Andersen, Henning (b.1934): 194, 199, 202 Antkowiak, Zygmunt: 161 Anttila, Raimo (b.1935): 197 Arabski, Janusz (b.1939): 81 Arct, Michal (1840-1916): 111 Ascoli, Graziado Isaia (1829-1907): 179 B. Bagnicka, Romualda: 179 Bąk, Stanisiaw (1900-1981): 130, 132 Bally, Charles (1865-1947): 29 Banaczkowski, Piotr: 158 Bańczerowski, Jerzy (b.1938): x, xiv, xv, 15, 28, 66, 67, 69, 232-254, 273312 Bandtk(i)e, Jerzy Samuel (alias Georg Samuel, 1768-1835): 104, 105, 106 Bartoszewicz, Lidia : 77 Basara, Anna (b.1931): 132, 137 Basara, Jan (b.1929): 132 Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan (Niecisław, 1845-1929): ix, x, xi, xii, xiii, 4, 5, 6, 7-8, 9, 10, 14, 16-23, 33, 5559, 61n, 67, 70, 71, 125, 154, 175202, 209, 210, 212, 218, 221, 224n, 229, 166, 273 Bazell, C(harles) E(rnest, 1909-1984): 263 Benni, Tytus (1877-1935): 64, 85, 86,

87, 180 Benveniste, Emile (1902-1976): 263, 267, 267, 269 Berezin, Fedor Mixajlovic (b.1930): xiv, 200, 209-231 Bernhardi, August Friedrich (17691820): xi, 54 Best, Karl-Heinz (b.1943): 263 Besta, Theodor (1920-1996): 178/2 Blatt, Gerson (1858-1916): 20 Blicharski, Michał: 73 Bloch, Jules (1880-1953): 256 Bloomfield, Leonard (1887-1949): 34 Bogorodickij, Vasilij Alekseevic (1857-1941): 179, 212, 218 Bopp, Franz (1791-1867): 3, 4 Borek, Henryk (1929-1986): 150, 157, 160, 162 Bréal, Michel (1832-1915): 179 Breza, Edward (b.1932): 160, 161 Brocki, Zygmunt (1922-1982): 87, 161, 253/7 Brückner, Aleksander (1856-1939): 112, 138, 154, 189, 219 Brugmann, Karl (1849-1919): 181, 189, 209, 213, 219, 165n Bubak, Jozef (1934-1999): 150 Buczyñski, Mieczyslaw: 160 Bühler, Karl (Ludwig, 1879-1963): 34, 36, 266n Bujak, Franciszek (1875-1953): 154 Bukowcowa, Zofia: 102 Bulič, Sergej Konstantinovic (1859— 1921): 176n, 179, 212 Burszta, Jozef (b. 1914): 141 Bystroń, Jan Stanisiaw (1892-1964): 125, 157

* This index does not cover bibliographies appended to each chapter. Major discussions of the work of individual scholars are given in bold print; contributions are in italics.

320

INDEX OF AUTHORS

c. Calepino, Ambrogio (c. 1435-1511): 103 Catford, John C. ("Ian", b.1917): 61« Cegielski, Hipolit (1815-1869): 4, 5 Chantraine, Pierre-Louis (1899— 1974): 263 Chniura-Klekotowa, Maria (19351976): 180« Chomicz-Jung, Krystyna : 77 Chomsky, Noam (b.1928): xvi Ciesielska-Borkowska, S.: 62 Ciesla, Michai (b.1907): 62, 63 Cieślikowa, Aleksandra (b.1936): 160 Cikobava, Arnol'd Stepanovic (1898— 1985): 183 Cohen, Marcel (1884-1974): xv, 256 Coseriu, Eugenio (b.1921): 72 Cowgill, Warren C(rawford, 19291985): 264 Cuny, Albert (1869-1947): 267, 268 Cygan, Jan: 71 Czerny, Zygmunt (1888-1975): 65 Czochralski, Jan: 71, 72 D. Dąbrowka, Andrzej: 117 Dakowska, Maria: 79, 81, 82, 83 Dąmbska, Izydora (1904-1983): xi Darwin, Charles (1809-1881): 221 Deese, James E(earle, b.1928): 225 Dejna, Karol (b.1911): xii, 132, 134, 140, 141, 151-152, 153, 155 Delbrück, Bertold (1842-1922): 24, 183«, 199 Dluska, Maria (1900-1992): 85 Dobrzański, Zdzislaw : 85, 87 Doroszewski, Witold (1899-1976): xiii, 12, 13,31-33,70, 101, 102, 113-114, 136, 137, 158 Duden, Konrad (1829-1911): 111 Dufriche-Desgenettes, A. (18041878): 187« Dukiewiczowa, Leokadia: 86 Dunaj, Bogusław: 117

Durkheim, Émile (1858-1917): 12, 31 Dybowski, Roman (1883-1945): 63 Dzikowski, Wladyslaw: 161 E. Erdman(n), Edmund (1877-1936): 62 Estienne, Henri (1528-1598): 103 Estienne, Robert (1503-1559): 103 F. Famincyn, Andrej Sergeevic (18351918): 221 Ferguson, Charles A. (1927-1998): 61 Figarski, Wiadyslaw: 81 Fisiak, Jacek (b.1936): 9, 67, 71, 7273, 74, 75 Fortunatov, Filipp Fedorovic (1848— 1914): 7 Fourquet, Jean (b.1899): 263 Fries, Charles Carpenter (1887-1967 60 Furdal, Antoni (b.1928): 15, 162 G. Gajda, Stanislaw: 88 Gala, Sławomir (b.1945): xiii, 147172 Galle, Henryk (1872-1948): 111n Gawroñski, Andrzej (1885-1927): 7, 9, 10, 11, 12,28-29, 65, 256 Gelb, Ignace Jay (1907-1985): 263 Geller, Ewa: 117 Gliñski, J[ozef?]: 111n Gloger, Zygmunt (1845-1910): 154 Goczoiowa, Zofia: 81 Godel, Robert (1902-1984): 16 Gogolewski, Stanisiaw (b.1939): xii, 123-146 Gołąb, Zbigniew (1923-1994): 15, 260 Golębiowska, Teresa (b.1939): 150, 157, 160

INDEX OF AUTHORS Górnowicz, Hubert (1922-1986): 157, 159, 160, 161, 162 Górski, Konrad (1895-1990): 115 Gottlieb, Wojciech: 62 Grabias, Stanislaw: 85 Grabowska, L. & Malgorzata: 87 Grabowski, Zygmunt: 87 Grala, Maria: 81 Grece-Dąbrowska, Claire: 260 Greenberg, Joseph H(arold, 1915— 2000): 264 Grimm, Jacob (1785-1863): 3 Grucza, Franciszek (b.1937): x. xi. 15, 53-99 Gruszczyński, Wlodzimierz (b.1953): 113 Grzebieniowski, Tadeusz (1894— 1973): 63 Grzegorczyk, Pior: 102 Grzegorek-Lipińska, Maria, see Lipiñska-Grzegorek, Maria Grzeszczuk, Stanislaw (b.1934): 160 H. Häusler, Frank (b.1930): 175n, 176n Halicka, Irena (d.1985): 161 Halle, Morris (b.1923): 263 Hamp, Eric P(ratt, b.1920): 263n Handke, Kwiryna (b.1932): 15, 38, 73,78, 135, 160 Hanusz, Jan (1858-1887): 154 Haugen, Einar (1906-1994): 53 Hausenblas, Karel: 88 Havet, Louis (1849-1925): 179, 187/?, 219 Heinz, Adam (1914-1984): x, xiii, 15, 21, 34, 70, 255«, 260, 261, 265«, 266« Helsztyñski, Stanislaw (1891-1986): 63 Herbart, Johann Friedrich (1776— 1841): 183« Hirt, Herman (1865-1936): 265« Hjelmslev, Louis (1889-1965): xiv, 34, 258 Hock, Hans Henrich (b.1938): 263«

321

Hoenigswald, Henry M. (b.1915): 266« Horálek, Karel (1908-1992): 21 Horodyska-Gadkowska, Haiina: 141 Hrabec, Stefan (1912-1972): 115, 156 Humboldt, Wilhelm von (17671835): 22 I. Ingarden, Roman (1893-1970): x Ippoldt, Juliusz (1867-1960): 62, 63 Ipsen, Gunther (1899-1984): 224 Ivanov, Vjaceslav Vs(evolodovic, b.1929): 264 Ivic, Milka (b.1921): 32 Iwan, Krystyna: 63 J. Jagic, Vatroslav (1838-1923): 213, 219 Jakobson, Roman (Osipovic, 1896— 1982): xiii, xiv, 5, 7, 14, 16, 18, 20, 23, 53, 136, 176n, 184, 186, 187n, 190, 191, 224, 227-228, 229, 263 Janicki, Karol: 72 Jassem, Wiktor (b.1922): 85, 86 Jerzykowski, Antoni (1821-1889): 111 Jodlowski, Stanislaw (1902-1978): 64, 86 Jungmann, Josef (1773-1847): 106 K. Kaczmarek, Leon (1911-1996): 67. 84-85 Kalisz, Roman: 72 Kamińska, Maria (b.1930): 157 Kania, Jozef (Tadeusz, 1937-1974): 85, 102 Karas, Mieczyslaw (1924-1977): 116, 136, 140, 142, 143, 150, 155, 159, 160 Karlowicz, Jan (1836-1903): 29, 64, 102, 108, 110, 114, 142, 153, 154, 213

322

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Karpluk, Maria (b.1925): 115, 155 Kątny, Andrzej: 73, 74 Keller, Rudi {alias Rudolf, b.1942): 201, 202 Kęsikowa, Urszula (b.1939): 161 Kętrzyński, Stanislaw (1876-1950): 157 Kielar, Barbara Z. (b.1930): 77, 82, 83, 84, 88 Kieiczewska, Maria ( Kielski, Boleslaw (1879-1965): 62, 71 Kilbury, James S. (b.1949): 189, 214 Klausenburger, Jurgen (b.1942): 189 Kleczkowski, Adam (1883-1949): 61-62, 259 Knapski, Grzegorz (Gregorius Cnapius, c. 1564-1639): 103, 104, 106, 108, 113 Kochanowski, Jan (1530-1584): 106 Koerner, E(mst) F(rideryk) Konrad (b.1939): ix, xivn, 175«, 176/z, 200, 214 Kolmaczewski, Leonard (Leonard Zenonovic Kolmacevskij, 18501889): 8, 21 Kolosov, Mitrofan Alekseevic (1832— 1891): 210 Komorowska, Hanna (b.1940): 80 Koneczna, Halina: 85 Kondratiuk, Michal (b.1934): 161 Kopaliński, Wladyslaw (b.1907): 112 Kopczynski, Onufry {alias Andrzej, 1735-1817): 3, 106 Kopertowska, Danuta (b.1935): 161 Korbut, Gabrjel (1862-1934): 176n Kosyl, Czesiaw (b.1943): 160, 162 Kotarbiński, Tadeusz (1886-1981): x, xi Kowalik-Kaleta, Zofia: 160 Kowalski, Tadeusz (1889-1948): 259 Kozierowski, Stanislaw (1874-1949): 155 Kozlowska, Zofia: 73, 84 Kruszewski, Mikolaj (Habdank, 18511887): x, xiii, xiv, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14, 16,

18-21, 179, 180, 186, 187, 189, 190. 201,204-229 Kryński, Adam Antoni (1844-1932): 29, 108, 153 Krysztofiak, Maria: 83 Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. (b.1939): 71, 74 Kucaia, Marian (b.1927): 73, 102, 142, 158, 162 Kuczyński, K. A.: 63 Kuhn, Adalbert (1812-1881): 178 Kupiszewski, Wladyslaw (b.1930): 161 Kurylowicz, Jerzy (1895-1978): x, xiv, xv, 12, 13, 33-35, 1623, 225, 255-269 Kurzowa, Zofia (b.1931): 160 Kwiatkowski, Stefan (1878-1940): 62 L. Lado, Robert (1915-1995): 60 Lam, Stanislaw (1891-1965): 112 Larin, Boris Aleksandrovic (1893— 1964): 214 Leder, Albert {alias Andrzej): 62 Lehr-Splawiñski, Tadeusz (1891— 1965): 25, 138, 153, 157, 259 Łempicki, Zygmunt (1886-1943): 63 Lencek, Rado L.: 186/? Leont'ev, Aleksej Alekseevic (b.1936): 175/2, 183, 212, 213 Leskien, August (1840-1916): 5, 29, 124, 178, 179, 181 Łesiów, Michal (b.1928): 161 Lesniewski, Stanisląw (1886-1939): x, xi Lewandowski, Jan: 77, 84 Lewicki, Andrzej Maria (b.1934): 15 Leyding-Mielecki, Gustaw (junior, 1899-1974): 157 Linde, Samuel Bogumil {originally: Gottlieb, 1771-1841): 102, 105, 106, 107, 108-110 Lindeman, Fredrik Otto (b.1936): 269;n Lipińska-Grzegorek, Maria: 72, 74

INDEX OF AUTHORS Lloyd, Richard J(ohn, 1846-1906): 189 Lockhart, Leonora: 61n Lorentz, Friedrich (1870-1937): 129130 Los, Jan Nepomucen (1860-1928): 65, 138, 154, 259 Lubas, Władysiaw (b.1932): 157, 161, 162 Lukasiewicz, Jan (1878-1956): xi Lukszyn, Jurij: 89 Luther, Martin (1483-1546): 137 M. Mączyński, Jan (Ioannes Maczinsky, C.1520-C.1587): 103, 105, 108 Mączyński, Jan (b.1936): 160 Mączyński, Piotr (16th cent.): 103 Malachowska, Ewelina: 55, 176« Malee, Maria (b.1928): 160 Malecki, Mieczyslaw (1903-1946): 131, 140 Malinowski, Bronisław (1884-1942): 11 Malinowski, Lucyjan (1839-1898): xii, 123, 124, 125, 129, 135, 154 Manczak, Witold (b.1924): 25. 26, 162, 260, 261, 269n Mandeville, Bernard de (c. 16701733): 201 Marciniak, Stanislaw: 87 Marr, Nikolaj Jakovlevic (1865— 1934): 257, 258n Martinet, André (1908-1999): 197 Marton, Waldemar (b.1932): 72, 80 Marty, Anton (1847-1914): 12 Maruszewski, Mariusz: 85 Matuszewski, Jozef (b.1911): 160 Mayenowa, Maria Renata (1910— 1988): 114 Mayrhofer, Manfred (b.1926): 264n, 267n, 269ą Mazur, Marian: 88 Meillet, Antoine (1866-1936): xv, 26, 219, 256, 267

323

Meringer, Rudolf (1869-1931): 189 Mescaninov, Ivan Ivanovic (1883— 1967): 258n Michalewski, Kazimierz: 150, 162 Mickiewicz, Adam (1798-1855): 115 Miemietz, Bärbel: 73 Mierzejewska, Halina: 85 Miklosich, Franz von {alias Fran Miklosic, 1813-1891): 155 Milewski, Tadeusz (1906-1966): xii, 13, 14, 35-37, 39, 138, 153, 156, 158, 302 Mill, John Stuart (1806-1873): 220, 223, 224 Möller (M0ller), Hermann (18501923): 268 Morciniec, Norbert (b.1932): 86 Moser, Hugo (1909-1989): 72 Moszyski, Kazimierz (1887-1959): 153, 154 Moulton, William Gamwell (19142000): 61 Mrongowiusz, Krzysztof Celestyn {alias Christoph Cölestin Mrongovius, 1764-1855): 104, 108 Mrózek, Robert (b.1942): 161 Mugdan, Joachim (b.1951): 175«, 176«, 183 Muka, Arnost (1854-1932): 178« Murmelius, Jo(h)annes {alias Jan Murmel or Myrmeling, 14791527): 102 Myczko, Kazimiera: 81 Mymer, Franciszek (Francisus Mymerus, c.\5M-post 1564): 102 N. Nagucka, Ruta (Sikorzanka, b.1930): 260 Niedzwiedzki, Wladysiaw (18491930): 64, 108, 153 Nitsch, Kazimierz (1874-1958): xii, 61, 123, 125-129, 130, 140, 142, 156, 158, 176«, 180, 254 Nowicki, Witold: 88

324

INDEX OF AUTHORS

O. Olmsted, David Lockwood (b.l926): 9, 184 Osthoff, Hermann (1847-1909): 209, 213 Otrębski, Jan (1889-1971): 154, 157 Ozdzynski, Jan (b.1941): 161 P. Passy, Paul-Édouard (1859-1940): 191 Paul, Hermann (1846-1921): 213 Pawłowski, Eugeniusz (1902-1986): 114, 157, 161 Pedersen, Holger (1867-1953): x, 182 Pelc, Jerzy (b.1924): v Pfeiffer, Waldemar (b.1938): 67, 78, 79, 80 Piekosiñski, Francíszek Ksawery (1844-1906): 154 Pionnier, L.: 62 Piotrowski, Tadeusz (b.1957): xii, 101-122 Pisani, Vittore (1899-1990): 266n Pisarkowa, Krystyna (b.1932): 161 Plezia, Marian (1917-1996): ix, 102 Płociñska, Barbara: 73 Pobozniak, Tadeusz (b. 1910-1990): 260 Pogonowski, Jerzy (b.1951): 15 Polański, Kazimierz (b.1929): 15, 148 Polivanov, Evgenij Dmitrievic (1891— 1938): 214 Pomorska, Krystyna (1928-1986): 228 Poplawski, Jan (1819-1885): 4-5 Popov, Aleksandr Vasil'evic (18551880): 212 Popowska-Taborska, Hanna (b.1930): 141 Porębowicz, Edward (1862-1937): 256/i Porzeziński, Jan Wiktor {alias Viktor Karlovič Požezinskij, 1870-1929): 5, 7, 10, 23-24, 29

Porzig, Walter (1895-1961): 224 Potebnja, A(leksandr) A(fanas'evič = Oleksandr Opanasovyč P., 18351891): 210, 212 Prędota, Stanislaw (d.l944): 86 Przetacznikowa, Maria: 85 Puzynina, Jadwiga (b.l928): 103 R. Radiov, Vasilij Vasil'evič {alias Wilhelm Radioff, 1837-1918): 179, 189, 212 Radwañska-Williams, Joanna: x, xiv, 210, 213, 217, 222, 226, 227, 228, 229 Ramult, Stefan (1859-1913): 129 Reichan, Jerzy (b.1929): 116, 142 Renou, Louis (1896-1966): 263 Reszkiewicz, Alfred (1920-1973): 260 Reychman, Jan (Antoni Waclaw, 1910-1975): ix Rieger, Janusz (b.1934): 73, 85, 155, 161 Rittel, Teodozja (b.1938): 81 Rix, Helmut (b.1926): 269n Rokoszowa, Jolanda (1944-1997): 25 Roques, Mario (1875-1961): 256 Rospond, Stanislaw (1906-1982): 150, 153, 156, 157, 158, 160 Rothstein, Robert A. (b. c.1935): 86, 184 Rozwadowski, Jan (Michai, alias Johannes von Rozwadowski, 18671935): x, xiii, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 24-27, 87, 153, 154, 155, 175n Rudnicki, Mikolaj (1881-1978): xivxv, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 27-28, 138, 155, 157, 232-253 Rudzka(-Ostyn), Brygida (19391997): 81 Rusek, Jerzy (b.1930): 176/2, 255n Rymut, Kazimierz (b.1935): 153, 157, 160 Rvmsza-Zalewska. Danuta: 102

INDEX OF AUTHORS Rzetelska-Feleszko, Ewa (b.l932): 15, 38, 135, 161 S. Sadownik, Barbara: 74, 79 Safarewicz, Jan (1904-1992): x, 10, 35, 155, 255/2, 259 Sapir, Edward (1884-1939): 190, 266n Saradzanidze, Tinatin (1906-1982): 175n, 176/7 Saussure, Ferdinand de (1857-1913): 5, 12, 14,29, 31, 33,34,36, 135, 148, 179, 185, 187/7, 209, 215, 222, 229, 264, 266, 268, 269 Śčerba, Lev Vladimirovic (1880— 1944): 181, 214 Scherer, Wilhelm (1841-1886): 5, 19, 192 Schleicher, August (1821-1868): xi, xiii, 5, 56n, 124, 178, 182, 192 Schooneveld, Cornelis Hendrik van (b.1921): 9 Schorr, Mojzesz (1874-1943): 256 Schuchardt, Hugo (1842-1927): 11, 194 Secenov, Ivan Mixajlovic (1829— 1905): 221 Seldeslachts, Herman (b.1959): 180/7 Sievers, Eduard (1850-1932): 29 Sikorzanka, Ruta, see Nagucka, Ruta Skalmowski, Wojciech (b.1934): 261 Skorochód-Majewski, Walenty (17641835): 4 Skorupka, Stanislaw (1906-1988): 85, 114 Skowronek, Barbara: 79, 81, 82 Skubalanka, Teresa: 88 Siawiński, Fabian Ferdynand (1830— 1903) Slawski, Franciszek (1916-2001): 115, 153 Sljusareva, Natalija Aleksandrovna (b.1918): 179n Śmiech, Witold (1917-1991): 159 Smoczyñska, Magdalena: 176/7

325

Smoczyński, Pawei (1914-1979): 89, 150, 162 Smoczyñski, Wojciech: x, xv, 255-271 Smogorzewski, Zygmunt (1884— 1931): 256 Sobierajski, Zenon (b.1917): 141 Spang-Hanssen, Henning: 268/7 Sreznevskij, Izmail Ivanovic (1812— 1880): 178, 179 Śródka, Andrzej: ix Stachurski, Edward (b.1942): 176/7 Stalin, Josef (1879-1953): 258 Stadtmüller, K.: 87 Stanislawski, Jan: 71 Stankiewicz, Edward (b.l920): 55, 102, 136, 176/7 Stasiak, Halina: 81 Steffen, Maria: 86 Steinthal, Heymann (1823-1899): 12 Steuer, Feliks (fl. 1934-1937): 130 Stieber, Zdzislaw (1903-1980): 37, 86, 87, 130-131, 132-134, 141 Stone, Gerald (b.1932): 184 Streitberg, Wilhelm (1864-1925): 24 Strutyñski, Janusz: 161 Strzetelski, Jerzy (1924-1994: 260 Strzyźewska-Zaremba, Alina: 141 Sturtevant, Edgar H(oward, 18751952): 267 Styczek, Irena: 85 Supranowicz, Elzbieta (b.1943): 161 Surma, Genowefa (1944-1995): 161 Sweet, Henry (1845-1912): 191 Swiderska, Halina (1899-1961): 130 Swiggers, Pierre (b.1955): 180/7 Sychta, Bernard (1907-1982): 116, 158 Szczodrowski, Marian: 81 Szemerényi, Oswald (John Louis, 1913-1996): 268, 269/7 Szober, Stanislaw (Jozef Leonard, 1879-1938): 10, 12, 13, 23, 25, 2930,31, 138, 176/7, 180 Szulc, Aleksander (b.1924): 67, 81, 86 Szumska, Urszula: 160

326

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Szwedek, Aleksander (b.1940): 72 Szymczak, Mieczysław (1927-1985): 73, 85, 87, 88, 142, 150 T. Trager, George Leonard (19091992): 53 Treder, Jerzy: 161 Trenklerówna, K.: 62 Trier, Jost (1894-1970): 224 Troc, Michal Abraham (alias Michael Abraham Trotz; c.1689-1769): 104, 105 Troickij, Matvej Mixajlovič (1835Tarde, Gabriel (de, 1843-1904): 31 Tarski, Alfred (1902-1983): xi, 53 Taszycki, Witold (1898-1979): 29, 64, 138, 150, 151, 154, 156, 158 Timirjazev, Kliment Arkad'evič (1843-1920): 221 Tokarzówna, Krystyna: 102, 115 Tomaszewski, Adam (1895-1945): 130 1899): 220, 225 Trubelzkoy, (Prince) Nikolaj Sergeevic (1890-1938): 190, 266n Turczyn, Ryszard: 117 Twardowski, Kazimierz (1866-1938): x Tymieniecki, Kazimierz (1887— 1968): 157 U. Ufimceva, Anna Amfilof' evna: 225 Ulaszyn, Henryk (Kazimierz, 1874— 1956): 156, 176n, 180, 273 Urbańczyk, Stanisiaw (b.1909): x, 73, 102, 114, 132, 138, 153, 155, 157, 176n V. Vachek, Josef (1909-1996): 261 Vasmer, Max (1886-1962): 176/7, 214 Vendryes, Joseph (1875-1960): xv, 256

Vengerov, Semen Afanas'evič (18551920): 10 Vinogradov, Viktor Vladimirovič (1895-1969): 176n Vladimircov, Boris Jakovlevič (1884— 1931): 214 Voßler, Karl (1872-1949): 11 W. Wagner, Philipp: 189 Warchol, Stefan (b.1930): 157, 160, 161 Wątsik, Zdzisław (b.1947): ix, x, xi, 351 Watkins, Calvert (b.1933): 263, 264 Wawrzyńczyk, Jan (b.1944): 73 Wedkiewicz, Stanislaw: 63 Weinsberg, Adam (1918-1992): 5, 9, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,20, 21,25,26 Weisgerber, Leo (1899-1985): 224 Wernic, Henryk (1829-1905): 111n Whorf, Benjamin Lee (1897-1941): 60 Wieczorkiewicz, Bronisiaw (19041974): 29 Wierzchowska, Bozena: 85 Wierzchowski, Józef (b. 1927): 25, 32 Wilkoń, Aleksander (b.1935): 160 Williams, Joanna Radwańska, see Radwańska-Williams, Joanna Windisch, Ernst (1843-1918): 175 Wojnicki, Stanislaw: 88 Wojtasiewicz, Olgierd (1916-1991): 14 Wójtowicz, Janina (b.1930): 132 Wolff, Adam: 161 Wolnicz-Pawlowska, Ewa: 160 Wozniakowski, Waldemar: 76 Wozniewicz, Wladyslaw: 80 Wundt, Wilhelm (1832-1920): 25, 183/2 Z. Zaborski, Andrzej: 269n Zabrocki, Ludwik (1907-1977): xiv, 14,66-69,72,75,76,273-309

INDEX OF AUTHORS Zabrocki, Tadeusz (b.l948): 74 Zadrożny, Jerzy: 158 Zagajewski, Karol: 62 Zajączkowski, Stanislaw (1890-1977): 157 Zaręba, Alfred (1921-1988): 151, 162 Zarębina, Maria (b.1924): 85 Zawadowski, Leon (b.1914): xi, 1415, 37-39, 258, 261 Zawadzka, Elżbieta: 81 Zawiliński, Roman (1855-1932): 124

327

Zdanowicz, Aleksander (1808-1868): 108 Zdunska, Helena (b.1932): 132, 137 Zgólka, Tadeusz (b.1945): 15 Zgólkowa, Halina (b.1947): 116 Ziemnowicz, Mieczyslaw: 62 Zierhoffer, Karol (b.1924): 157 Zwoliński, Przemyslaw (1914-1982): 37, 123, 155, 157 Zmudzki, Jerzy: 83

ADDENDA: Further biodata not referenced in the present volume: A. Abrahamowicz, Zygmunt (1923— 1990) Andrzejewski, Bogumil Witalis ("Goosh", 1922-1994) Arct, Stanislaw (1818-1900) Arct, Stanislaw (1884-1963)

Durich, Waclaw (1735-1802) F. Faber, Andrzej (fl. 1718-1733) Florczak, Zofia (1912-1996) Folejewski, Zbigniew (1910-1999) Friedrich, Henryk (1908-1844)

B. Bajerowa, Irena (b.1921) Bartmiński, Jerzy (b.1939) Bobek, Wladyslaw (1878-1942) Brajerski, Tadeusz (1913-1997) Buttler, Danuta (1930-1991) Bystroń, Jan (1860-1902)

G. Galas, Piotr (1888-1970?) Gansiniec, Ryszard (1888-1958) Gliński, Jozef (1817-1866) Grabowski, Yvonne S. (1929-1989) Grochowski, Maciej (b.1948)

C. Cienkowski, Witold (d.1993) Czekanowski, Jan (1882-1965) Czezowski, Tadeusz Hipolit (1889— 1981)

J. Jaworski, Michal (1921-1996) Jocher, Adam Benedykt (1791-1860) Jordan, Jan Petr (also Piotr, 1818— 1891)

D. Dmochowski, Franciszek Krsawery (1762-1808) Drobny, Wladyslaw (1900-1989) Drzewiecki, Konrad Mieczyslaw (1871-1922)

K. Kamińska, Halina (1927-1992) Kania, Stanislaw (b. 1931) Kleiner, Juliusz (1886-1957) Kliniek, Stanislaw (1903-1939)

328

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Kolbuszewski, Stanisiaw Francizuk (1933-1986) Kosciusko, Tadeusz (1746-1817)) Kotarbińska, Janina (1901-1997) Kridl, Manfred (1882-1957) Kuraszkiewicz, Wladysław (1905— 1997) Kuratowski, Kazimierz (1896-1980) Kurkowska, Halina (1922-1983) M. Maciejewski, Jerzy (1923-1992) Miłosz, Czesław (b.1911) Miodunka, Wladysiaw (b.1945) Moszczeński, Stanislaw Nalęcz (17311790) Moszyński, Leszek (b.1919) N. Nagnajewicz, Marian (1911-1987) Nehring, Władysław (1830-1909) Nowak, Zbigniew Jerzy (1919-1993) O. Obrębska-Jabłońska, Antonina (1901— 1994) Ortwin, Ostap {alias Oskar Katzenellenbogen, 1876-1942) Ossoliñski, Count Jozef Maksymilian (1748-1826) Ostrowska, Ewa (1907-1977 P. Pecold, Kazimierz (1930-1976) Pisarek, Walery (b.1931) Przelęcki, Marian (b.1923) Przybylski, Jaeek (1756-1819) Przyluski, Jan (1885-1944) Puppel, Stanisław (b.1947)

R. Rusiewicz, Zygmunt (1911-1954) Ruszkiewicz, Piotr (b.1946) Rybicka-Nowaeka, Halina (19291992) S. Safarewiczowa, Halina (1904-1980) Satkiewicz, Halina (b.1928) Semkowicz, Władysiaw (1878-1949) Siudut, Andrzej (1922-1987) Sławiński, Fabian Ferdynand (18301903) Sławski, Franciszek (1916-2001) Stopa, Roman (1895-1995) Szaniawski, Klemens (1925-1990) Szlifersztejnowa, Salomea (19121994) T. Tatarkiewicz, Wladysiaw (1886-1980) Tokarski, Jan (1909-1982) Tokarzóna, Krystyna (b.1927) Trojański, Jan Kajetan (1796-1850) Turska, Halina (1901-1979) W. Walczak, Bogdan (b.1949) Widajewicz, Jozef (1889-1954) Witwicki, Wladysiaw (1878-1948) Wojciechowski, Tadeusz (1838-1919) Wolniewicz, Boguslaw (b.1927) Z. Zagórski, Zygmunt (b.1926) Zaleski, Jan (1926-1981) Zawirski, Zygmunt (1882-1948)

INDEX OF SUBJECTS A. absorption morphological-, 196, 197 accent, 18,237,241,242 alternation, 9, 19, 171, 172, 173, 181, 182, 193, 195, 242 morphophonemic~, 195 neophonetic~, 171 phonetic~, 21, 23, 171, 195, 242 sound~, 9, 164, 173, 193, 195, 206 alternations psychophonetic~, 171 analogy, 5, 8, 18, 19, 23, 35, 176, 182, 185, 196, 202, 204, 230, 238, 273 analysis morphological~, 103, 207 anthropologism, 11 anthroponomastic, 137, 140, 141 anthroponymy, 137, 141, 143, 144 anthropophonic, 20, 173, 181, 193, 199, 229 antonyms, 104 apocopy,196 arbitrariness, 204, 212 articulation, 110, 111, 122, 179, 257, 258, 259, 260, 268, 269 assimilation, 28, 182, 195, 196, 202, 216, 217, 218, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 263, 270, 271 inflectional~, 196 morphological~, 195, 196 prefix~, 196 suffix~, 196 association -by contiguity, 19, 201, 202, 203, 204 -by similarity, 19, 180, 201, 202, 203, 204, 206 associationism, 8, 12, 167 atomism, 9, 39, 183 auditory ~phonetics, 221 autonomism, 11 B. base word-, 13, 32

borrowing, 184, 202 C. cartography geolinguistic~, 119 cerebration, 179, 180, 181 chain acodal-, 253, 254, 255, 259, 260, 262, 267, 270 codal~, 253, 254, 255 code~, 253, 254, 255, 256, 260 sound~, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 266, 268, 270, 271 chains code-, 254, 255, 256, 260 change language-, 7, 159, 172, 176, 178, 182, 184, 199, 212, 216, 217, 218, 224, 225, 227 phonetic-, 8, 23, 28, 172, 176, 178, 195, 225, 229, 268 semantic~, 184 sound~, 9, 24, 27, 171, 173, 175, 176, 177, 183, 193, 199, 225, 226, 227, 262, 270 channel articulatory-kinesthetic~, 283 information~, 281, 282, 283 Chelminskiation, 218, 228 cipher, 255 circuit control~, 284 monitory~, 283, 284 code, 201, 251, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 284, 285 ~symbol, 253, 254 ~unit, 253, 254, 256 analytic~, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 284, 285 interlingual~, 255, 256 intralingual~, 256 language~, 251,253 linguistic~, 201, 252, 253 sentence~, 254

330

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

synthetic~, 256, 258, 259, 284, 285 transformation~, 255, 256, 257 transposition~, 255, 256 word-, 254 codematics, 252, 253, 257 linguistic~, 252, 253 codes analytic~, 255, 256 interlingual~, 255 intralingual~, 256 synthetic~, 256, 285 transformation~, 255, 256 coding, 206 cognation, 22 cohesion, 115 community communicative~, 275, 276, 277, 278 language~, 212, 217, 225, 275, 276, 277 commutability, 11, 13 competence language~, 212 concord, 115 confusivum, 272, 273, 274, 275 connotation, 131 consciousness language~, 212, 213, 214, 215, 217, 218, 221, 223, 224, 225, 228, 230 constituent, 11, 17, 19, 23, 25, 30, 31, 65, 118, 254, 255, 256, 261, 262, 271, 272, 273 contamination, 226 contextualism, 12 continuity diachronic~, 215 corpora, 104 crystallization, 13, 32, 35 cybernetics, 282, 285 D denasalization, 263, 268, 270 denucleation, 266 depalatalisation, 136 derivation, 26, 32, 34, 37, 134 lexical~, 34 syntactic~, 34 descriptivism, 197 diachrony, 12, 17, 19, 35, 170, 204, 224, 225, 238, 242, 262, 270 diacrisis, 219, 220, 271, 272, 273, 274

diacritology, 252, 272, 274, 275 diacrits, 38 dialect, 20, 23, 91, 93, 97, 98, 102, 103, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 115, 116, 117, 119, 120, 121, 125, 229 Bylak~, 110 folk~, 115 Kashubian~, 110, 112 Lekhitic~, 218, 228 Slovincian~, 112, 113 transitional~, 114 dialectology, 6, 24, 32, 106, 108, 110, 112, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 125, 126, 134, 158, 162 dialects ~of Kociewie, 124 ~of Spisz, 124 dictionary dialect~, 98 electronic~, 103 etymological~, 99 historical~, 92, 95, 101, 145 monolingual~, 88, 92, 100 specialist~, 105 synchronicV, 101 differentiation, 15, 28, 32, 117, 126, 139, 215, 216, 217, 218, 220, 223, 227, 243, 265, 269, 278 diffusion phonetic~, 272, 273, 274 diffusionism convergent~, 8 diffusive ~type, 272, 273, 274 diffusivum, 272, 274, 275 diminutive, 138 diphthongization, 264 E. empiricism, 97, 198 energeia, 166 entropy ~value, 281 equivalence translative~, 256 ergon, 166 ethnopsychology, 167 etymology, 18, 19, 24, 44, 99, 102, 109, 139,181, 182 evolutionism

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

divergent~, 8 exceptionlessness, 178, 222, 225 F. factualism, 12 features lexicographicV, 117 phonetic~, 109, 168, 220, 221, 223 field ~theory, 202 metonymie~, 206 formalism deductive~, 37 grammatical~, 12 formant, 132, 138, 140, 143, 144 formation word-, 25, 97, 115, 118, 124, 126, 132, 134, 144, 195, 200 fortition, 263, 264, 265, 270 function semiotic~, 205 functionalism inductive~, 37 fusion ~of phones, 228 G. geography linguistic~, 13, 123 glottodidactics, 49, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67,68,69,70, 252,281,283 grammar categorial~, 15 comparative~, 4, 5, 58, 117, 162, 163, 236, 242 historical~, 108, 188 universal~, 3 guna, 19,193 H. heteroarticulation, 269 heteronomism, 9 heterophony, 271,272 historicism, 9, 14, 118 homoarticulation, 269 homonymy, 180, 285 homophony, 271, 272 hydronymy, 137, 138, 144 hypotaxis, 115

331

I. iconicity, 181 idealism aesthetic~, 11,29 idiolects, 126 idioms, 90, 92, 97 image phonic~, 215, 221 reproductive~, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228 individualism, 9, 11, 39 inflection, 19, 24, 26, 27, 93, 110, 118, 124, 131, 141, 195, 196,241,242 inheritance, 202 innovation abductive~, 183 deductive~, 183 isomorphism, 35, 236, 238 isophone, 111 J. Jablonkovation, 228 K. Kashubiation, 218, 228 kinema, 175 knots transformational~, 281, 282 L. language, ~community, 212, 217, 225, 275, 276. 277 analytic~, 197 Arabic, 164, 232 Armenian, 164, 233 Celtic, 121, 163 Czech, 11, 91, 93, 109, 122, 139, 231, 267 East Franconian, 265 Estonian, 164 ethnic~, 259, 271,272 Finnish, 121 French, 24, 26, 31, 48, 51, 55, 58, 68, 90, 91, 159, 232, 233, 235 German, 5, 8, 9, 20, 21, 23, 26, 35, 41, 43,48,49,51,52, 53, 55, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 68, 89, 91, 92, 98, 109, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 120. 139, 164, 165, 171, 176, 183, 193, 197,

332

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

199, 200, 202, 206, 232, 233, 234, 241, 252, 255, 256, 265, 273, 274, 275, 280, 285 Greek, 43, 90, 130, 232, 233 Hebrew, 92, 101 High German, 120, 265 Hungarian, 4, 7, 90, 162, 165, 232 Indo-European, 4, 5, 7, 13, 19, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 34, 35, 39, 42, 107, 108, 117, 130, 137, 141, 158, 165, 188, 196, 197, 226, 233, 234, 235, 241, 242, 243. 244, 245, 246. 252, 265 Kashubian, 103, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 116,117, 124, 125, 141 Latin, 43, 89, 90, 91, 95, 101, 121, 196, 232, 266 Latvian, 91, 164 literary, 44, 90, 106, 121, 136 Lithuanian, 91, 109, 113, 137, 162, 164 Middle High Franconian, 265 Middle Polish, 122, 145 Old Indie, 266, 267 Old Polish, 99, 101, 110, 122, 135, 137, 141, 142, 168,230 Old Slavic, 19, 137 Polabian, 117 Polish, 3,4, 5 , 6 , 7 , 8,9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 35, 36, 37, 3 9 , 4 2 , 4 8 , 4 9 , 5 0 , 5 1 , 5 2 , 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 130, 131, 133, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 145, 158, 159, 162, 164, 165, 168, 169, 171, 172, 176, 180, 182, 196, 203, 206, 207, 210, 221, 224, 230, 231, 233, 234, 235, 236, 240, 250, 252, 253, 254, 256, 272, 273, 274, 277, 279, 280, 286 professional-, 26 Proto-Indo-European, 226 Proto-Slavonic, 117, 134

Russian, 5, 7, 18, 23, 42, 43, 48, 55, 57, 58, 60, 67, 68, 93, 107, 109, 113, 114, 162, 163, 164, 165, 186, 188, 190, 191, 192, 193, 195, 196, 198, 205, 232, 233, 236 Sanskrit, 4, 5, 28, 162, 188, 233 Slovak, 109, 124 Slovenian, 163, 191 Swedish, 92, 277 Turkish, 35, 236 Ukrainian, 109, 113, 122,234 West Polabian, 117 White Russian, 109, 113 languages East-Slavonic, 75, 122 Finno-Ugric, 265 Indo-European, 4, 5, 7, 13, 19, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 34, 35, 39, 42, 107, 108, 117, 130, 137, 141, 158, 165, 188, 196, 197, 226, 233, 234, 235, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 252, 265 Proto-Germanic, 265 langue, 17, 28, 31, 34, 131, 235, 243, 253 law assimilation~, 227, 228 morphological-, 195 phonetic-, 176, 222, 227 sound-, 17, 23, 170, 176, 177, 178, 195, 200, 212, 222, 225 laws ~of association, 19, 201, 202, 203, 204 psychological-, 201 lenition, 263, 264, 265, 268, 270 lexeme, 33, 130 lexicalization, 13, 32 lexicography, 33, 51, 57, 63, 76, 88, 89, 90, 95, 97, 99, 101, 102, 104, 125, 158, 165 lexicology, 33, 158, 165, 195 lexicon, 27, 38, 101, 136, 137. 201, 212, 230 lingua franca, 93 linguistics appliedV, 15, 39, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 76, 252, 279, 280 comparative~, 3, 8, 13, 33, 37, 62, 164, 236, 237, 279, 280

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

computational~, 88 confrontative~, 62, 279, 280 contrastive~, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 158, 280 cybernetic~, 252, 286 external~, 11, 36 general, 3, 6, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 25, 28, 29, 30, 35, 36, 159, 164, 165, 188, 191, 200, 207, 231, 234, 237, 238, 240, 252, 281 historical~, 17, 37, 134, 158, 172, 227, 237, 240,245 psychological~, 12 synchronic~, 45 theoretical~, 7 literary language Polish~, 106, 121, 136 loanword, 257 M. Mazuration, 218, 228 mazurzenie, 111, 118, 121, 122 mentalism empirical~, 9 meta-information, 282 metanalysis, 196, 197 see pereintegracija, 196 metasystem, 285 metathesis, 118, 136, 225, 226, 227, 229, 230 morpheme, 19, 34, 107, 132, 170, 197, 242 morphology, 24, 26, 27, 38, 43, 109, 193, 195, 197, 201, 212, 217, 243, 272, 275 morphophonology, 195 multilingualism, 178, 278, 279 mutability, 215, 218, 224, 225 diachronic~, 215 N. Neogrammarian, 107, 118, 119, 187 nomen appellativum, 130, 134, 145 nomen proprium, 130, 133, 134, 140, 144, 145 nomina acti, 132 nomina actionis, 132 nomina instrumenti, 132 nucleation syllabic-, 263, 265, 266, 267

333

O. oikonym, 132, 133, 139, 145 onomastics, 130, 134, 136, 137, 138, 141, 142, 143, 145, 241 ontogenesis language~, 225 orthoepies, 24 P. palatalization, 226, 227, 228, 229 paradigm diacritic~, 272, 274, 275 paradigmatic ~relation, 9, 273 parataxis, 115 parole, 17,29,31, 131,253 pattern phone~, 257, 258, 259 perception, 24, 33, 179, 185, 221, 257 performance language~, 212, 214 phonation, 179, 180 phone, 107, 212, 213, 214, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 257, 258, 259, 261 phoneme, 9, 14, 20, 21, 22, 31, 37, 170, 171, 173, 174, 175, 177, 193, 195, 226, 245, 255, 271 phonemics, 195 phonetics, 11, 12, 13, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 31, 72, 73, 106, 115, 120, 124. 158, 165, 170, 188, 193, 199, 201, 214, 219, 221, 226, 252, 259, 261, 262, 263, 266, 269, 270 auditoryV, 221 comparative~, 188 experimental~, 261 structural~, 219, 252, 259, 262, 263, 266, 269, 270 phonology, 11, 12, 31, 73, 158, 165, 170, 171, 174, 193, 195, 212, 219, 220, 226, 241, 242, 246 generative~, 174 historical~, 195, 226 plane articulatory~, 219 auditory~, 219 phonic~, 266, 267 semantic~, 130, 266 positivism, 187, 198

334

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

pragmatics, 115 processualism, 11, 12 protolanguage, 107, 193 proto-name, 143 proverbs, 26, 89, 92 psycholinguistics, 56, 168, 214, 281 psychologism positivistic~, 9 psychology, 12, 23, 28, 31, 46, 162, 167, 168, 169, 174, 198 psychophonetics, 21, 22, 170 R. range (load) diffusive~, 272 rationalism, 198 récognitive ~value, 222, 223 reconstruction internal~, 35, 243 relation associative~, 201,202 paradigmatic~, 9, 273 syntagmatic~, 202 relevance semantic~, 221 semasiological~, 214, 215, 220, 221, 222, 224, 226, 227, 229 reproduction language~, 212, 214, 215, 217, 218, 224, 226 root, 19, 56, 136, 195, 197, 244 S. salience cognitive~, 214, 223, 224 semanteme, 254 semantic ~relevance, 221 semantics, 24, 26, 27, 32, 33, 37, 38, 266, 280 semasiological, 22, 28, 171, 172, 182, 214, 215, 220, 221, 222, 224, 225, 226, 227, 229 ~relevance, 214, 215, 220, 221, 222, 224, 226, 227, 229 semasiology, 24, 25, 195 semiotic ~ function, 205 semiotics, 15, 16, 33, 38, 181, 272

sentence-code, 254 Shadzenje, 228 significator sentential~, 257 signified, 34, 204 signifying, 204 sociolinguistics, 15, 32, 158, 168, 252, 275, 281 sociologism, 11, 167 spelling, 51, 73, 92, 98, 101, 102, 104, 178 stability synchronic-, 215 stem lexical-, 196 structuralism, 11, 12, 14, 16, 29, 33, 34, 36, 118, 119, 173, 205, 207, 240, 246, 285, 286 cybernetic-, 285 distributional-, 12 formalist-, 12 stylistics, 24, 29 subconsciousness, 213 substitution, 172, 221, 228 surname, 133, 137, 143 syllabication, 35 symbol code~, 253, 254 symbolisation, 181 synchrony, 12, 17, 19, 35, 169, 170, 204, 224, 225, 238, 243 synonym, 31 syntagma, 280, 285 syntagmatic ~relation, 202 syntax, 24, 26, 27, 30, 37, 115, 195, 212, 220, 235, 241, 243 system psychophonetic~, 28, 219, 220, 221 semiotic~, 206 systemism, 11, 39 T. teleology, 185 terms technical~, 95, 175 theory field~, 202 information-, 203, 223 toponomastics, 24, 139, 141

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

toponyms, 132, 144 toponymy, 137, 138, 141, 144 transformational ~knots, 281,282 transposition, 35, 253, 255, 256 translative~, 256 Tsekanje, 228 type diffusive~, 272, 273, 274 typology language~, 35, 158, 165

V. value entropy~, 281 récognitive~, 222, 223 variability synchronic~ ,215,218 variance, 35 variation subphonemic~, 195 variations dialectal~, 106, 109, 110, 123, 126

U. unit code~, 253, 254, 256 universals linguistic~, 200, 206 universe language~, 281 urbonymy, 143

W. word order, 115 word-base, 13, 32 word-code, 254 word-formation, 25, 97, 115, 118, 124, 126, 132, 134, 144, 195, 200 words foreign~, 91, 98, 102, 104 function~, 100 obscene~, 96, 103

335