Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Językoznawstwo baner

No. 2/19 (2023)

Articles

The Polish Complementiser 'jakoby': a relevance theoretic account

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25312/j.6962  [Google Scholar]
Published: 2023-12-18

Abstract

This paper analyses the Polish complementiser jakoby within the framework of relevance theory. It suggests that those environments in which jakoby is licensed, namely certain indirect-speech-type constructions and clauses embedded under inherently negative predicates, such as zaprzeczyć (“to deny”) and nieprawdą jest (“it is untrue”), have in common that they can be conceived of in metarepresentational terms. Furthermore, it argues that jakoby encodes procedural meaning which restricts it principally to these types of environment. Unlike że (“that”), which can always be substituted for it, jakoby constrains the range of attitudes towards the embedded proposition that can be implied contextually, blocking interpretations on which this proposition is understood to be endorsed, while encouraging the recovery of evaluative stances such as scepticism, doubt and rejection. We show that jakoby can be selected from the point of view of the reporting voice, in which case it receives a global interpretation, or that of the matrix subject; this yields a local interpretation.

References

  1. Albu E. (2012a), Descriptive and Interpretive use in the analysis of negation, [in:] R. Zafiu, A. Ștefănescu (eds.), Romanian Language: Current Paths in Linguistic Research, Bucharest. [Google Scholar]
  2. Albu E. (2012b), Metarepresentational negation [(X”) not (X)], “Results and Perspectives in the Romanian Linguistic Research”, pp. 9–35. [Google Scholar]
  3. Blakemore D. (1987), Semantic Constraints on Relevance, Oxford. [Google Scholar]
  4. Blakemore D. (2002), Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers, Cambridge. [Google Scholar]
  5. Blass R. (1989), Grammaticalisation of interpretive use: The case of rέ in Sissala, “Lingua”, vol. 79, pp. 299–326. [Google Scholar]
  6. Blass R. (1990), Relevance Relations in Discourse: A Study with Special Reference to Sissala, Cambridge. [Google Scholar]
  7. Carston R. (2004), Relevance Theory and the Saying/Implicating Distinction, [in:] L. Horn, G. Ward (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics, Oxford. [Google Scholar]
  8. Carston R. (2016), The heterogeneity of procedural meaning, “Lingua”, pp. 154–166. [Google Scholar]
  9. Dąbrowska M. (2021), Dnie i noce, edited by E. Głębicka, Wrocław. [Google Scholar]
  10. Domaneschi F., Di Paola S. (2019), Relevance and Non-Factive Knowledge Attributions, “Acta Analytica”, vol. 34, pp. 83–115. [Google Scholar]
  11. Escandell-Vidal V., Leonetti M., Ahern A. (eds.) (2011), Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, Bingley. [Google Scholar]
  12. Grochowski M., Kisiel A., Żabowska M. (2014), Słownik gniazdowy partykuł polskich, Kraków. [Google Scholar]
  13. Hooper J. (1975), On assertive predicates, [in:] J. Kimbnall (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, New York. [Google Scholar]
  14. http://orka.sejm.gov.pl/Biuletyn.nsf/0/5EF51B798D3F8744C12574D60042E154?OpenDoc¬ument [accessed: 19.06.2023]. [Google Scholar]
  15. Itani R. (1991), Japanese sentence-final particle tte: A relevance based analysis, “International Journal of Pragmatics”, vol. 2, pp. 66–75. [Google Scholar]
  16. Itani R. (1998), A relevance-based analysis of hearsay markers: With special reference to Japanese sentence-final particle tte, [in:] R. Carston, S. Uchida (eds.), Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications, Amsterdam. [Google Scholar]
  17. Jędrzejowski Ł. (2020), On the semantic change of evidential argument jakoby-clauses in Polish, [in:] R. Gergel, J. Watkins (eds.), Quantification and scales in change, Berlin. [Google Scholar]
  18. Karttunen L. (1977), Syntax and semantics of questions, “Linguistics and Philosophy”, vol. 1(1), pp. 3–44. [Google Scholar]
  19. Lilley D. (2013), The German Reportative Subjunctive: A Relevance-Theoretic Analysis, un¬published PhD dissertation, https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/48811/1/2013LilleyDRPhD. pdf [accessed: 19.06.2023]. [Google Scholar]
  20. Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego, NKJP (n.d.), www.nkjp.pl [accessed: 19.06.2023]. [Google Scholar]
  21. Nicolle S. (2000), Markers of general interpretive use in Amharic and Swahili, [in:] G. Anders, T. Fretheim (eds.), Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude, Amsterdam–Philadelphia. [Google Scholar]
  22. Socka A. (2010), Reportative Partikeln in kontrastiver Sicht (Polnisch-Deutsch), [in:] A. Kątny, A. Socka (eds.), Modalität/Temporalität in kontrastiver und typologischer Sicht, Frankfurt am Main. [Google Scholar]
  23. Sperber D., Wilson D. (1986/95), Relevance: Communication and Cognition, Oxford. [Google Scholar]
  24. Stępień M. (2008), O wzajemnym przenikaniu się ewidencjalności i modalności (na przykładzie wybranych polskich czasowników i wyrażeń funkcyjnych), [in:] B. Wiemer, V.A. Plungjan (eds.), Lexikalische Evidenzialitätsmarker im Slavischen, “Wiener Slawistischer Almanach”, vol. 72, pp. 313–333. [Google Scholar]
  25. Stępień M. (2010a), Mówienie i prawda. O czasownikowych wykładnikach wiedzy niezwery¬fikowanej przez mówiącego, Warszawa. [Google Scholar]
  26. Stępień M. (2010b), Zniewolone partykuły. Wyrażenia funkcyjne jako narzędzia w semantyce składnikowej, “Linguistica Copernicana”, vol. 2(4), pp. 121–138. [Google Scholar]
  27. Wiemer B. (2006), Particles, parentheticals, conjunctions and prepositions as evidentiality markers in contemporary Polish (A first exploratory study), “Studies in Polish Linguistics”, vol. 3, pp. 5–67. [Google Scholar]
  28. Wiemer B. (2010), On the lexicographic treatment of Lith. “esą” (on the background of other particles in Lithuanian and elsewhere), [in:] N. Nau, N. Ostrowski (eds.), Studies on particles and connectives in Baltic, “Acta Salensia”, II, Vilnius, pp. 171–212. [Google Scholar]
  29. Wiemer B. (2015), An outline of the development of Polish jakoby in 14th–16th century doc¬uments (based on dictionaries), [in:] B. Werner (ed.), Studies in evidentiality marking in West and South Slavic, “Specimina Philologiae Slavicae”, vol. 183, pp. 217–302. [Google Scholar]
  30. Wiemer B., Socka A. (2017a), How much does pragmatics help to contrast the meaning of hearsay adverbs? (Part 1), “Studies in Polish Linguistics”, vol. 12(1), pp. 27–56. [Google Scholar]
  31. Wiemer B., Socka A. (2017b), How much does pragmatics help to contrast the meaning of hearsay adverbs? (Part 1), “Studies in Polish Linguistics”, vol. 12(2), pp. 75–95. [Google Scholar]
  32. Wilson D. (2006), The pragmatics of verbal irony: Echo or pretence, “Lingua”, vol. 116, pp. 1722–1743. [Google Scholar]
  33. Wilson D. (2012), Metarepresentation in Linguistic Communication, [in:] D. Wilson, D. Sperber (eds.), Meaning and Relevance, Cambridge. [Google Scholar]
  34. Wilson D., Carston R. (2007), A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts, [in:] N. Burton-Roberts (ed.), Advances in pragmatics, Basingstoke. [Google Scholar]
  35. Wilson D., Sperber D. (2012), Linguistic form and relevance, [in:] D. Wilson, D. Sperber (eds.), Meaning and Relevance, Cambridge. [Google Scholar]
  36. www.forumowisko.pl [accessed: 8.01.2006] [Google Scholar]
  37. Żabowska M. (2008), Polskie wyrażenia ewidencjalne a partykuły epistemiczne, [in:] B. Wiemer, V.A. Plungjan (eds.), Lexikalische Evidenzialitätsmarker im Slavischen, “Wiener Slawistischer Almanach”, vol. 72, pp. 377–393. [Google Scholar]

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.