1887
Volume 16, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

The paper investigates how four Polish mental predicates, signalling the subject’s of conception thinking process and representing the conceptualisation, differ in usage and what motivates the difference. The verbs’ first person singular present tense forms, in an objective way, signal the speaker’s, i.e. the subject’s of conception, thoughts about the (ir)reality stored in their mind, whereas the content of clause complementation subjectively reveals the object of conception, namely the realm of one’s thoughts. A quantitative corpus-driven analysis implemented in the study presents how formal, semantic and extra-linguistic ‘usage features’ of the complementation interact with the verbs. The findings suggest that the conceptualisation shows linguistic variation in Polish dependent on the temporal realm of the situation described in the complementation, the topic of discourse, and the evaluation of the event described.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00009.kok
2018-05-31
2019-10-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aijmer, K.
    (1997) ‘I think’: An English modal particle. In T. Swan & O. J. Westvik (Eds.), Modality in Germanic languages: Historical and comparative perspectives (pp.1–47). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110889932.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110889932.1 [Google Scholar]
  2. Achard, M.
    (2007) Complementation. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.782–802). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Arct, M.
    (1914) M. Arcta słownik staropolski: 26 000 wyrazów i wyrażeń używanych w dawnej mowie polskiej. [M. Arct’s Old Polish dictionary: 26 000 words and expressions used in Old Polish]. (Ed. A. Krasnowolski ). Warsaw: Wydawnictwo M. Arcta.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Aron, A. , Coups, E. J. , & Aron, E. N.
    (2008) Statistics for the behavioral and social sciences: A brief course. Prentice Hall: Pearson.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Baayen, R. H.
    (2008) Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction for statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511801686
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bolinger, D.
    (1972) That’s that. The Hague: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Breiman, L.
    (1984) Classification and regression trees. New York: Chapman and Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Brückner, A.
    (1957) Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego [The dictonary of the Polish language etymology]. Warsaw: Wiedza powszechna.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Camdeviren, H. , Yazici, A. , Akkus, Z. , Bugdayci, R. , & Sungur, M.
    (2007) Comparison of logistic regression model and classification tree: An application to postpartum depression data. Expert Systems with Applications, 32(4), 987–994.10.1016/j.eswa.2006.02.022
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2006.02.022 [Google Scholar]
  10. Danielewiczowa, M.
    (1998) O szczególnych właściwościach 1. os. l. poj. czasu teraźniejszego pewnych czasowników mentalnych [About special properties of some mental verbs in the 1st person singular in the present simple tense]. Prace Filologiczne, 43, 119–129.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (2002) Wiedza i niewiedza: Studium polskich czasowników epistemicznych [Knowing and not knowing: A study of Polish epistemic predicates]. Warsaw: Katedra Lingwistyki Formalnej UW.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Decyk-Zięba, W. , & Dubisz, S.
    (Eds.) (2008) Glosariusz staropolski: Dydaktyczny słownik etymologiczny [The Old Polish Glossary: Didactic etymological dictionary]. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Divjak, D. , & Gries, S. T.
    (2006) Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2, 23–60.10.1515/CLLT.2006.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2006.002 [Google Scholar]
  14. Doroszewski, W.
    (2014) Wielki słownik języka polskiego [The great dictionary of the Polish language] (date of access: 18th December 2014) (sjp.pwn.pl/doroszewski/uwazac;5513164.html).
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Givón, T.
    (1993) English grammar: A function-based introduction. Vol2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Glynn, D.
    (2009) Polysemy, syntax and variation: A usage-based method for Cognitive Semantics. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.77–106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.24.08gly
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.24.08gly [Google Scholar]
  17. (2014a) The many uses of ‘run’: Corpus methods and Socio-Cognitive Semantics. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp.117–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.43.05gly
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.05gly [Google Scholar]
  18. (2014b) Polysemy and synonymy: Cognitive theory and corpus method. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp.7–38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.43.01gly
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.01gly [Google Scholar]
  19. (2014c) Techniques and tools: Corpus methods and statistics for semantics. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp.307–341). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.43.12gly
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.12gly [Google Scholar]
  20. Glynn, D. , & Fischer, K.
    (Eds.) (2010) Quantitative methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110226423
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226423 [Google Scholar]
  21. Greenacre, M. J.
    (1993) Correspondence analysis in practice. London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Gries, S. T.
    (2006) Corpus-based methods in Cognitive Semantics: The many senses of to run . In S. T. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp.57–99). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197709.57
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197709.57 [Google Scholar]
  23. (2014) Frequency tables: Tests, effect sizes, and explorations. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp.365–389). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.43.14gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.14gri [Google Scholar]
  24. Góralczyk, I.
    (2009) The complement clause scene: A cognitive grammar account of indicative ‘that’-clauses in Polish and English. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Jajuga, K.
    (1993) Statystyczna analiza wielowymiarowa [Statistical Multivariate analysis]. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Kaufman, L. , & Rousseeuw, P. J.
    (1990) Finding groups in data: An introduction to cluster analysis. Hoboken, N.Y: John Wiley and Sons Inc.10.1002/9780470316801
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470316801 [Google Scholar]
  27. Kokorniak, I.
    (2015) The polysemy of ‘myśleć’ in Polish: A corpus-driven study. Paper presented at the Polish Cognitive Linguistics Association Conference in2015, 24–26 September, Lublin, Poland.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Krawczak, K.
    (2015) Near-synonymous epistemic stance predicates in English: A quantitative corpus-driven study of subjectivity. In D. Glynn & M. Sjölin (Eds.), Subjectivity and epistemicity: Stance strategies in discourse and narration (pp.311–339). Lund: Lund University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Krawczak, K. , & Glynn, D.
    (2012) Context and cognition: A corpus-driven approach to parenthetical uses of mental predicates. In K. Kosecki & J. Badio (Eds.), Cognitive processes in language (pp.87–98). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Krawczak, K. , & Kokorniak, I.
    (2012) A corpus-driven quantitative approach to the construal of Polish think . Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 48, 439–472.10.1515/psicl‑2012‑0021
    https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2012-0021 [Google Scholar]
  31. Langacker, R. W.
    (1990) Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 5–38.10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  32. (2006) Subjectification, grammaticalization, and conceptual archetypes. In. A. Athanasiadou , C. Canakis , & B. Cornillie (Eds.), Subjectification: Various paths to subjectivity (pp.17–40). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110892970.17
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110892970.17 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  34. Levshina, N.
    (2015) How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.195
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.195 [Google Scholar]
  35. Levshina, N. , Geeraerts, D. , & Speelman, D.
    (2014) Dutch causative constructions: Quantification of meaning and meaning of quantification. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp.205–221). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.43.08lev
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.08lev [Google Scholar]
  36. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B.
    (1996) Depth of negation: A cognitive semantic study. Łódź: Łódź University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Moczko, J.
    (2008) Wybrane metody analizy danych jakościowych na przykładzie badań kardiologicznych [Selected methods of qualitative data analysis on the example of cardiological research]. Statsoft, 23–40 (date of access: 29th March 2016) (www.statsoft.pl/Portals/0/Downloads/Wybrane_metody.pdf)
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Nuyts, J.
    (2001) Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 383–400.10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00009‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00009-6 [Google Scholar]
  39. Pawłowska, R.
    (1981) Znaczenie i użycie czasownika ‘myśleć’ [The meaning and use of the verb ‘myśleć’]. Polonica, 7, 149–160.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Pęzik, P.
    (2012a) Wyszukiwarka PELCRA dla danych NKJP [PELCRA search engine for the NCPL data]. In A. Przepiórkowski , M. Bańko , R. Górski , & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego [The National Corpus of the Polish language] (pp.253–274). Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. (2012b) Język mówiony w NKJP [Spoken language in the National Corpus of the Polish Language]. In A. Przepiórkowski , M. Bańko , R. Górski , & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego [The National Corpus of the Polish language] (pp.37–47). Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Przepiórkowski, A. , Bańko, M. , Górski, R. L. , & Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B.
    (Eds.) (2012) Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego [The National Corpus of the Polish language]. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Radden, G. , & Dirven, R.
    (2007) Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/clip.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.2 [Google Scholar]
  44. Reczek, S.
    (1968) Podręczny słownik dawnej polszczyzny: Część I: Staropolsko-nowopolska, Część II: Nowopolsko-staropolska. [A pocket dictionary of old Polish: Vol. 1: Old Polish-New Polish, Vol. 2: New Polish-Old Polish]. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Stanimir, A.
    (2005) Analiza korespondencji jako narzędzie do badania zjawisk ekonomicznych [Correspondence analysis and a tool to research economic phenomena]. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Akademii Ekonomicznej im. O. Lanego.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Stanisz, A.
    (2007) Przystępny kurs statystki z zastosowaniem STATISTICA PL na przykładach z medycyny: Analizy wielowymiarowe. [Accessible statistics course with the use of STATISTICA. PL on examples of medicine: Multidimensional analyses] Vol.3. Krakow: Wydawnictwo StatSoft.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Thompson, S. A. , & Mulac, A.
    (1991) A quantitative perspective on the grammaticalization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization: Focus on types of grammatical markers, Vol. 2 (pp.313–328). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.19.2.16tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.2.16tho [Google Scholar]
  48. Verhagen, A.
    (2007) Construal and perspectivization. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.48–81). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Walesiak, M.
    (2006) Przegląd podstawowych zastosowań metod statystycznej analizy wielowymiarowej w badaniach marketingowych [A review of applications of multivariate statistical data analysis methods in marketing research]. Econometria, 16, 21–30.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00009.kok
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00009.kok
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error