English-sourced ordinal superlatives in contemporary Polish: An argument for the usefulness of syntactic loans

Mirosław Bańko

Uniwersytet Warszawski
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5396-4327

Alicja Witalisz

Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny im. KEN w Krakowie
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2256-1269


Abstract

This article raises the question whether syntactic loans can be useful in the recipient language, i.e. whether they can exhibit advantages over their native counterparts. Polish ordinal superlatives (OSs), such as drugi najwyższy budynek (w mieście) ‘the second tallest (building in town)’, serve as the main source of examples, but two other syntactic loans are also briefly discussed in order to strengthen our position. It is not our aim to trace the history of OSs in Polish nor to provide their comprehensive description, but since they have been much underresearched, we have made preliminary queries in corpora and digital libraries to examine their structure, meaning, and origin. These queries suggest that Polish OSs were borrowed from German in the second half of the 19th century, yet their current abundance in Polish is due to the influence of English. We have put our research in the context of language contact studies and analysed the pros and cons of Polish OSs compared with their native counterparts. We have found contact-induced Polish OSs to show some advantage over their native equivalents, but to occasionally interfere with formally identical native contructions, and make the message potentially ambiguous. A further conclusion is that syntactic loans can be useful in the recipient language.


Schlagworte:

ordinal superlatives, syntactic borrowing, language contact, English, Polish


Berruto G. (2017): What is changing in Italian today? Phenomena of restandardization in syntax and morphology: an overview. [In:] Towards a New Standard: Theoretical and Empirical Studies on the Restandardization of Italian. M. Cerruti, C. Crocco, S. Marzo
Crossref   Google Scholar

(eds). Boston–Berlin, pp. 31–60.   Google Scholar

Biber D., Johansson S., Leech G., Conrad S., Finegan E. (1999): Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow.   Google Scholar

Bylinina L., Ivlieva N., Podobryaev A., Sudo Y. (2014): A non-superlative semantics for ordinals and the syntax and semantics of comparison classes, , accessed: 29.11.2022.   Google Scholar

COCA [Corpus of Contemporary American English], , accessed: 29.11.2022.   Google Scholar

Davies M. (2009): The 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990–2008+): Design, architecture, and linguistic insights. “International Journal of Corpus Linguistics” 14, pp. 159–190.
Crossref   Google Scholar

Davies M., Jong-Bok K. (2019): The advantages and challenges of ‘big data’: Insights from the 14 billion word iWeb corpus. “Linguistic Research” 36(1), pp. 1–34.
Crossref   Google Scholar

Downing A., Locke P. (1992): A University Course in English Grammar. New York–London–Toronto.   Google Scholar

GLAD [Global Anglicism Database Network], , accessed: 29.11.2022.   Google Scholar

Grant A.P. (ed.) (2019): The Oxford Handbook of Language Contact. Oxford.
Crossref   Google Scholar

Haspelmath M. (2008): Loanword typology: Steps toward a systematic cross-linguistic study of lexical borrowability. [In:] Aspects of Language Contact: New Theoretical, Methodological and Empirical Findings with Special Focus on Romancisation Processes. T. Stolz,
Crossref   Google Scholar

D. Bakker, R. Salas Palomo (eds). Berlin, pp. 43–62.   Google Scholar

Haugen E. (1950): The analysis of linguistic borrowing. “Language” 26(2), pp. 210–231.
Crossref   Google Scholar

Hickey R. (ed.) (2013): The Handbook of Language Contact. Oxford.   Google Scholar

Huddleston R., Pullum G.K. (2002): The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge.
Crossref   Google Scholar

iWeb [iWeb: The 14 Billion Web Corpus], , accessed: 29.11.2022.   Google Scholar

Jespersen O. (1924): The Philosophy of Grammar. London.   Google Scholar

Jespersen O. (1933): Essentials of English Grammar. London.   Google Scholar

Kallas K. (1998): Przymiotnik. [In:] Morfologia. Vol. 2. R. Grzegorczykowa, R. Laskowski, H. Wróbel (eds). Warszawa, pp. 469–523.   Google Scholar

King R. (2000): The Lexical Basis of Grammatical Borrowing: A Prince Edward Island French Case Study. Amsterdam.
Crossref   Google Scholar

Klemensiewicz Z., Lehr-Spławiński T., Urbańczyk S. (1955): Gramatyka historyczna języka polskiego. Warszawa.   Google Scholar

KorBa [The Electronic Corpus of 17th- and 18th-century Polish Texts (up to 1772)], , accessed: 29.11.2022.   Google Scholar

Kozioł-Chrzanowska E. (2012): Kryterium narodowe. [In:] Nowe spojrzenie na kryteria poprawności językowej. A. Markowski (ed.). Warszawa, pp. 68–79.   Google Scholar

Krasnowolski A. (1903): Najpospolitsze błędy językowe zdarzające się w mowie i piśmie polskiem. Warszawa.   Google Scholar

Laskowski R. (1977): Od czego lepszy jest lepszy? „Język Polski” LVII(5), pp. 323–324.   Google Scholar

Matras Y. (2009): Language Contact. Cambridge.
Crossref   Google Scholar

Monco PL, Monitoring Corpus of Polish, , accessed: 29.11.2022.   Google Scholar

NKJP [The National Corpus of Polish], , accessed: 29.11.2022.   Google Scholar

Paralela [Parallel corpus search], , accessed: 29.11.2022.   Google Scholar

Pęzik P. (2016): Exploring phraseological equivalence with Paralela. [In:] Polskojęzyczne korpusy równolegle. Polish-Language Parallel Corpora. E. Gruszczyńska, A. Leńko-Szymańska (eds). Warszawa, pp. 67–81.   Google Scholar

Pęzik P. (2020): Budowa i zastosowania korpusu monitorującego MoncoPL. „Forum Lingwistyczne” 7, s. 132– 150.
Crossref   Google Scholar

Polona [digital library], , accessed: 29.11.2022.   Google Scholar

Przepiórkowski A., Bańko M., Górski R., Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk B. (eds) (2012): Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego. Warszawa.   Google Scholar

Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G., Svartvik J. (1991): A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London–New York.   Google Scholar

Renner V. (2018): Structural borrowing in word-formation: An exploratory overview. “SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics” 15(2), pp. 2–12.   Google Scholar

Ross M. (2019): Syntax and contact-Induced language change. [In:] The Oxford Handbook of Language Contact. A.P. Grant (ed.). Oxford, pp. 123–154.
Crossref   Google Scholar

Schendl H. (2017): Language contact: Multilingualism. [In:] Vol. 3: Middle English. L. Brinton, A. Bergs (eds). Berlin–Boston, pp. 165–183.
Crossref   Google Scholar

Sinclair J. (1995): Collins Cobuild English Usage. London.   Google Scholar

Thomason S.G. (2001): Language Contact. An Introduction. Washington D.C.
Crossref   Google Scholar

Thomason S.G., Kaufman T. (1988): Language Contact, Creolization and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley.
Crossref   Google Scholar

Weinreich U. (1953): Languages in Contact. Findings and Problems. The Hague.   Google Scholar

Winford D. (2003): An Introduction to Contact Linguistics. Oxford.   Google Scholar

Winford D. (2013): Contact and borrowing. [In:] The Handbook of Language Contact. R. Hickey (ed.). Oxford, pp. 170–187.
Crossref   Google Scholar

Yee Ch. (2010): Building DRT Lexical Entries for Superlatives and Ordinal Numbers. University of Stuttgart, , accessed: 29.11.2022.   Google Scholar

Zenner E., Kristiansen G. (eds) (2014): New Perspectives on Lexical Borrowing: Onomasiological, Methodological and Phraseological Innovations. Boston–Berlin.
Crossref   Google Scholar


Veröffentlicht
2023-09-30

##plugins.themes.libcom.cytowania##

Bańko, M. ., & Witalisz, A. . (2023). English-sourced ordinal superlatives in contemporary Polish: An argument for the usefulness of syntactic loans. Prace Językoznawcze, 25(3), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.31648/pj.9180

Mirosław Bańko 
Uniwersytet Warszawski
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5396-4327
Alicja Witalisz 
Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny im. KEN w Krakowie
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2256-1269