Cover not available
Part of
Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy
Edited by Dylan Glynn and Justyna A. Robinson
[Human Cognitive Processing 43] 2014
► pp. 223–251

The semasiological structure of Polish myśleć ‘to think’

A study in verb-prefix semantics

ORCID logo | Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan
 | Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan
 | Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan
 | Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan
The aim of the present chapter is to investigate the semasiological structure of the Polish verb myśleć ‘to think’ relative to the construal imposed by its prefixes. It juxtaposes the results of cognitive linguistic corpus-based introspective analysis with the results of a series of statistical tests of almost 4,000 manually coded example sentences. Multiple cluster analysis employs the techniques presented in Glynn (this volume), hierarchical cluster analysis follows Divjak and Fieller (this volume) and logistic regression is based on Speelman (this volume). The study shows that the do- prefix has a strong preference for clausal, processual complements, while the wy- prefix opts for nominal complements suggesting objectifiable results of the thinking process.
Keywords: hierarchical cluster analysis, logistic regression, multiple correspondence analysis, Polish verb myslec ‘to think’, Polish verbal prefixes
Published online: 6 November 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.09fab
References (65)
References
Amberber, M. (2003). The grammatical encoding of ‘thinking’ in Amharic. Cognitive Linguistics , 14, 195–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
D’Andrade, R. (1987). A folk model of the mind. In D. Holland, & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 112–148). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1995). The development of cognitive anthropology . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (1997). Cognitive Semantics of the Polish dative . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danielewiczowa, M. (2000). Główne problemy opisu i podziału czasownikowych predykatów mentalnych. [Main problems in the description and classification of verbal mental predicates.] In R. Grzegorczykowa, & K. Waszakowa (Eds.), Studia z semantyki porównawczej . [Studies in comparative semantics] Vol. 1 (pp. 227–247). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo UW.Google Scholar
. (2002). Wiedza i niewiedza: Studium polskich czasowników epistemicznych . [Knowing and not knowing: A study of Polish epistemic predicates.] Warszawa: Katedra Lingwistyki Formalnej UW.Google Scholar
Dewell, R.B. (1994). Over again: Image-schema transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics , 5, 351–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dickey, S.M. (Unpublished manuscript). Subjectification and the Russian perfective.
Dickey, S.M., & Hutcheson, J. (2003). Delimitative verbs in Russian, Czech and Slavic. In R. A. Maguire, & A. Timberlake (Eds.), American contributions to the Thirteenth International Congress of Slavists (pp. 23–36). Columbus: Ohio Slavca. Retrieved from [URL] [Accessed 9th November 2009].Google Scholar
Dickey, S.M. (2000). Parameters of Slavic aspect: A cognitive approach . Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
. (2009). Subjectification and the East-West aspect division. Paper presented at the 9th Slavic Cognitive Linguistics Conference, 16th October 2009, Prague.
Dirven, R., Goossens, L., Putseys, Y., & Vorlat, E. (1982). The scene of linguistic action and its perspectivization by SPEAK, TALK, SAY, and TELL . Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John 
Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D., & Gries, St. Th. (2006). Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory , 2, 3–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D. (2006). Ways of intending: A corpus-based Cognitive Linguistic approach to near-synonyms in Russian. In St. Th. Gries, & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 19–56). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. (2010). Structuring the lexicon: A clustered model for near-synonymy . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dodge, Y. (2008). The concise encyclopedia of statistics . Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Fabiszak, M., & Hebda, A. (2011). Social and individual cognition, modality and negation in the use of the Polish verb wierzyć ‘to believe’. Paper presented at SLE 2011, Logrono, Spain.
Fabiszak, M., Hebda, A., & Konat, B. (2012). Dichotomy between private and public experience: The case of Polish wierzyć ‘believe’. In Ch. Hart (Ed.), Online proceedings of UK-CLA meetings 1 (pp. 164–176). Hertfordshire: The UK Cognitive Linguistics Association. Retrieved from [URL].Google Scholar
Fortescue, M. (2001). Thoughts about thought. Cognitive Linguistics , 12, 15–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Bakema, P. (1994). The structure of lexical variation: Meaning, naming, and context . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2010a). Synonymy, lexical fields, and grammatical constructions: A study in usage-based Cognitive Semantics. In H.-J. Schmid, & S. Handl (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of linguistic usage-patterns: Empirical studies (pp. 89–118). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2010b). Testing the hypothesis: Objectivity and verification in usage-based Cognitive Semantics. In D. Glynn, & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 239–270). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2010c). Corpus-driven Cognitive Semantics: An overview of the field. In D. Glynn, & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 1–42). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (Forthcoming). Mapping meaning: Corpus methods for Cognitive Semantics . 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Glynn, D., & Fischer, K. (Eds.). (2010). Quantitative methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goddard, C. (2003). ‘Thinking’ across languages and cultures: Six dimensions of variation. Cognitive Linguistics , 14, 109–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenacre, M. (1993). Correspondence analysis in practice . London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gries, St. Th. (2003). Multifactorial analysis in Corpus Linguistics: A study of particle placement . London: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
. (2006). Corpus-based methods and Cognitive Semantics: The many senses of to run . In St. Th. Gries, & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 57–99). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, St. Th., & Stefanowitsch, A. (Eds.). (2006). Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grochowska, A. (1979). Próba opisu reguł łączliwości przedrostka prze- z tematami czasownikowymi. [An attempt at the description of the combinatory rules of the prefix prze- with verb roots.] Polonica , 5, 59–74.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, S., Geeraerts, D., & Speelman, D. (2007). A case for a cognitive Corpus Linguistics. In M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittleberg, S. Coulson, & M. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 149–169). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Janda, L. (1993). A geography of case semantics: The Czech dative and the Russian instrumental . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Junker, M.-O. (2003). A native American view of the ‘Mind’ as seen in the lexicon of cognition in East Cree. Cognitive Linguistics , 14, 167–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kokorniak, I., & Krawczak, K. (2010). Thinking about thinking: Constructions of Polish mental verbs in discourse. Paper presented at Syntax in Cognitive Grammar, Częstochowa.
Krawczak, K., & Kokorniak, I. (2010). Verbs of cognition, their construal, and complementation in interactive events. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, Bremen.
Krawczak, K., & Fabiszak, M. (2011). Cognition verbs in Polish, their construal and complement semantics. Paper presented at the 3rd Conference of the Scandinavian Association for Language and Cognition, Copenhagen.
Krawczak, K., & Kokorniak, I. (2012). A corpus-driven quantitative approach to the construal of Polish think . Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics , 48, 439–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kustova, G. (2000). Niektóre problemy opisu predykatów mentalnych. [Some problems in the description of mental predicates.] In R. Grzegorczykowa, & K. Waszakowa (Eds.), Studia z semantyki porównawczej [Studies in comparative semantics] Vol. 1 (pp. 249–263). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo UW.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2. Descriptive application . 
Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. (1999). Losing control: Grammaticalization, subjectification, and transparency. In A. Blank, & P. Koch (Eds.), Historical semantics and cognition (pp. 147–175). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindner, S. (1983). A lexico-semantic analysis of English verb particle constructions . Trier: LAUT.Google Scholar
Palmer, G. (2003). Talking about thinking in Tagalog. Cognitive Linguistics , 14, 251–280.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pasich-Piasecka, A. (1993). Polysemy of the Polish verbal prefix prze-. In E. Górska (Ed.), Images from the cognitive scene (pp. 11–26). Kraków: Universitas.Google Scholar
Pawłowska, R. (1981). Znaczenie i użycie czasownika ‘myśleć’. [The meaning and use of the verb ‘think’.] Polonica , 7, 149–160.Google Scholar
Piernikarski, C. (1975). Czasowniki z prefiksem po- w języku polskim i czeskim: Na tle rodzajów akcji w językach słowiańskich . [Verbs with the po- prefix in Polish and Czech: In the background of Aktionsarten in Slavic languages.] Warszawa: PWN.Google Scholar
Przybylska, R. (2002). Stru ktura schematyczno-wyobrażeniowa prefiksu czasownikowego roz-. [Image-schematic structure of the verbal prefix ‘roz-’.] Polonica , 21, 269–286.Google Scholar
. (2006). Schematy wyobrażeniowe a semantyka polskich prefiksów czasownikowych do-, od-, prze-, roz-, u- . [Image schemata and the semantics of Polish verb prefixes do-, od-, prze-, roz-, u-.] Kraków: Universitas.Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English grammar . Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (2000). Z rozważań nad kategorią przypadka . [Ruminating on the category of case.] Kraków: Universitas.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, I.M. (1998). Cognitive space and linguistic case: Semantic and syntactic categories in English . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Śmiech, W. (1986). Derywacja prefiksalna czasowników polskich . [Prefix derivation of Polish verbs.] Wrocław: Ossolineum.Google Scholar
Szwedek, A. (2007). An alternative theory of metaphorisation. In M. Fabiszak (Ed.), Language and meaning: Cognitive and functional perspectives (pp. 312–327). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Tabakowska, E. (2003a). Space and time in Polish: The preposition za and the verbal prefix za- . In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden (pp. 153–177). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2003b). The notorious Polish reflexive pronouns: A plea for Middle Voice. Glossos 4. Retrieved from [URL] [Accessed 9th November 2008]. Google Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in philosophy . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1992). Semantics, culture, and cognition: Universal human concepts in culture-specific configurations . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. (1996). Semantics: Primes and universals . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. (1997). Understanding cultures through their key words . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. (1999). Emotions across languages and cultures . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Wyroślak, Piotr & Dylan Glynn
2024. Disentangling constructional networks: integrating taxonomic effects into the description of grammatical alternations. Linguistics Vanguard 10:s1 ► pp. 29 ff. DOI logo
Krawczak, Karolina
2022. Modeling constructional variation. In Analogy and Contrast in Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 73], ► pp. 341 ff. DOI logo
Kokorniak, Iwona
2021. An aspectual contour of phrasal verb constructions with English think . Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 57:1 ► pp. 165 ff. DOI logo
Kokorniak, Iwona
2022. Contrast and analogy in aspectual distinctions of English and Polish. In Analogy and Contrast in Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 73], ► pp. 115 ff. DOI logo
Ioannou, Georgios
2019. From Athenian fleet to prophetic eschatology. Correlating formal features to themes of discourse in Ancient Greek. Folia Linguistica 53:s40-s2 ► pp. 355 ff. DOI logo
Wiliński, Jarosław
2017. On the Brink of-Noun vs. On the Verge of-Noun: a Distinctive-Collexeme Analysis. Research in Language 15:4 ► pp. 425 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 january 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.