Cover not available
Article published In:
Issues in Humour Cognition
Edited by Marta Dynel
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 16:1] 2018
► pp. 229–253
Regular articles

Expressing i think that in Polish

A search for motivation

| Adam Mickiewicz University
| Poznań University of Economics and Business

The paper investigates how four Polish mental predicates, signalling the subject’s of conception thinking process and representing the i think that 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 i think that 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.

Keywords: mental verbs, conceptual motivation, modal assessment, complementation, subjectivity, objectivity, near-synonymy
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Semantics of Polish mental predicates and that-complementation
  • 3.The study
    • 3.1The corpus data
    • 3.2Method and analysis
  • 4.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 31 May 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00009.kok
References

References

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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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
Aron, A., Coups, E. J., & Aron, E. N.
(2008) Statistics for the behavioral and social sciences: A brief course. Prentice Hall: Pearson.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H.
(2008) Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction for statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D.
(1972) That’s that. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breiman, L.
(1984) Classification and regression trees. New York: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Brückner, A.
(1957) Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego [The dictonary of the Polish language etymology]. Warsaw: Wiedza powszechna.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 431, 119–129.Google Scholar
(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
Decyk-Zięba, W., & Dubisz, S.
(Eds.) (2008) Glosariusz staropolski: Dydaktyczny słownik etymologiczny [The Old Polish Glossary: Didactic etymological dictionary]. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D., & Gries, S. T.
(2006) Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 21, 23–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doroszewski, W.
(2014) Wielki słownik języka polskiego [The great dictionary of the Polish language] (date of access: 18th December 2014) ([URL]).
Givón, T.
(1993) English grammar: A function-based introduction. Vol 21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google 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: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D., & Fischer, K.
(Eds.) (2010) Quantitative methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenacre, M. J.
(1993) Correspondence analysis in practice. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Jajuga, K.
(1993) Statystyczna analiza wielowymiarowa [Statistical Multivariate analysis]. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Google Scholar
Kaufman, L., & Rousseeuw, P. J.
(1990) Finding groups in data: An introduction to cluster analysis. Hoboken, N.Y: John Wiley and Sons Inc. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kokorniak, I.
(2015) The polysemy of ‘myśleć’ in Polish: A corpus-driven study. Paper presented at the Polish Cognitive Linguistics Association Conference in 2015, 24–26 September, Lublin, Poland.
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
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
Krawczak, K., & Kokorniak, I.
(2012) A corpus-driven quantitative approach to the construal of Polish think . Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 481, 439–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1990) Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 5–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levshina, N.
(2015) How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B.
(1996) Depth of negation: A cognitive semantic study. Łódź: Łódź University Press.Google Scholar
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) ([URL])
Nuyts, J.
(2001) Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 331, 383–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pawłowska, R.
(1981) Znaczenie i użycie czasownika ‘myśleć’ [The meaning and use of the verb ‘myśleć’]. Polonica, 71, 149–160.Google Scholar
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
(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
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
Radden, G., & Dirven, R.
(2007) Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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
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. 31. Krakow: Wydawnictwo StatSoft.Google Scholar
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. 21 (pp. 313–328). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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, 161, 21–30.Google Scholar