Cover not available
Part of
Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: New perspectives
Edited by Chiara Fedriani and Andrea Sansó
[Studies in Language Companion Series 186] 2017
► pp. 369–397

Chapter 13
On the pragmatic expansion of Polish gdzieś tam ‘somewhere (there)/about’

| University of Zielona Góra

In standard usage gdzieś tam functions as an adverbial adding approximation/indeterminacy to expressions of place, time and number/amount/measure, and as such it is semantically equivalent to English ‘somewhere (there) in some contexts and ‘about’ in others. In conversational speech, however, its use sometimes diverges, more or less markedly, from the standard one, which is manifested both formally and functionally. The present study sets out to examine, locally, the lexico-syntactic cotext of gdzieś tam (to see how it differs depending on whether the expression is used conventionally or otherwise) and, globally, novel, context-sensitive functions that the phrase is capable of performing in a communicative act. A broader issue the paper attempts to address is the extent, if any, to which the canonical meaning of gdzieś tam is reflected in the pragmatically expanded use of the expression.

Keywords: discourse markers, hedges/hedging, (non-)canonical use of language, (non-)propositional meaning
Article outline
  • 1.Preliminaries
  • 2.Dictionary treatment of gdzieś and tam
  • 3.Hedges and hedging
  • 4.Materials and methods
  • 5.Analysis and discussion
    • 5.1Problematic dichotomy between canonical and non-canonical gdzieś tam
    • 5.2Lexico-grammatical context of gdzieś tam
      • 5.2.1Syntactic scope
      • 5.2.2Lexical co-occurrences
    • 5.3Functions of non-canonical gdzieś tam
      • I.Hedging functions
        • a. Gdzieś tam as a vagueness marker
        • b. Gdzieś tam as a mitigator of illocutionary force
        • c. Gdzieś tam as a mitigator of stylistic anomaly
      • II.Non-hedging function – gdzieś tam as a marker of concept framing
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.186.14ada
References
Adamczyk, Magdalena
2015 Do hedges always hedge? On non-canonical multifunctionality of jakby in Polish. Pragmatics: Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 25(3): 321–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, Karin
2002 English Discourse Particles. Evidence from a Corpus [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 10]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Gisle
2001 Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation. A Relevance-theoretic Approach to the Language of Adolescents [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 84]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Awdiejew, Aleksy & Habrajska, Grażyna
2006 Wprowadzenie do gramatyki komunikacyjnej (Introduction to communicational grammar), Vol. 2. Łask: Oficyna Wydawnicza LEKSEM.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane
1988 ‘So’ as a constraint on relevance. In Mental Representations. The Interface between Language and Reality, Ruth M. Kempson (ed.), 183–195. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2007 Discourse markers. In The Handbook of Pragmatics, 3rd edn. [Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics 16], Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds), 221–240. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J.
1996 Pragmatic Markers in English. Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions [Topics in English Linguistics 19]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charciarek, Andrzej
2010 Polskie wyrażenia metatekstowe o funkcji fatycznej i ich odpowiedniki czeskie i rosyjskie (Polish phatic metatextual expressions and their Czech and Russian equivalents) [Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Śląskiego w Katowicach 2751. Językoznawstwo Słowiańskie]. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.Google Scholar
Clemen, Gudrun
1997 The concept of hedging: Origins, approaches and definitions. In Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts [Research in Text Theory/Untersuchungen zur Texttheorie 24], Raija Markkanen & Hartmut Schröder (eds), 235–248. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Czapiga, Zofia
2006 Rosyjskie operatory metatekstowe i ich polskie odpowiedniki (Russian metatextual operators and their Polish equivalents). Rzeszów: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego.Google Scholar
Erman, Britt & Kotsinas, Ulla-Britt
1993 Pragmaticalization: The case of ba’ and you know . Studier i Modernspråkvetenskap 10: 76–93.Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin
2006 Towards an understanding of the spectrum of approaches to discourse particles: Introduction to the volume. In Approaches to Discourse Particles [Studies in Pragmatics 1], Kerstin Fischer (ed.), 1–20. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Frank-Job, Barbara
2006 A dynamic-interactional approach to discourse markers. In Approaches to Discourse Particles [Studies in Pragmatics 1], Kerstin Fischer (ed.), 359–374. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce
1975 Hedged performatives. In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds), 187–210. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
2010 Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging. In New Approaches to Hedging [Studies in Pragmatics 9], Gunther Kaltenböck, Wiltrud Mihatsch & Stefan Schneider (eds), 15–34. Bingley: Emerald. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Habrajska, Grażyna
2004 Komunikacyjna analiza i interpretacja tekstu (A communicational analysis and interpretation of text). Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.Google Scholar
Hübler, Axel
1983 Understatements and Hedges in English [Pragmatics and Beyond IV:6]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jagodziński, Grzegorz
2008 Zaimki (Pronouns) 26 February 2008, <[URL]> (19 September 2015).
Jucker, Andreas H.
1993 The discourse marker well: A relevance-theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics 19(5): 435–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kryk, Barbara
1992a The pragmatics of interjections: The case of Polish no . Journal of Pragmatics 18(2–3): 193–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992b A cross-linguistic look at discourse particles. In New Departures in Contrastive Linguistics/Neue Ansätze in der Kontrastiven Linguistik. Proceedings of the Conference held at the Leopold-Franzens-University of Innsbruck, Austria, 10–12 May 1991 [Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft. Anglistische Reihe 4], Christian Mair & Manfred Markus (eds), 43–50. Innsbruck: Verlag des Instituts für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1972 Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. In Papers from the 8th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society [Chicago Linguistic Society 8], Paul M. Peranteau, Judith N. Levi & Gloria C. Phares (eds), 183–228. Chicago IL: CLS.Google Scholar
Lenk, Uta
1998 Marking Discourse Coherence. Functions of Discourse Markers in Spoken English [Language in Performance 15]. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Mišković-Luković, Mirjana & Dedaić, Mirjana N.
2010 South Slavic discourse particles: Introduction. In South Slavic Discourse Particles [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 197], Mirjana N. Dedaić & Mirjana Mišković-Luković (eds), 1–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ożóg, Kazimierz
1990 Leksykon metatekstowy współczesnej polszczyzny mówionej. Wybrane zagadnienia (Metatextual lexicon of contemporary spoken Polish. Selected issues) [Rozprawy Habilitacyjne 198]. Kraków: Uniwersytet Jagielloński.Google Scholar
Pęzik, Piotr
2012 Dane mówione w NKJP (Spoken data in NKJP [Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego/The National Corpus of Polish]). In Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego (The National Corpus of Polish), Adam Przepiórkowski, Mirosław Bańko, Rafał L. Górski & Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (eds), 272–273. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Google Scholar
2015 Spokes – a search and exploration service for conversational corpus data. In Selected Papers from the CLARIN 2014 Conference, October 24-25, 2014, Soesterberg, The Netherlands [Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings 116], 99–109. Linköping University Electronic Press, Linköpings universitet.
Pisarkowa, Krystyna
1975 Składnia rozmowy telefonicznej (The syntax of telephone conversation) [Prace Instytutu Języka Polskiego 5]. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich (Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk).Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F., Frader Joel & Bosk, Charles
1982 On hedging in physician-physician discourse. In Linguistics and the Professions: Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Delaware Symposium on Language Studies [Advances in Discourse Processes 8], Robert J. Di Pietro (ed.), 83–97. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Rouchota, Villy
1998 Procedural meaning and parenthetical discourse markers. In Discourse Markers. Descriptions and Theory [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 57], Andreas H. Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds), 97–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted J. M. & Noordman, Leo G. M.
2000 The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes 29(1): 37–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah
1985 Conversational coherence: The role of well . Language 61(3): 640–667. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1987 Discourse Markers [Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 5]. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence
1999 Discourse markers. Tutorial overview. Lingua 107(3–4): 227–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schröder, Hartmut & Zimmer, Dagmar
1997 Hedging research in pragmatics: A bibliographical research guide to hedging. In Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts [Research in Text Theory/Untersuchungen zur Texttheorie 24], Raija Markkanen & Hartmut Schröder (eds), 249–272. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Słownik języka polskiego PWN
(The dictionary of Polish). Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. [URL]> (17 January 2015).
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
1995 Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In Subjectivity and Subjectivisation. Linguistic Perspectives, Dieter Stein & Susan Wright (eds), 31–54. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 Discussion article: Discourse markers, modal particles, and contrastive analysis, synchronic and diachronic. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 6: 139–157. Special issue: Contrastive Perspectives on Discourse Markers.Google Scholar
Voghera, Miriam
2013 A case study on the relationship between grammatical change and synchronic variation. The emergence of tipo[-N] in Italian. In Synchrony and Diachrony. A Dynamic Interface [Studies in Language Companion Series 133], Anna Giacalone Ramat, Caterina Mauri & Piera Molinelli (eds), 283–312. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wielki słownik języka polskiego
PAN (The great dictionary of Polish). Wydawnictwo Naukowe PAN. [URL]> (18 September 2015).
Wierzbicka, Anna
1971 Metatekst w tekście (Metatext in text). In O spójności tekstu (On the cohesion of text) [Z Dziejów Form Artystycznych w Literaturze Polskiej 21], Maria Renata Mayenowa (ed.), 105–121. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich (Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk).Google Scholar
Żydek-Bednarczuk, Urszula
1994 Struktura tekstu rozmowy potocznej (The textual structure of casual conversation) [Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Śląskiego w Katowicach 1409. Językoznawstwo Polonistyczne]. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Danielewiczowa, Magdalena
2022. Problemy delimitacji ciągu wypowiedzeniowego na przykładzie polskich wypowiedzeń z segmentem tam. In Dyskurs, przekład, poezja – 40-lecie pracy Anny Dutki-Mańkowskiej w Instytucie Romanistyki UW / Discours, traduction, poésie – Anna Dutka-Mańkowska 40 ans à l’Institut d’Études romanes de Varsovie, DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 april 2024. 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.