This paper deals with syntax and semantics of expressions containing the word fakt (a fact). In the first part of her study, the author overviews the most typical contexts in which this word is used and extracts lexical units in which it occurs. The second part is devoted to semantic properties of the extracted
units, in particular to features of the expression jest faktem, że_ (it is a fact that_), which should not be identified with the predicate jest prawdą, że _ (it is true that_) in terms of content even though the concept of knowledge plays the central role in both these meaning. In the final part of the paper, a semantic representation of the expression jest faktem, że _ is proposed.
This paper is dedicated to the noun postprawda (posttruth), which is entering the Polish language. The author discusses the place of the neologism in the class of falsehood exponents relying on the analysis of ‘falsehood’ presented by A. Bogusławski (2007). The main methodological assumptions, apparent already in the title of the study, are formulated on the grounds of structuralism. The principal oppositions in the described set of lexis are based on five properties, namely: 1. the number of subjects engaged in the described communication event; 2. the mood of speaking determined by the predicate, 3. the implication of the current act of speech (or its absence); 4. the responsibility for falsehood; 5. disapproval. Due to its semantic properties, postprawda is one of the assertoric multi-subject discursive exponents containing an element of disapproval. Against other falsehood exponents, such as: przesąd (a superstition), mit (a myth), propaganda, ściema (a whopper), this lexeme is distinguished by thematisation of an ascription described as false and circulating in public, one that is less significant in terms of communication than another unspecified ascription. The falsehood of ascription is known to both the post-truth initiator and the recipient. The instances of using the noun postprawda imply the non-confrontational and innovative nature of the phenomenon to which the word refers.
The reflections presented in this paper focus on comparing the expression representing the notion mentioned in the title and its cognates, that is linguistic units representing the notion of surprise (‘zdziwienie’), startlement (‘zaskoczenie’) and amazement (‘zdumienie’). Juxtaposing the predicates which are similar in meaning serves the purpose of finding significant features differentiating the words in question and determining their distinctiveness. The descriptions of the analysed predicates include such properties as: the form of the units representing the discussed notions; an ability to determine the selectional restrictions imposed on the realisation of the non-subject argument denoting the phenomenon which causes the analysed states, as well as the subject argument referring to the subject experiencing them; the issue of factivity; the issue of possible evaluation implied by the described expressions; and curiosities in the functioning of certain grammatical forms of the analysed expressions. In the discussions of a strictly semantic nature, the issues related to knowledge vs lack of knowledge on the part of the experiencing subject seem to be of key importance. A summary of the search signalled in the title of the paper consists in a preliminary, intended to be the first, proposition of explication of the expression kogoś zdziwiło (to), że p (someone was surprised that p).
This paper aims to systematise repetitive phenomena, with a special focus on intra-phrase repetitions. The following are distinguished in this group: A) code repetitions (i.e. realising standards rules of the language system, in particular the syntactic one), including Aa) unit (lexicalised, i.e. with a set composition, e.g. kubek w kubek (peas in a pot), nawet nawet (quite good), cf. 4.1.1) and operational, i.e. forming series, cf. 4.1.2) and Ab) system-wide (motivated semantically, e.g. dzień po dniu (day by day), człowiek człowiekowi wilkiem (man is a wolf to man), cf. 4.2); and B) non-code repetitions (i.e. extralinguistically motivated realisations violating the standard syntax), including Ba) supra-systemic (accepted in usage due to a commonly recognised motivation, e.g. quasitautologies, such as Prawo jest prawem (The law is the law); Jestem, kim jestem (I am who I am) or clearly iconically motivated emphases such as dawno, dawno temu (once upon a time); cf. 4.3) and Bb) extra-systemic repetitions (essentially unaccepted, motivated individually and tentatively, cf. 4.4). It is worth adding that it is only unit systems (Aa) that are language-specific (characterised of a given language system), whereas the system-wide (Ab) and non-code (B) ones, due to their nature, are quite easily translatable.
The object of the research is utterances used at the same time to express an epistemic attitude towards the state of affairs reflected in propositional object and to receive an answer from the interlocutor, for instance: Chyba nie sądzisz, że Anna nadaje się na to stanowisko!? (You can’t think Anna is suitable for the position, can you!?). The author intends to determine how factive and non-factive verbs behave in such structures. Three groups of expressions were analysed in the first place: epistemic, speech and discovery verbs. The applied research method consisted in a comparative analysis of the collected language material. Clear syntactic, semantic and pragmatic differences between the structures with the use of factive and non-factive verbs were noticed.
