Abstract
This chapter discusses multi-word expressions in Polish which consist of a noun accompanied by an adjective (in any order), e.g. boża krówka (lit. God.a cow.dim) ‘ladybird’ and dział finansowy (lit. department financial) ‘financial department’, as well as those in which a head noun is followed by another noun in the genitive case, as in prawo pracy (lit. law.nom work.gen) ‘labour law’. Such units are phrasal lexemes, that is, expressions which contain fully inflected constituents but resemble derivatives in having a naming function. Their syntactic fixedness, semantic compositionality and their interaction with word-formation is discussed. Although some phrasal nouns are not (fully) compositional semantically, the majority of such multi-word units need not be treated as idioms. Phrasal schemas function both as redundancy statements with respect to lexicalized multi-word units, as well as templates for creating novel phrasal nouns in Polish. Construction Grammar and Construction Morphology provide an adequate grammatical model for a proper account of these phrasal nouns.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
In the Polish literature on the subject (e.g. Nagórko 1996: 189–191), the noun in the genitive case which follows the head noun is referred to as a “genitive attribute” (Pol. przydawka dopełniaczowa).
- 2.
In glosses provided for Polish examples in this paper I supply English translations for roots or derivational bases, e.g. koń ‘horse’, while affixes are represented in their orthographic form, e.g. -sk-, -n-. Alternatively, I could have used English equivalents for Polish suffixes (such as -nik ‘-er’) or I could have employed appropriate abbreviations to signal their morphosyntactic function, e.g. NMLZ ‘nominalizer’, ADJR ‘adjectivalizer’. The suffixes –sk(i) and –n(y) in (1a) and (1b) are adjectivizing suffixes, as is the suffix –ow(y) exemplified in (2a) and (2b). The inflectional ending in the adjective is separated by a hyphen in the Polish examples given in this chapter, as in kwaś-n-y ‘acid’ in (1b), or placed in brackets, e.g. –n(y).
- 3.
- 4.
The abbreviation “th” stands for “thematic suffix” (i.e. verbalizing suffix) and “prs.ptcp” for “present participle”. The difference between virile nouns (i.e. masculine personal nouns) and non-virile nouns is not reflected in the glosses.
- 5.
The suffix –nik is an agentive suffix. The suffix –k(a) shows many functions, one of them being the diminutivizing one. The representations of the internal structure of Polish words are occasionally simplified, e.g. the lexeme nerwica in (3c), glossed above as ‘neurosis’, contains the suffix –ic(a) attached to the root nerw ‘nerve’. Moreover, stems of prefixed verbs are not split into roots and prefixes, since this would complicate the glosses (given that prefix+root combinations are often non-compositional).
- 6.
N+N coordinate and attributive juxtapositions are analysed by Kallas (1980), who treats them as noun phrases in appositions, and by Willim (2001), who regards them as constructs. The status of N+PP combinations calls for more in-depth discussion. While ten Hacken and Kwiatek (2013) regard Polish N+N-gen, N+A and A+N multi-word units as nominal compounds, they decide not to treat N+PP combinations as a type of compounds.
- 7.
Booij (2010) refers to compounds proper as “morphological compounds”.
- 8.
Alternatively, it can be argued that the inflectional affix attaches to the complex stem of the whole compound, i.e. kursokonferencj- in (4a).
- 9.
In her overview of multi-word units in various Slavonic languages, Ohnheiser (2015) mentions RA+N expressions (RA = Relational Adjective) , N+N-gen units and N+PP units.
- 10.
The adjective zaoczny ‘extramural’ can be treated as derived from a prepositional phrase (see Grzegorczykowa 1981: 71 and Szymanek 2010: 248–249 for discussion of adjectives derived from prepositional phrases in Polish). It is formally related to the phrase za oczami ‘beyond eyes’, though the semantic relatedness between this phrase and the adjective zaoczny ‘extramural’ is rather strenuouos (and metaphorical).
- 11.
The adjective lotniczy ‘relating to air transportation’ is formed from the agentive noun lotnik ‘pilot’ (derived by the attachment of the suffix –nik to the noun lot ‘flight’). As in the case of the adjective lwia ‘relating to lion(s)’ in (1b), the adjectivalizer is the paradigmatic formative (i.e. a zero affix), which causes [k] ∼ [č] alternation.
- 12.
The vowel –a- which follows the stem zarządz- ‘manage’ is represented in the gloss as a part of the nominalizing suffix –ani(e). Alternatively, it can be regarded as a thematic (verbalizing) suffix, as in the passive participle zintegrowanych ‘integrated.gen.pl’.
- 13.
I am grateful to the reviewer for providing the example in (8b). More examples of RA+N+RA combinations are discussed by Cetnarowska et al. (2011). The reviewer observes that N+PP combinations can also become constituents of (other) phrasal nouns, e.g. antena do odbioru telewizji wysokiej rozdzielczości (lit. antenna for reception-gen television-gen high-gen resolution-gen) ‘high definition television antenna’. It is pointed out by the reviewer that the longer a phrasal noun in Polish becomes, the more felicitous it is to diversify the range of constructions employed in its formation (i.e. A+N, N+A, N+N-gen, N+PP).
- 14.
Nagórko (2016: 2834) does not discuss phrasal nouns (since her section on composition is devoted to compounds proper in Polish). Yet, when mentioning the existence of juxtapositions, she states that “[t]hey meet the criteria established for words: the order of constituents cannot be reversed, the constituents cannot be replaced by other words.” The replacement of a constituent of a juxtaposition by a synonymous lexeme is impossible in idiomatic N+A, N+A or N+N expressions, cf. opera mydlana ‘soap opera’ and not *opera proszkowa (lit. opera.nom washing_powder.ra). In the case of juxtapositions exhibiting a greater degree of semantic compositionality, some variation in form may be attested, e.g. niedźwiedź brunatny (lit. bear brown) ‘brown bear’ and miś brunatny (lit. teddy-bear brown) ‘a small and/or dear brown bear’ (see www.radiozet.pl/.../Najsmutniejszy-na-swiecie-mis-brunatny-uratowany!-00027429).
- 15.
N-gen+N phrases such as those in (9a) and (9b) could potentially be accepted in poetry or artistic prose, where word order principles are more flexible.
- 16.
As is shown by Cetnarowska (2015b), for purposes of contrast or word-play speakers may occasionally place ‘non-migrating’ adjectives in their classifying (relational) sense in the pre-head position, as in nienaturalnie naturalna katastrofa (Adv+A+N) ‘unnaturally natural disaster’, cf. katastrofa naturalna (N+A) (lit. disaster.f.nom.sg natural.f.nom.sg) ‘natural disaster’.
- 17.
- 18.
Cetnarowska and Trugman (2012) show that ‘migrating’ classifying adjectives in Polish are able to occur either in the pre-head and post-head position, can be employed in predicative position (given a suitable context) and are acceptable in scrambling constructions.
- 19.
The adjectives boż(a) ‘relating to god(s), divine’, ptasi(e) ‘relating to bird(s)’ and wilcz(a) ‘relating to wolf or wolves’ in (14) are derived from corresponding nouns by means of the paradigmatic formative, which has a palatalizing effect on the stem-final consonant. This results in [k] ∼ [č] alternation in wilk ‘wolf’ – wilcz(y) ‘relating to wolf or wolves’, [g] ∼ [ž] alternation in Bóg ‘God’ – boż(y) ‘relating to God or gods’, and [k] ∼ [ɕ] alternation in ptak ‘bird’ – ptas(i) ‘relating to bird(s)’.
- 20.
For simplicity, a “flat” hierarchical structure is given here in the glosses for synthetic compounds in Polish, i.e. (deverbal) compounds which contain two stems (linked by a vowel) and a suffix as the right-hand constituent, such as dziękczynienie ‘thanksgiving’ and pierwokup ‘preemption’. Szymanek (2010: 221) analyses the synthetic compound prac-o-daw-c-a (work+Int+give+suff+infl) ‘employer, lit. work-giver’ as a formation which exhibits the following structure: STEM1+interfix+STEM2+suffix, in which the interfix and the suffix function as co-formatives. The issue of determining the internal morphological structure of synthetic deverbal compounds in Polish is discussed also by Kolbusz-Buda (2014), within the model of generative grammar. She argues in favour of a left-branching structure, i.e. [[A B] suff], for synthetic deverbal compounds.
- 21.
The date of Children’s Day may actually vary around the world.
- 22.
Extralinguistic knowledge is required, though, to interpret such phrasal names properly. For instance, one needs to know what sort of clothing is used, or was used, by soldiers of a particular regiment to interpret the expression mundur czołgisty ‘tanker’s uniform’.
- 23.
The phenomenon of morphological condensation is commonly referred to as ‘univerbation’ (Pol. uniwerbizacja) by Slavic morphologists (e.g. Szymanek 2010: 69, 90, 243–244; Nagórko 2016: 2839; Martincová 2015: 742). When analysing similar instances of “squeezed” phrasal lexemes in Russian, Masini and Benigni (2012) decide not to employ the term univerbation. They (2012: 433) point out that, in the Western literature, univerbation “is generally intended as the fusion of the members of a multi-word expression into one single word due to diachronic changes”, while shortening mechanisms under analysis in Slavonic languages are synchronic.
- 24.
A reviewer points out that the suffixal derivative kranówka ‘tap water’, containing the constituents kran ‘tap’ and –ówk(a), as well as its augmentative kranówa’tap water’, can be potentially regarded as resulting from the morphological condensation of the N+PP expression woda z kranu (lit. water from tap) ‘tap water’. There is no corresponding N+A phrasal noun *woda kranowa or N+N-gen expression *woda kranu which could function as the input to univerbation. Szymanek (2010: 70) analyses kranówka ‘tap water’ as a denominal suffixal derivative.
- 25.
Such an analysis is adopted by Grzegorczykowa (1981: 45). She also analyses parowiec ‘steam boat’, in which the root par- ‘steam’ is followed by –ow and –ec, as (formally) derived from the relational adjective parowy ‘relating to steam’ by means of the suffix –ec. However, she points out that some derivatives terminating in –owiec (and –ówka) are motivated semantically by the nominal root directly. Jadacka (2001) identifies the suffix –ówka in kablówka ‘cable TV’, which is synonymous to the N+A phrasal noun telewizja kablowa (lit. television cable.ra). She also represents the suffix as –(ów)ka, recognizing its internal complexity (Jadacka 2001: 85). Grzegorczykowa and Puzynina (1984: 375) regard the noun filmowiec ‘film-maker’ and drogowiec ‘road-builder’ as containing the suffix –owiec but on another page (1984: 346) they list szybowiec ‘glider’ as derived by means of –ec. Thus, the representation of the sequence –owiec and –ówka as single suffixes or as complexes of suffixes is a controversial issue.
- 26.
The nouns żaglówka ‘sailboat’ and odrzutowiec ‘jet plane’ show no colloquial tinge and they are stylistically neutral (when compared to the more formal phrasal nouns łódź żaglowa ‘sailboat’ and samolot odrzutowy ‘jet plane’). Ohnheiser (2015: 775) observes that stylistic neutralization of selected formations of this type in Slavonic languages follows from their frequency of use.
- 27.
- 28.
Although the word żyto in isolation usually means ‘rye (as a type of cereal plant)’, it can refer to a kind of vodka, e.g. as in the excerpt from a song: Polej w szklaneczki żyto ‘Pour (some) rye into the glasses’ (from http://teksciory.interia.pl/bracia-figo-fagot-pastoralka-tekst-piosenki,t,643253.html)
- 29.
The Polish examples in (20e–h) resemble those in Greek (discussed by Ralli and Stavrou 1998: 253), where some compound adjectives show semantic relatedness to lexicalized A+N combinations, such as psixropolemikos ‘cold-war-like’ related to psixros polemos ‘cold war’.
- 30.
Nouns with the suffix –ist(a) in Polish show masculine gender but follow feminine declension pattern.
- 31.
As in the case of synthetic deverbal compounds in (17), I adopt a “flat” morphological structure in the glosses for synthetic compound nouns and compound adjectives in (20).
- 32.
Masini and Benigni (2012: 429–430) regard a similar mechanism in Russian as the ellipsis of the head noun, e.g. mobil’nyj telefon ‘mobile phone’ > mobil’nyj ‘mobile phone’. Ohnheiser (2015: 774) analyses the replacement of Russian RA+N phrasal nouns by adjectives alone as involving the ellipsis of the head and nominalization of the relational adjective.
- 33.
N+A units which undergo condensation in (22) are as follows: gramatyka historyczna (lit. grammar historical) ‘historical grammar’ and pociąg osobowy (lit. train person.ra) ‘passenger train’.
- 34.
Booij (2010: 187) refers to rode ‘red’ in rode kool ‘red cabbage’ as a qualifying adjective. In the terminology used by Cetnarowska et al. (2011) and Rutkowski and Progovac (2005), this is an instance of a classifying adjective (with a ‘kind’ reading), while red in red dress counts as a qualifying adjective.
- 35.
Masini (2009) uses the formula ‘a kind of N1 that has something to do with N2’.
- 36.
This corresponds to A+N units containing ‘migrating’ adjectives in Cetnarowska et al. (2011).
- 37.
In the case of –ka derivatives which result from morphological condensation of phrasal nouns in Polish, the nominalizing suffix attaches to the whole inflectional stem of the relational adjective, cf. budowlan(y) ‘relating to building’ and budowlank(a) ‘secondary technical school of building’.
- 38.
Booij and Masini (2015) indicate the need for second order schemas in Greek to express the paradigmatic relationship between compound adjectives and lexicalized A+N phrasal nouns. They do not formulate such a schema explicitly.
References
Booij, G. 2009. Phrasal names: A constructionist analysis. Word Structure 2 (2): 219–240.
———. 2010. Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Booij, G., and J. Audring. 2017. Construction morphology and the parallel architecture of grammar. Cognitive Science 41 (S2): 277–302.
Booij, G., and F. Masini. 2015. The role of second order schemas in the construction of complex words. In Semantics of complex words, ed. L. Bauer, L. Kőrtvélyessy, and P. Štekauer, 47–66. Cham: Springer.
Cetnarowska, B. 2014. On pre-nominal classifying adjectives in Polish. In Advances in the syntax of DPs: Structure, agreement, and case, ed. A. Bondaruk, G. Dalmi, and A. Grosu, 100–127. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
———. 2015a. The lexical/phrasal status of Polish Noun+Adjective or Noun+Noun combinations and the relevance of coordination as a diagnostic test. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 12 (3): 142–170.
———. 2015b. The linearization of adjectives in Polish noun phrases: Selected semantic and pragmatic factors. In Within language, beyond theories, Studies in theoretical linguistics, ed. A. Bondaruk and A. Prażmowska, vol. 1, 188–205. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Cetnarowska, B., and H. Trugman. 2012. Falling between the chairs: Are classifying adjective+noun complexes lexical or syntactic formations? In Current issues in generative linguistics: Syntax, semantics and phonology, ed. J. Błaszczak, B. Rozwadowska, and W. Witkowski, 138–154. Wrocław: Center for General and Comparative Linguistics.
Cetnarowska, B., A. Pysz, and H. Trugman. 2011. Distribution of classificatory adjectives and genitives in Polish NPs. In On words and sounds: A selection of papers from the 40th PLM, 2009, ed. K. Dębowska-Kozłowska and K. Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, 273–303. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishers.
Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
———. 2006. Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grzegorczykowa, R. 1981. Zarys słowotwórstwa polskiego. Słowotwórstwo opisowe. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Grzegorczykowa, R., and J. Puzynina. 1984. Słowotwórstwo rzeczowników. In Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego. Morfologia, ed. R. Grzegorczykowa, R. Laskowski, and H. Wróbel, 332–407. Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe: Warszawa.
Hüning, M. 2010. Adjective + Noun constructions between syntax and word formation in Dutch and German. In Cognitive perspectives on word formation, ed. A. Onysko and S. Michel, 195–215. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
Jadacka, H. 2001. System słowotwórczy polszczyzny (1945-2000). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Kallas, K. 1980. Grupy apozycyjne we współczesnym języku polskim. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika.
Kolbusz-Buda, J. 2014. Compounding in Polish and English. A morphosemantic analysis of deverbal compound nouns in Polish in the light of parallel constructions in English. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.
Linde-Usiekniewicz, J. 2013. A position on classificatory adjectives in Polish. Studies in Polish Linguistics 8: 103–125.
Martincová, O. 2015. Multi-word expressions and univerbation in Slavic. In Word-formation: An international handbook of the languages of Europe, ed. P.O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, and F. Rainer, vol. 1, 742–757. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Masini, F. 2009. Phrasal lexemes, compounds and phrases: A constructionist perspective. Word Structure 2 (2): 254–271.
Masini, F., and V. Benigni. 2012. Phrasal lexemes and shortening strategies in Russian: The case for constructions. Morphology 22 (3): 417–451.
Nagórko, A. 1996. Zarys gramatyki polskiej. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
———. 2016. Polish. In Word-formation: An international handbook of the languages of Europe, ed. P.O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, and F. Rainer, vol. 4, 2831–2852. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Ohnheiser, I. 2015. Compounds and multi-word expressions in Slavic. In Word-formation: An international handbook of the languages of Europe, ed. P.O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, and F. Rainer, vol. 1, 757–779. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Ralli, A., and M. Stavrou. 1998. Morphology-syntax interface: A+N compounds and A+N constructs in modern Greek. In Yearbook of morphology 1997, ed. G. Booij and J. van Marle, 243–264. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Rutkowski, P., and L. Progovac. 2005. Classification projection in Polish and Serbian: The position and shape of classifying adjectives. In Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: The South Carolina meeting, ed. S. Franks, F.Y. Gladney, and M. Tasseva-Kurktchieva, 289–299. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.
Spencer, A. 2013. Lexical relatedness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Szymanek, B. 2010. A panorama of Polish word-formation. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.
ten Hacken, P., and E. Kwiatek. 2013. Nominal compounds as naming devices: A comparison of English and Polish land surveying terminology. In The semantics of word formation and lexicalization, ed. P. ten Hacken and C. Thomas, 83–101. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Topolińska, Z. 1984. Składnia grupy imiennej. In Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego. Składnia, ed. M. Grochowski, S. Karolak, and Z. Topolińska, 301–393. Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe: Warszawa.
Willim, E. 2001. On NP-internal agreement: A study of some adjectival and nominal modifiers in Polish. In Current issues in formal Slavic linguistics, ed. G. Zybatow, U. Junghanns, G. Mehlhorn, and L. Szucsich, 80–95. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cetnarowska, B. (2018). Phrasal Names in Polish: A+N, N+A and N+N Units. In: Booij, G. (eds) The Construction of Words. Studies in Morphology, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74394-3_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74394-3_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-74393-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-74394-3
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)