POZNAŃSKIE SPOTKANIA JĘZYKOZNAWCZE, t. 23 (2012)
POZNAŃ LINGUISTIC FORUM, vol. 23 (2012)
Rafał Zarębski
Department of History Polish Language
Łódź University
Semantics of adjectives with foreign prefixes:
a historical and linguistic perspective
Slavic languages are commonly recognised for their large share of prefixes
in verb-related word formation, accompanied by marginal prefixes in the realm
of noun and adjective derivation1. However, this situation belongs to the past, as
it has dramatically changed over time2. Typical of contemporary Polish, as well
as the remaining Slavic languages, is a rather large group of prefixes forming
nouns and adjectives alike3. The once unimpressive set of left-hand affixes combined with Slavic nouns and adjectives4 has grown considerably, extended by,
among other things, foreign prefixes5.
While the process of borrowing foreign words from which prefix elements
are separated in Polish has a long tradition6, it is primarily Modern Polish when
1
M. Szymczak, O interferencji językowej w zakresie formantów słowotwórczych (na
przykładzie języka polskiego), „Biuletyn PTJ” 1976, vol. 34, pp. 17–23; O nowym typie prefiksacji
rzeczowników i przymiotników w językach słowiańskich, [in:] Z polskich studiów slawistycznych,
ed. L. Bazylow, t. 5, Warszawa 1978, pp. 199–205.
2
K. Waszakowa, Przejawy internacjonalizacji w słowotwórstwie współczesnej polszczyzny,
Warszawa 2005, pp. 70–74, 121–133.
3
Cf. K. Waszakowa, Przejawy internacjonalizacji w słowotwórstwie…, op. cit.; Przejawy
internacjonalizacji w językach słowiańskich, ed. E. Koriakowcewa, Siedlce 2009.
4
See W. Boryś, Prefiksacja imienna w językach słowiańskich, Wrocław 1975; M. Szymczak,
O nowym typie prefiksacji rzeczowników i przymiotników w językach słowiańskich, op. cit.,
pp. 199–200.
5
Further in the article, I use the terms foreign prefixes, left hand affixes (cf. M. Szymczak:
O interferencji językowej w zakresie formantów słowotwórczych…, op. cit.; O nowym typie prefiksacji rzeczowników i przymiotników…, op. cit.).
6
Cf. e.g. the prefix archi- || arcy- which emerged as early as in Old Polish (see R. Zarębski,
Prefiks arcy- w historii języka polskiego, „Język Polski” 2009, No. 89, pp. 1–13).
2
Rafał Zarębski
new prefix formants of foreign origin have emerged. This phenomenon should
be attributed to extra-linguistic factors like the influence of foreign languages on
Polish vocabulary or the internationalization trend7.
External factors play an important role in the process of borrowing foreign
words and hence they contribute to the existence of foreign affixes in the borrowing language. On the other hand, the functioning of these affixes within a word
forming system depends on many mechanisms operating inside the system. Borrowed lexemes with foreign prefixes which become formally divisible and establish semantic relations with respective Polish bases, the emergence of new derivatives from assimilated foreign and native bases operating on various levels of
language (morphology, semantics, style) are all interesting demonstrations of the
“self-organization”8 of this type of Polish vocabulary.
My intention is to highlight the process of “self-organization” of adjectives
with foreign prefixes in the history of the Polish language. The discussion starts
with the issue of separation of foreign adjectival prefixes (on the level of morphology) with special emphasis placed on the level of semantics. The goal of this
article is to observe the changes and modifications of the meaning of prefixes
affected by foreign prefixes and their comparison with the early stages of the
development of the Polish language9. It is worth noting that while changes related to semantics viewed in an evolutionary way are of importance, one should
not underestimate the reasons behind these changes. Following a close look at
how new, non-Slavic prefixes have affected semantics, I will attempt to provide
an answer to the question of “why a language resorts to new affixes”10.
One could venture the statement that this phenomenon cannot be explained
only by a trend to complete the word forming system11 and that it is a much more
complex process. Old Polish word forming had only three left-handed affixes,
namely na-, nie- and prze-, which were active in adjectival derivation12. These
prefixes are of Slavic origin. Synchronic articles on adjectival word formation in
contemporary Polish show a significant extension of adjectival prefix derivation.
Krystyna Kowalik conducted research into morphological collocations of adjec Cf. footnote 3.
K. Kleszczowa, Słowotwórstwo w perspektywie synchronicznej i diachronicznej, [in:]
Lexikálna sémantika a derivatológia. Zborník príspevkov z medzinárodnej vedeckej konferencie
konanej pri príležitosti životného jubilea prof. PhDr. Juraja Furdíka, CSc. Prešov 5. December
2000, ed. M. Ološtiak, Koszyce 2007, p. 9.
9
See K. Kleszczowa, Staropolskie derywaty przymiotnikowe i ich perspektywiczna ewolucja,
Katowice 2003.
10
Cf. R. Zarębski, Przyczyny i skutki obecności afiksów obcego pochodzenia w dziejach polszczyzny, „Poradnik Językowy” 2010, book 8, pp. 29–42.
11
See S. Dubisz, Język – historia – kultura (wykłady, studia, analizy), Warszawa 2002,
pp. 33–36; K. Długosz-Kurczabowa, S. Dubisz, Gramatyka historyczna języka polskiego,
Warszawa 2001, pp. 401–406.
12
See K. Kleszczowa, Staropolskie derywaty przymiotnikowe…, op. cit., pp. 114–120.
7
8
Semantics of adjectives with foreign prefixes: a historical and linguistic perspective
3
tival prefixes with reference to contemporary material and identified as many as
50 left-hand affixes13. Nearly half of these affixes (24) are genetically foreign
elements14. The above-mentioned proportions between the old and contemporary
material on the one hand and between native and foreign prefix elements on the
other clearly indicate the growing role of adjectival prefix derivation of non-Slavic morphemes.
In order to trace the changes which occurred on the evolutionary level in
adjective word forming by means of new foreign prefixes, a proper research
procedure needs to be adopted. Foreign formants (prefixes and suffixes alike)
emerge in a borrowing language not as set elements but result from a process
consisting in abstracting them from larger series of word borrowings15. An affix
usually contributes a specific meaning to such words (less frequently meanings).
Subsequently some of these lexemes become formally divisible and form a semantic relation with the basis; this in turn is the starting point for the creation of
new derivatives triggered off by genetically foreign particles (from assimilated
foreign and native bases).
In order to capture the moment when a foreign element starts to operate as an
independent prefix, the excerpted material is analysed in subsequent periods of
the history of the Polish language16: 1) 15th century; 2) 16th century; 3) 17–18th
centuries; 4) 19th century; 5) 20th century, where we look for the answer to when
the foreign part was transformed into a left-hand affix. The explanation provided
for this issue forms the basis for multi-level considerations17 of the specificity of
adjectival derivatives with foreign prefixes and adjectives themselves.
Before I proceed with the characteristics of meaning that can be contributed
by foreign prefixes to adjectival derivatives, one fact is worth highlighting.
Namely, these prefixes tend to separate from a series of noun borrowings and as
such exist as nouns18 in the early stages of word forming activity in the Polish
Separation of such a large group of adjectival prefixes including morphemes like naj- is
related to the rather controversial criteria of segmenting adjectival derivatives adopted by the author (cf. K. Kowalik, Przedrostki w systemie językowym języka polskiego, „Polonica” 1978, IV,
pp. 176–185, cf. pp. 185–186).
14
By way of comparison, GWJP mentions 31 prefix formants which are part of contemporary
adjectival adjectives and 6 prefixes which are part of prefix and suffix-related formants which
derivate noun adjectives. Among all these prefixes, 18 are genetically foreign (see GWJP,
pp. 482–509).
15
Cf. M. Szymczak, O nowym typie prefiksacji rzeczowników i przymiotników…, op. cit.,
p. 200.
16
The material under scrutiny represents all stages of the development of the Polish language
(except for lexemes characteristic of the most modern Polish). The following dictionaries have
been excerpted: Sstp, SXVI, SXVII/XVIII, L, SWil, SW, SDor and Szym.
17
What I mean is morphological, lexical, semantic and stylistic conditioning; in this text,
emphasis is placed on the semantic aspect.
18
It is typical to borrow nouns while other parts of speech (verbs, adjectives) are borrowed
less frequently. This phenomenon is related to a noun’s grammar and semantic characteristics. This
13
4
Rafał Zarębski
language. Adjectival derivatives follow later. What is more, the fact that in the
lending language (typically Latin and/or Greek) these affixes tend to form nouns
while entering adjectival derivation is evidence of their more complete adaptation to the Polish language. Incorporation of derivation of various parts of speech,
referred to by Krystyna Kleszczowa as “breaking the barriers of parts of speech
in a derivative act”19, is among the most significant features of left-hand foreign
affixes20.
Another issue to tackle is to approach the issues of motivation of adjectives,
which will be our area of interest. Foreign affixes can be separated from adjectival de-adjectival formations (prefix as an independent formant), e.g. arcymiły
(: miły) or denominal i.e. from prefix-less nouns (prefix as part of a combined
prefix and suffix formant) e.g. transarktyczny (: Arktyka). Under scrutiny are
derivatives representing these two types and multi-motivational derivatives, e.g.
prehistoryczny (: prehistoria, historyczny), while I disregard suffix formations
like reedukacyjny (: reedukacja)21.
The first few adjectival derivatives with foreign prefixes date back to the 16th
century. These are adjectives with the arcy- formant (Latin arci-, archi-, Greek
archi-), e.g. arcysztuczny (SXVII/XVIII)22 (: sztuczny).
In the 17th and 18th centuries the number of foreign prefixes in adjectival
word forming did not increase significantly. These centuries marked the emergence of formations with formants a(n)- (Greek a-, an-)23, e.g. (SXVII/SXVII;
SWil; SW; SDor) (: katolicki) and anty- (Greek anti-), e.g. antyepileptyczny ||
antypileptyczny (Latin) (SXVII/XVIII; SWil) (: epileptyczny SW), antyspazmotyczny (Latin) med. (SXVII/XVIII; SWil) (: spazm, spazmatyczny SDor).
As late as in the 19th century new foreign adjectival prefixes emerged, e.g.:
– dys- (Latin dis-), e.g. dyzharmonijny || dysharmonijny (SW; SDor; Szym)
(: harmonia, harmonijny), dysproporcjonalny (SW; SDor; Szym) (: proporcja,
proporcjonalny),
– eks- (Latin ex-), e.g. eksterytorialny legal (SW; SDor; Szym) (: terytorialny),
is because a noun may express not only substance but also other ontic categories. On the other
hand, verbs and adjectives have much more limited nomination-related possibilities due to their
syntax qualities and the limited ability of expressing content of other parts of speech (cf. S. Gajda,
Wprowadzenie do teorii terminu, Opole 1990, p. 87; K. Kleszczowa, Rola pożyczek w przekształcaniu
polskiego systemu słowotwórczego, [in:] Słowotwórstwo a inne sposoby nominacji, ed. K. Kleszczowa and L. Selimski, Katowice 2001, p. 205).
19
Ibid., p. 206.
20
Cf. M. Dokulil, Teoria derywacji, trans. A. Bluszcz and J. Stachowski, Wrocław–Warszawa–
Kraków–Gdańsk 1979, pp. 31–33, 75, 211.
21
In the process of identifying motivation, we resort to lexical meanings within the dictionary
definitions and contexts in the excerpted dictionaries.
22
This lexeme has been noted in a supplement to SXVI (see arcysztuczny in: SXVII/XVIII).
23
The prefix a- may assume the form an- in front of vowels.
Semantics of adjectives with foreign prefixes: a historical and linguistic perspective
5
– ekstra- (Latin extra-), e.g. ekstrafajnowy (SW) (: fajnowy),
– hiper- (Greek hyper-), e.g. hiperbystry (SW) (: bystry),
– inter- (Latin inter-), e.g. interglacjalny (SW; SDor; Szym),
– pre- (Latin prae-), e.g. prehistoryczny (SW; SDor; Szym) (: historyczny,
prehistoria),
– proto- (gr. protos-), e.g. protokanoniczny (SWil; SW) (: kanoniczny,
kanon),
– sub- (Latin sub-), e.g. subakutny (Latin) (SWil; SW) (: akutny SW), subarktyczny (SW; SDor; Szym) (: arktyczny, Arktyka),
– super- (Latin super-), np. superidealny (SW) (: idealny),
– trans- (Latin trans-), np. transandyjski (SW) (: Andy, andyjski),
– ultra- (Latin ultra-), np. ultraliberalny (SW) (: liberalny).
This set of active foreign prefixes in adjectival derivation was extended with
new elements in the 20th century, e.g.:
– de(z)- (Latin de-), e.g. dewerbalny (French.) ling. (SDor; Szym)
(: werbalny),
– ir- (Latin ir-), e.g. irrelewantny (English) book (SDor; Szym)
(: relewantny),
– para- (Greek para-), e.g. paramilitarny (SDor; Szym) (: militarny),
– post- (Latin post-), e.g. postglacjalny geol. (SDor; Szym) (: glacjalny,
glacjał),
– pro- (Greek pro-, Latin pro-), e.g. prorządowy (Szym) (: rząd),
– re- (Latin re-), e.g. reaktywny also chem. (SDor; Szym).
The above listing, which does not include all foreign prefixes forming adjectives (many parts whose word forming status is ambiguous have been
disregarded)24, shows that adjectival prefix derivation has been enriched by a
significant group of left-hand affixes as recently as in modern Polish. While the
first adjectives with foreign prefixes appeared in Middle Polish, a large part of
the foreign prefixes gained independence as late as in the 19th and 20th centuries25.
From a semantic point of view, foreign prefixes (not only adjectival) either
fill in semantic gaps26 in the borrowing language or form synonymous relations
with native morphological formations27. The emergence of “empty semantic
All foreign prefixes mentioned by Krystyna Kallas in: GWJP, pp. 469–522 have been taken
into consideration.
25
This process continues. Cf. Waszakowa’s observations made on noun neologisms (cf.
K. Waszakowa, Przejawy internacjonalizacji w słowotwórstwie…, op. cit.).
26
See J. Lyons, Semantyka, Vol. 1, trans. A. Wiensberg, Warszawa 1984, pp. 290–293;
K. Kleszczowa, Rola pożyczek w przekształcaniu polskiego systemu słowotwórczego, op. cit.,
p. 207.
27
See H. Jadacka, Synonimia słowotwórcza – perspektywy badawcze, “Poradnik Językowy”
1986, book 6, pp. 404–412.
24
6
Rafał Zarębski
spaces” usually results from external factors, including civilisation-related
changes (this is of special importance to nouns, when a new designator triggers
off the emergence of a new lexeme). The language itself demonstrates a need to
express new content; this need stems from the users’ mental development or
willingness to replace less economical means (e.g. syntax-related).
I. Let me start with foreign adjectival prefixes which emerged as a response
to semantic gaps. I’m referring to morphological structures devoid of native prefix counterparts capable of expressing the same or similar content.
The Polish language lacked a morphological exponent that would carry the
meaning of ‛favourable, positive attitude to something, conducive to something
indicated by the main noun’. This is the meaning28 behind the Latin prefix prowhich is part of a combined prefix and suffix formant to create noun-based adjectives, e.g. probrytyjski ‛favouring the UK, favourably disposed towards Great
Britain; supporting the country’s politics’ (Szym) (: (Wielka) Brytania),
prospołeczny ‛conducive to the society, for the society’s good’ (Szym)
(: społeczeństwo). The Polish language is devoid of means to express similar
content in adjectival derivatives. The native prefix za- is semantically closest to
the prefix pro-; however, it does not form this type of adjective29.
II. A foreign prefix which appears within an existing syntactic category is a
much more frequent phenomenon. Then it establishes relations synonymous not
only with native prefixes but sometimes also with ones of foreign origin. Let us
take a closer look at several selected syntactic categories30 within adjectival derivatives which have assimilated meaning carried by prefixes of foreign origin.
1. Temporal meanings.
The Polish language has absorbed a large number of foreign prefixes which
can express temporal relations. In the 19th century, the prefix proto- to express
foregoing phenomena became active in adjectival derivation: 19th century formations like protokanoniczny (about the Scriptures) ‛deemed canonical before canon law was established’ (SWil; SW) (: kanoniczny), 20th century formations like
protobałtycki lang. ‛language from which Baltic and Slavic languages developed’ (SDor) (: bałtycki) as did the prefix pre-: 19th century formations like
prerafaelistowski ‛adj. from Pre-Raphaelite’ (SW) (: prerafaelizm, Rafael), 20th
century formations like prelogiczny ‛not subjected to the discipline of logical
thinking yet, not following logic; pre-logical’ (SDor) (: logiczny).
GWJP mentions ‛object meanings’ (cf. GWJP, p. 486).
Adjectives starting with za- emerged from propositional phrases, e.g. zaduszny, zadworski,
zapłotny (cf. K. Kleszczowa, Staropolskie derywaty przymiotnikowe…, op. cit., pp. 134–135).
Cf. M. Szymczak, O nowym typie prefiksacji rzeczowników i przymiotników…, op. cit., p. 204.
30
Cf. the concept of semantic roles with relation to noun adjectives applied in: GWJP,
pp. 485–494.
28
29
Semantics of adjectives with foreign prefixes: a historical and linguistic perspective
7
The Polish language of the 19th century was supplemented by the prefix
inter- of temporal nature, meaning ‛located between something, between two
points in time’: 19th century formations like interglacjalny geol. ‛coming from
the interglacial period, related to interglacial’ (SW; SDor; Szym) (: glacjalny,
glacjał).
The group of foreign left-hand affixes was extended in the 20th century by the
morpheme post- which (unlike temporal prefixes referring to a stage earlier than
that established in the basis) communicates a feature younger than the basis: 20th
century formations like postkolonialny ‛occurring, existing after colonial times’
(SDor; Szym) (: kolonialny), postwerbalny (French) ‛a formation based on
a verb by means of retrospective derivation’ (SDor; Szym) (: werbalny).
While foreign prefixes indicating an earlier stage of what is referred to by the
base do not communicate exactly the same content: proto- ‛a former stage;
a preliminary, preparation stage’ vs. pre- ‛former, preliminary, previous, original’, they can still form synonymous relations with the native prefix-cum-preposition przed-, e.g. protokanoniczny ‛created before canon law’, preglacjalny
‛preglacial’, presłowiański ‛preSlavic’ etc.
Other formations based upon synonyms include the foreign morpheme post-,
with reference to a stage following an event communicated in the base, and the
native prefix || preposition po-, e.g. postglacjalny ‛postglacial’, postkolonialny
‛occurring after the colonial period’, postwerbalny ‛following a verb’. The meaning of the Polish morpheme między may be compared with the foreign prefix
inter- occurring in a temporal function.
2. Locative meanings
In the historical development of the Polish language, locative usage in adjectival derivatives used to be expressed by means of native suffixes, e.g. -owy, -ski,
-ny, -ni, -alny31.
Among foreign prefixes, locative meaning can be contributed by the following particles:
– trans-: 19th century formations, e.g. transalpejski || transalpijski ||
transalpiński (Latin) ‛located in another part of the Alps, behind the Alps’ (SW;
SDor; Szym) (: alpejski, Alpy), 20th century formations, e.g. transarktyczny ‛occurring across the area of the Arctic, crossing the area of the Arctic’ (SDor; Szym)
(: arktyczny, Arktyka),
– sub-: 19th century formations, e.g. subarktyczny ‛polar; located in the vicinity of the northern Arctic Circle’ (SW; SDor; Szym) (: Arktyka), 20th century
formations, e.g. subantarktyczny ‛located in the vicinity of the southern Arctic
Circle, typical of areas adjacent to the Arctic’ (SDor; Szym) (: Antarktyda), sub31
See K. Kleszczowa, Staropolskie derywaty przymiotnikowe…, op. cit., pp. 23–102; GWJP,
p. 492.
8
Rafał Zarębski
glacjalny geol. ‛located underneath a glacier, taking place underneath a glacier;
under a glacier’ (SDor) (: glacjał, glacjalny),
– ekstra-: 20th century formations, e.g. ekstragalaktyczny ‛located outside a
galaxy’ (Szym) (: galaktyka),
– eks-: 19th century formations, e.g. eksterytorialny legal ‛not bound by local
courts’ (SW; SDor; Szym) (: terytorialny, terytorium),
– inter-: 19th century formations, e.g. interlinearny ‛between lines, written or
printed between lines’ (SWil; SW; SDor; Szym) (: linearny), 20th century formations, e.g. interkontynentalny ‛related to several continents, taking place between
continents, combining continents; intercontinental’ (Szym) (: kontynentalny,
kontynent).
The particle trans- communicates the same meaning as the native morphemes za-, e.g. transalpijski ‛transalpine’ as well as przez, poprzez, e.g. transalpejski ‛crossing the Alps’, transeuropejski ‛crossing Europe’. In the presented adjectival derivatives, the prefix sub- can be expressed by means of the Polish
prefix pod- or the adverb poniżej, e.g. subantarktyczny ‛located below the Arctic’, suborbitalny ‛stretching below the orbit’. It is worth noting that in more
modern Polish the content of the affix sub- was grammaticalized as reflected in
the fact that formations with sub- are often used to name certain anthropological
sub-types, e.g. subarmenoidalny, sublaponoidalny, submongoidalny, subnordyczny.
On top of an intensifying function (see below), the prefix ekstra- also carries
the meaning ‛occurring outside of something’ equivalent with the preposition
poza. The morpheme eks- in noun derivatives typically means ‛former’, while in
a few adjectives it indicates (just like ekstra-) that something ‛is located outside
something else’. However, with reference to the prefix inter- in locative usage,
the synonymic function has been assumed by the Polish preposition (po)między,
e.g. interlinearny ‛between lines, located between lines’, interkontynentalny ‛between continents’.
3. Gradation of meaning
3.1. Feature intensification
The category of intensifying formations has proved among the most susceptible to foreign morphological means. While there were Polish morphemes expressing feature intensification like na(j)-, prze-32, nad-33, as early as in the 16th
32
See K. Kleszczowa: Staropolskie derywaty przymiotnikowe…, op. cit., pp. 114–115, 117–
120; Językowe środki intensyfikowania cechy w historii polszczyzny, [in:] Slavische Wortbildung:
Semantik und Kombinatorik (Materialien der 5. Internationale Konferenz der Kommission für
slavische Wortbildung beim Internationalen Slavistenkomitee. Lutherstand Wittenberg, 20.–25.
September 2001), Herausgegeben von Swetlana Mengel, Münster–Hamburg–Berlin–Londyn
2002, pp. 319–328; GWJP, p. 506.
33
See GWJP, p. 506.
Semantics of adjectives with foreign prefixes: a historical and linguistic perspective
9
century gradation adjectives appear with the arcy- formant, e.g. arcysztuczny
‛most cunning, sly, clever’ (SXVI; SXVII/XVIII)34. In Middle Polish, the adjectival prefix arcy- was very active in word formation. It would typically combine
with stylistically neutral bases, e.g. arcytwardy ‛very hard, extremely hard’
(SXVII/XVIII) or referring to positive values, e.g. arcymądry ‛the wisest, the
smartest’ (SXVII/XVIII). The vocabulary of that time included words derived
from negative features, e.g. arcyprzeklęty ‛about a road: extremely hard to pass,
strenuous’ (SXVII/XVIII) as well as negated, e.g. arcyniesprawiedliwy ‛completely, most unjust’ (SXVII/XVIII).
Later on, the Polish language was not so abundant in formations with the
arcy- prefix as was the case in the 17th and 18th centuries. While new derivatives
appeared: 19th century formations, e.g. arcydoskonały ‛the most perfect, very
good, excellent’ (SW; SDor), 20th century formations, e.g. arcylojalny ‛extremely
loyal, excessively loyal’ (SDor), their number dwindled. This was most probably
related to competition with newer foreign prefixes (e.g. super-, hiper- and lately
the morpheme mega-) expressing the significant intensity of a specific feature.
In the Polish language of the 19th and 20th centuries, new prefixes appeared
indicating intensification of features, namely:
– hiper-: 19th century formations, e.g. hiperbystry ‛extremely smart’ (SW)
(: bystry), 20th century formations, e.g. hiperpoprawny ‛correct to a fault, trying
to be more correct than is necessary’ (SDor; Szym) (: poprawny),
– super-35: 19th century formations, e.g. superidealny ‛extremely ideal’ (SW)
(: idealny), 20th century formations, e.g. supernowoczesny ‛most modern, ultramodern’ (SDor; Szym) (: nowoczesny),
– ultra-: 19th century formations, e.g. ultralojalny ‛extremely loyal’ (SW)
(: lojalny), ultraeliptyczny ‛hypereliptic’ (SW) (: eliptyczny), 20th century formations, e.g. ultraczuły ‛extremely sensitive, very quickly reacting to something,
indicating something’ (Szym) (: czuły),
– ekstra-: 19th century formations, e.g. ekstrafajnowy ‛very thin’ (SW)
(: fajnowy SW), 20th century formations, e.g. ekstranowoczesny ‛most modern’
(SDor; Szym) (: nowoczesny).
An analysis of intensifying forms with the prefixes hiper-, super- and ultraleads to the following conclusions: firstly, as mentioned before, they may form
synonymic relations with native morphemes, e.g. the preposition nad- : hiperfizyczny ‛hyper sensuous’. Secondly, it is equally important that they operate as
synonymic means of word formation with other foreign prefixes, as demonstra This lexeme has been noted in a supplement to SXVI (see arcysztuczny in: SXVII/XVIII).
See about the prefix super-: R. Przybylska, Super, “Język Polski” 1995, No. 75, book 2, pp.
104–107; M. Gębka, M. Szupryczyńska, Status formalno-gramatyczny jednostki super(-) w języku
polskim, [in:] Wyrażenia funkcyjne w systemie i tekście. Materiały konferencji naukowej (Toruń
21–23 X 1993), ed. M. Grochowski, Toruń 1995, pp. 171–180; M. Szupryczyńska, Funkcje leksykalne jednostki super we współczesnym języku polskim, “Polonica” XVII, 1995, pp. 167–172.
34
35
10
Rafał Zarębski
ted in the references excerpted from dictionaries, e.g. hipersoniczny see ‛supersoniczny’, ultraepileptyczny see ‛hiperepileptyczny’ and dictionary lexical
definitions, e.g. ultralojalny ‛extremely loyal’, ultramadziarski ‛extremely Magyar’.
Modern Polish tends to differentiate the meanings expressed by the foreign
prefixes in question by expressing various degrees of feature intensification.
Krystyna Waszakowa dubbed this phenomenon a “gradation triad” referring to
the affixes super-, hiper- and mega-36.
3.2. Feature degradation
While the Polish language had native affixes expressing feature degradation,
e.g. -awy, -owity, przy-, niedo-, pod-37, the 19th century marked formations with
the foreign prefix sub- referring to this specific meaning, e.g. subakutny (Latin)
‛less acute, with a more benign course, with a rapid course’ (SWil; SW) (: akutny), subinflammacyjny ‛slightly inflammatory’ (SWil) (: inflamacja SW).
The prefix sub- does not perform this function in modern Polish.
4. The importance of negation and related meanings
The morpheme nie-38 has been a productive adjectival prefix in the development of the Polish language to express negation. However, the meaning of negation in the history of the Polish language gave very firm grounds for foreign
prefixes39.
As early as Modern Polish, negating adjectives emerged, some of them
formed with a left-hand affix a(n)-: 17th and 18th centuries formations, e.g.
akatolicki ‛not Catholic’ (SXVII/SXVII; SWil; SW; SDor) (: katolicki). Adjectives with this prefix were numerous also in later centuries: 19th century formations, e.g. alogiczny ‛illogical, contradictory; contradicting logic’ (SW; SDor;
Szym) (: logiczny), anormalny ‛abnormal, irregular, diverging from the norm;
defying the pattern, anomalous, unnatural; about a person: mentally ill’ (SW;
SDor; Szym) (: normalny), 20th century formations, e.g. acykliczny chem. ‛not
cyclical’ (SDor; Szym) (: cykliczny), aliteracki book ‛not related to literature, not
literary’ (Szym) (: literacki).
Super- indicates the feature’s significant intensity, hiper- indicates its higher degree while
mega- indicates the highest degree (cf. K. Waszakowa, Przejawy internacjonalizacji w słowotwórstwie współczesnej polszczyzny, op. cit., p. 72).
37
See K. Kleszczowa, Staropolskie derywaty przymiotnikowe…, op. cit.; GWJP, pp.
505–506.
38
Cf. K. Kleszczowa, Staropolskie derywaty przymiotnikowe…, op. cit., pp. 115–117; GWJP,
p. 502.
39
Within this function, E. Wójcikowska mentions also other foreign formants, e.g. alo-, il-,
im-, ignored in this article (see E. Wójcikowska, Zanegowane przymiotniki deadiektywne – formacje prefiksalne (na materiale 3-tomowego „Słownika języka polskiego” PWN, Warszawa 1979),
[in:] Język polski w kraju i za granicą, Vol. 1, ed. B. Janowska and J. Porayski-Pomsta, Warszawa
1997).
36
Semantics of adjectives with foreign prefixes: a historical and linguistic perspective
11
Modern Polish has been enriched by more foreign morphemes expressing
negation:
– anty-: 19th century formations, e.g. antymoralny ‛immoral’ (SW)
(: moralny),
– ir-: 20th century formations, e.g. irrelewantny (Eng.) ‛irrelevant, unimportant’ (SDor; Szym) (: relewantny),
– de(z)-: 20th century formations, e.g. dezintegralny || dezyntegralny ling.
‛failing to include all elements, not comprising everything’; also ling. (SDor;
Szym) (: integralny),
– dys-: 19th century formations, e.g. dysproporcjonalny ‛disproportionate,
lacking symmetry; asymmetric, shapeless, out of proportions’ (SW; SDor; Szym)
(: proporcjonalny), 20th century formations, e.g. dysharmoniczny 1. ‛not based on
the rules of musical harmony; disharmonious’; 2. rare dysharmonijny (SDor;
Szym) (: harmoniczny),
– para-: 20th century formations, e.g. paranormalny ‛defying the adopted
standards of normality; hard to explain, mysterious’ (Szym) (: normalny).
Foreign prefixes expressing feature negation may form synonymic relations
with each other, e.g. anty- and a(n)- and with the native morpheme nie-40. The
affix ir- is particularly morphologically precise, combining with assimilated
foreign bases. This feature does not relate to the prefixes para-, a(n)- or anty-. By
creating adjectives from adopted and native bases alike, they refer to numerous
meanings accompanying negations and even separate ones.
Following the assumptions of cognitive science, the meaning of negation in
the prefix para- may be deemed peripheral, because its semantic core indicates
similarity to what is expressed in the base.
The vocabulary of 20th century Polish was not enriched by adjectives with
the prefix anty- referring only to the negation of the base’s meaning. On the other
hand, derivatives with meaning ‛contrary to what the base indicates, directed
against’41 were abundant e.g. antyhałasowy ‛cutting down, alleviating noise;
meant to combat noise’ (Szym) (: hałas), antynaukowy ‛contrary to science, defying science’ (SDor; Szym) (: nauka)42. The meanings attributed to the prefix
See K. Oliva, Klasyfikacja semantyczna przymiotników zaprzeczonych, “Poradnik Językowy”
1967, book 6, pp. 261–266; J.D. Apresjan, Semantyka leksykalna. Synonimiczne środki języka, trans.
Z. Kozłowska and A. Markowski, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków 1995, pp. 282–290.
41
Derivatives with this type of meaning first emerged in Middle Polish, e.g. antypileptyczny,
antyepileptyczny (Latin) ‛curing epilepsy’ (SXVII/XVIII, SWil) (: epilepsja). They were also frequent in the 19th century, e.g. antyklerykalny ‛hostile to clergy, hostile to priests, taking actions
against clergy’ (SW: with an annotation: new from Greek anti- + klerykalny, SDor; Szym)
(: klerykał, kler).
42
Cf. R. S., Anty-, “Poradnik Językowy” 1996, book 3, pp. 72–76.
40
12
Rafał Zarębski
a(n)- multiplied, as they typically express negation but may also indicate other
senses43:
– lack of something, e.g. afleksyjny ‛about language: devoid of inflexion,
especially word end inflexion’ (Szym) (: fleksja),
– indifference to something, e.g. asejsmiczny geol. ‛devoid of seismic symptoms, not plagued by earthquakes’ (SDor; Szym) (: sejsmiczny),
– negation and lack, e.g. areligijny ‛devoid of religious experiences, not religious; not based on any religion’ (SDor; Szym) (: religia, religijny).
The above examples show semantic stratification44 typical of the prefix a(n)but also criss-crossing within certain notion-related categories, typical of other
foreign prefixes like anty- or dys-45. The sense of negation may imply the meaning of deficiency, signalled also by the native prefix bez- and even opposites in
derivative forms with anty-, e.g. antynaturalny ‛against nature, unnatural’
(SW with annotation: modern from Greek anti- ‛against’ + naturalny) and dys-,
e.g. dysproporcjonalny ‛lacking proportions, symmetry; asymmetric, shapeless,
disproportionate’ (SW; SDor; Szym).
5. Other meanings
On top of the above mentioned meanings that can be expressed by foreign
prefixes in adjectival derivatives, genetically foreign morphemes contribute additional information.
The prefix para- is reference to ‛similar to what the base indicates yet with
differentiating features’: 20th century formations, e.g. paraliteracki ‛close to literature but cannot be referred to as literary in the strict sense of the meaning’
(: literacki).
The affix de- may suggest specific origin: 20th century formations, e.g.
dewerbalny (French) ling. ‛verbal’ (SDor; Szym) (: verbum, werbalny) while it
tends to be more productive in derivatives signalling negation.
The indication of reiteration, repetition, restoration characteristic of the prefix re- is reflected in the following derivatives: 20th century formations, e.g. reaktywny 1. chem. ‛capable of taking part in chemical reactions’; 2. ‛response to
stimuli affecting the body from the outside’ (SDor; Szym) (: aktywny).
***
The material comes from the 20th century. Examples provided by: E. Wójcikowska, Zanegowane przymiotniki deadiektywne – formacje prefiksalne…, op. cit., p. 156.
44
The prefix a(n)- had many meanings even in Latin. However, the indication of non-existence or indifference appeared in Polish (cf. SŁP).
45
See K. Kleszczowa, Relacja antonimii w polskim słowotwórstwie, [in:] Десета
Международна конференцияна Комисията по славянско словообразуване при Международния
комитет на славистите. СЛОВООБРАЗУВАНЕ И ЛЕКСИКОЛОГИЯ, Sofia 2008, pp. 178–
185; K. Kleszczowa, M. Pastuchowa, Procesy gramatykalizacji w słowotwórstwie, “Rocznik
Slawistyczny” 2009, Vol. LVIII, pp. 68–78
43
Semantics of adjectives with foreign prefixes: a historical and linguistic perspective
13
Over the centuries, the Polish language has been enriched by a relatively
large group of foreign adjectival prefixes46. The biggest inflow of this type of affixes took place recently, in Modern Polish of the 19th and 20th centuries. It is
worth noting that these morphemes did not bear meanings that native words
could not have conveyed. Only the prefix pro- indicating ‛favourably disposed to
someone or something, supportive, with positive relations’ filled in a semantic
gap. The remaining affixes were synonymous with native morphemes, e.g. anty: przeciw-, post- : po-, sub- : pod-, a(n)-, anty-, de(z)-, dys-, ir- : nie-, a(n)- : bez-,
arcy-, hiper-, ultra-, super-, ekstra- : naj-, prze-, ekstra- : poza-, inter- : pomiędzy-,
pre-, proto- : przed-, sub- : pod-, trans- : przez, de- : od- etc. It is also worth
pinpointing the synonymous relations between foreign prefixes themselves, e.g.
super- : ekstra- : hiper-, anty- : a-47.
While there are various prefixes expressing the same or similar meanings, in
the material discussed above, synonymous derivatives created from the same
bases by means of different prefixes tend to be rare. A case in point is the pair of
a derivative with a foreign prefix and a derivative with a native prefix, e.g.
akatolicki – niekatolicki, antymoralny – niemoralny, antycykliczny – niecykliczny, dysharmoniczny – nieharmoniczny, arcydoskonały – najdoskonalszy and the
pair of a derivative with a foreign prefix and another derivative with a foreign
prefix, e.g. hipersoniczny – supersoniczny, ultraeliptyczny – hipereliptyczny,
ultralojalny – arcylojalny, ultramadziarski – arcymadziarski.
In the Polish language, prefixes of foreign origin may also be antonymous,
e.g. pro- : anty-48 or pre- : post-.
Typically, foreign affixes are regarded as susceptible to combinations with
genetically foreign bases49. This tendency is confirmed by certain prefixes which
combine exclusively with foreign bases, e.g. ir- and a large group of adjectival
derivatives with foreign prefixes from adopted bases, cf. interlinearny –
międzywierszowy, hiperfizyczny – nadzmysłowy, postglacjalny – polodowcowy,
subarktyczny – podbiegunowy. It is worth noting, however, that the longer the
tradition of a foreign prefix in the Polish language (i.e. the sooner it became independent) the easier it creates formations with native Polish bases, e.g. arcy-,
a(n)-, anty-. What is more, there is a large number of derivatives with foreign
prefixes formed on native bases which express intensity and negation (as many
as 6 foreign prefixes may indicate negation, 5 may indicate intensity; cf. Tab These prefixes typically are of Greek or Latin origin although their word-forming activity
in Polish may be sometimes supported by influences of other foreign languages. This situation
takes place with reference to the prefix super- whose popularity in more modern Polish is attributed to the influence of English.
47
See K. Waszakowa, Przejawy internacjonalizacji w słowotwórstwie…, op. cit., p. 72.
48
See J.D. Apresjan, op. cit., p. 273; K. Kleszczowa, Relacja antonimii w polskim słowotwórstwie..., op. cit., p. 182.
49
Cf. K. Kleszczowa, Rola pożyczek w przekształcaniu polskiego systemu słowotwórczego,
op. cit., p. 204.
46
14
Rafał Zarębski
le 1). These notion-related categories have proved very susceptible to adopting
foreign morphemes even if the Polish language offered native words assuming
analogical functions. Table 1 shows the group of foreign prefixes which appeared
at different stages of development of the Polish language and the meaning communicated by these affixes. The affix a(n)- tends to be semantically the most
multi-functional, carrying as many as three types of meaning. Prefixes communicating two (sometimes rather divergent) meanings include anty-, de(z)-, dys-,
ekstra-, inter-, para-, sub-. The remaining prefixes indicate a single meaning.
While they may be defined as more grammaticalized50 in the future they may assume new meanings. Another aspect worth mentioning is the fact that (as is the
case with native Polish affixes), foreign prefixes may become less productive
than they were earlier, as they are forced out by other morphemes, e.g. cf. arcy-,
or some of their meanings disappear, e.g. attribute impairment in the case of the
prefix sub-.
As has been mentioned before, negation (6 morphemes) and intensity
(5 morphemes) may be expressed by means of the biggest number of foreign
morphemes; prefixes communicating intensity of an attribute are predominantly
mono-functional (except for ekstra-) while negating prefixes may also refer to
other meanings (e.g. lack of something, objection, indifference, similarity). Somewhat blurred, out of focus limits, characteristic of the meaning of negation,
may be an interesting issue to observe from the point of view of the centre and
peripheries51.
Table 1. Meanings indicated by foreign prefixes
1.
2a. 2b. 2c. 3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 4a. 4b.
5.
a(n)-
+
anty-
+
arcy-
6.
7.
8.
+
+
9.
10. 11.
+
+
de(z)-
+
dys-
+
eks-
+
ekstra-
+
+
+
+
See K. Kleszczowa, M. Pastuchowa, Procesy gramatykalizacji w słowotwórstwie, op. cit.
Following a review of morphological means (native and foreign alike) which are capable
of expressing negation in the history of the Polish language, Kleszczowa concluded that “the relation of opposition is not morphologized; the antonymous nature continues to a relation of more
lexical than word-forming character” (cf. K. Kleszczowa, Relacja antonimii w polskim słowotwórstwie..., op. cit., p. 183).
50
51
15
Semantics of adjectives with foreign prefixes: a historical and linguistic perspective
1.
2a. 2b. 2c. 3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 4a. 4b.
hiper-
5.
+
8.
9.
10. 11.
+
ir-
+
para-
+
post-
+
+
pre-
proto-
7.
+
inter-
pro-
6.
+
+
+
re-
+
sub-
+
supertransultra-
+
+
+
The numbers indicate the following meanings: 1. ‛a favouring relation’, 2a. temporal ‘before’, 2b. temporal
‘between’, 2c. temporal ‘after’, 3a. locative ‘between’, 3b. locative ‘by’, 3c. locative ‘under’, 3d. locative
‘outside’, 4a. gradational – feature intensification, 4b. gradational – feature weakening , 5. negative ‘no’,
6. ‘against’, 7. ‘non-existence’, 8. ‘indifference’, 9. ‘originating from’, 10. ‘repetition, doing again’,
11. ‘similar to, reminiscent of’.
A large part of this discourse touches upon word formation and vocabularyrelated synonimity. It has been stated that foreign prefixes repeat meanings that
have been communicated by native Polish morphemes for a long time and that
perhaps the word formation system’s openness to these foreign elements is an
inherent feature of language52. It is worth emphasizing, however, that so-called
absolute synonyms do not occur in language53 and therefore the reason why
foreign elements are so easily absorbed should be explained by more than just
a tendency to extend the number of morphological means (tendency to complete
a system). The issue of coexistence of native and foreign words could be viewed
as a sort of competition within specific notion-related categories54. However, it
Cf. K. Kleszczowa, Bogactwo staropolskiej synonimii, [in:] Dzieło literackie i książka
w kulturze. Studia i szkice ofiarowane Profesor Renardzie Ocieczkowej w czterdziestolecie pracy
naukowej i dydaktycznej, ed. I. Opacki and B. Mazurkowa, Katowice 2002, pp. 279–287.
53
See A. Nagórko, Wstęp, [in:] A. Nagórko, M. Łaziński, H. Burkhardt, Dystynktywny słownik
synonimów, Kraków 2004, p. 8.
54
See K. Kleszczowa, Udział słowotwórstwa w kształtowaniu kategorii pojęciowych, [in:]
Zielonogórskie seminaria polonistyczne, ed. S. Borawski and J. Brzeziński, Zielona Góra 2001,
pp. 207–213.
52
16
Rafał Zarębski
seems that native and foreign formations coexist, supplement each other and are
part of another type of nomination rather than competing (cf. the few synonyms
formed from identical bases, e.g. niewykonalny – awykonalny).
While foreign prefixes extend the group of affixes, stimulate the growth of
prefixation in adjectives and nouns, first and foremost they communicate a different meaning55 than the native ones56, sometimes more subtle, and sometimes
richer, more capacious, e.g. the affix a(n)- which can express negation and absence at the same time, while the Polish affix nie- refers only to negation and the
affix bez- refers only to absence. Communication of these semantic overtones
serves as a supplement of semantic gaps. What is more, absorbing foreign morphemes has other repercussions on different levels of language. In morphology,
there is a preference for combining with genetically foreign bases (at least at the
preliminary stage of activity) while on the level of style, there is a trend to create
a specialist erudite vernacular which evokes a scientific and official language57.
In my opinion, these factors may provide an answer to the question posed at the
beginning of this article, namely why language resorts to foreign (adjectival)
prefixes.
Abbreviations:
GWJP – Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego. Morfologia, ed. R. Grzegorczykowa, R. Laskowski and H. Wróbel, Warszawa 1998.
L – S.B. Linde, Słownik języka polskiego, Warszawa 1807–1814.
SDor – Słownik języka polskiego, ed. W. Doroszewski, Vol. 1–11, Warszawa
1958–1969.
SŁP – Słownik łacińsko-polski, ed. M. Plezia, Vol. 1–5, Warszawa 1959–1979.
Sstp – Słownik staropolski, ed. S. Urbańczyk, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków 1953–
2002.
SW – Słownik języka polskiego, ed. J. Karłowicz, A. Kryński, W. Niedźwiedzki, Warszawa
1900–1927.
SWil – Słownik języka polskiego, ed. A. Zdanowicz, Wilno 1861.
SXVI – Słownik polszczyzny XVI wieku, ed. M.R. Mayenowa, Wrocław–Warszawa–
Kraków 1966–2001.
55
Jurij Apresjan has largely covered meaning-related hues. The author noted that this notion
did not have a clear-cut definition and analysed various linguistic situations described by means of
this term. Jurij Apresjan says: “In a majority of cases, meaning hues are referred to similar meanings which do not overlap (bold type by R.Z.) irrespective of the fact of whether different meanings of a single word are compared or a single meaning of several words, quasi-synonyms”
(J.D. Apresjan, op. cit., p. 229).
56
Cf. M. Szymczak, O nowym typie prefiksacji rzeczowników i przymiotników…, op. cit.,
p. 204.
57
Cf. K. Waszakowa, Udział obcych środków słowotwórczych w odmianach współczesnej
polszczyzny ogólnej, „Przegląd Humanistyczny” 1989, 2, pp. 109–119.
Semantics of adjectives with foreign prefixes: a historical and linguistic perspective
17
SXVII/XVIII – Słownik języka polskiego XVII i 1. połowy XVIII wieku, ed. K. Siekierska, Vol. 1, Kraków 2001, http://xvii-wiek.ijp-pan.krakow.pl/pan_klient/index.
php?wstep_zakl=biogr.
Szym – Słownik języka polskiego, ed. M. Szymczak, Vol. 1–3, Warszawa 1994.
Translation provided as part of the “Index Plus 2012” programme
Translated by: Ewa Dratwa
Proof-reading by: Graham Crawford
18
Rafał Zarębski