Koerner Et Al - 2001 Towards A History of Linguistics in Poland From The Early Beginnings To The End of The Twentieth Century

TOWARDS A HISTORY OF LINGUISTICS
IN POLAND
AMSTERDAM STUDIES IN THE THEORY AND
HISTORY OF LINGUISTIC SCIENCE
General Editor
E.F. KONRAD KOERNER
(University of Ottawa)
Series III - STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF THE LANGUAGE SCIENCES
Advisory Editorial Board
Cristina Altman (Saõ Paulo); Ranko Bugarski (Belgrade)

Lia Formigari (Rome); John E. Joseph (Edinburgh)
Hans-Josef Niederehe (Trier); Emilio Ridruejo (Valladolid)
Rosane Rocher (Philadelphia); Vivian Salmon (London)
Kees Versteegh (Nijmegen)
Volume 102
Edited by Konrad Koerner and Aleksander Szwedek
Towards a History of Linguistics in Poland

From the early beginnings to the end of the twentieth century
TOWARDS A HISTORY OF
LINGUISTICS IN POLAND
FROM THE EARLY BEGINNINGS TO THE END
OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
EDITED BY
E.F.K. KOERNER
University of Ottawa
ALEKSANDER SZWEDEK
Nicholas Copernicus University, Torun
JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY

AMSTERDAM/PHILADELPHIA
To the memory of
Mikolaj Kruszewski
on the occasion of the
150th anniversary
of his birth on
 December 1851
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American
National Standard for Information Sciences — Permanence of Paper for Printed
Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.
CIP-data for this book is available from the Library of Congress
ISBN 90 272 4591 6 (Eur.) / 1 58811 177 6 (US) (Hb; alk. paper)
© 2001 - John Benjamins B.V.

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other
means, without written permission from the publisher.
John Benjamins Publishing Co. • P.O.Box 63224 • 1020 ME Amsterdam • The Netherlands
John Benjamins North America • P.O.Box 27519 • Philadelphia PA 19118-0519 • USA
FOREWORD & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
On the occasion of a visit to Torun in April 1993 by the first editor, the
idea was broached to consider undertaking a special (double) issue of Histo-
riographie Linguistica devoted to the History of Linguistics in Poland. As the
record shows, it took several years to eventually realize such a project. At the
time it appeared to us that there was little interest in the history of linguistics
in Poland. Since the Fall of the Berlin Wall people were interested in more
'useful' activities (cf. this volume, pp. 117-118, as an example), and the his
tory of such a subject as the study of language was, understandably, at the
bottom of priorities. Still, we remained undaunted, persevered against many
odds, 1 and the result of our joint efforts was, we believe, quite respectable
(see HL 25:1/2 [1998]). On 220 printed pages we had managed to bring
together articles dealing with the history, development, and present state of
such subjects as lexicography, dialectology, onomastics, historical-compara
tive linguistics, and the philosophy of language, including logic. As well,
there were articles devoted to three of the most distinguished Polish linguists:
Jan Baudouin de Courtenay, Mikolaj Kruszewski, and Jerzy Kurylowicz.
However, we felt that one major subject, albeit discussed in some detail
in conjunction with the work of Baudouin and Kruszewski, had been missing,
and so we invited Zdzislaw Wasik to write a survey article on the history of
general linguistics in Poland which was duly published in Historiographia
Linguistica 26.149-198 (1999), and which added treatments of the work of
Jan Rozwadowski (1867-1935), Wiktor Porzezinski (1870-1929), Stanislaw
Szober (1879-1939), Andrzej Gawronski (1885-1927), Witold Doroszewski
(1899-1976), Tadeusz Milewski (1906-1966), and others, including linguists
whose work had been the subject of the previously mentioned articles.
Soon after publication of the special HL issue, the editors, realizing that
their efforts had been well received by the scholarly community, conceived of
the idea not to have those scholarly papers remain buried in a specialist
journal but to retake and rework the bulk of these articles, invite Professors
Franciszek Grucza of Warsaw and Jerzy Bañczerowski of Poznan to con
tribute studies from their fields of expertise, Applied Linguistics and Theo
retical Linguistics, respectively. Bañczerowski, in particular, provided in-
1
Some of these technical and other difficulties were recorded in the "Chief Editor's Fore
word" in HL 25:l/2.iii-iv (1998), and need not be reiterated here.
vi EDITORS' FOREWORD
depth analyses of the scientific contributions of two further Polish scholars of

distinction, Mikołaj Rudnicki (1881-1978) and Ludwik Zabrocki (1907-
1977). Finally, we decided to replace the short evaluations of the work by
Kurylowicz (1895-1878) in the areas of Theoretical and Indo-European Lin
guistics written by three separate authors (see HL 25.141-162) by a single
account produced by Professor Wojciech Smoczyhski of Krakow.
As in the original project, there was considerable work left for the editors,
not all of which could be related here. It involved, again, translations into
English, revisions of texts written in English, ensuring that they conformed to
our expectations, both in content and form.
In a number of instances, we received help from translators Dr Ariadna
Strugielska (Drozdowicz), Dr Waldemar Skrzypczak, Mr Tomasz Fojt and
Mr Przemyslaw Zywiczyński, all from the English Department in Toruh, and
Dr Danuta Kierzkowska from the Warsaw Institute of Applied Linguistics.
Consultations with Prof. Barbara Kielar from the aforementioned Warsaw
Institute and Prof. Stefan Grzybowski of the Toruh Institute of Slavic Lan
guages contributed to the quality of the final texts. Their names may not al
ways appear at the bottom of the first page of each chapter that has been
translated, but they all deserve a public "Thank you!" here. One person in
particular deserves special mention as his name does not always appear
where it rightfully should: John Kearns, Lecturer in Toruh University's En
glish Department, who not only meticulously proofread several of the trans
lations before they were sent on to Ottawa for the production of camera-ready
copy, but very substantially contributed to the style and consistency of many
texts. His professionalism and generosity have been truly exemplary.
We would also like to thank all those who helped us with all kinds of bio-
and bibliographical data. Apart from various kind librarians, the following
showed particularengagement:Prof. Teresa Dobrzyńiska and Prof. Ewa Wol-
nicz-Pawłowska of Warsaw, Prof. Kazimierz Polahski of Krakow, and Dr
Wladyslaw Zabrocki of Poznań.
Thanks are also due to a number of institutions for their kind help, includ
ing permission to reissue materials copyrighted by them: to the personnel de
partments of various universities for providing dates of individuals; to the
publishers of Adam Mickiewicz University of Poznah and the Jagiellonian
University of Krakow for permission to reprint papers; to Ksiaznica Miejska
in Toruh for the picture of Samuel Linde's monument, and the University Li
brary in Toruh for the reproduction of the title-page of his famous dictionary.
Konrad Koerner Aleksander Szwedek

Hull, Quebec August 2001 Bydgoszcz
CONTENTS
Foreword & Acknowledgements v
Editors' Introduction ix
PART I: Polish Linguistics: Origins and Trends
CHAPTER 1
General Linguistics in the History of the Language Sciences in Poland:
Late 1860s - late 1960s (Zdzisław Wasik) 3
CHAPTER 2
Origins and Development of Applied Linguistics in Poland
(Franciszek Grucza) 53
CHAPTER 3
Lexicography in Poland: From the early beginnings to the present
(Tadeusz Piotrowski) 101
CHAPTER 4
Dialectology in Poland, 1873-1997 (Stanislaw Gogolewski) 123
CHAPTER 5
Onomastics in Poland: From 19th-century beginnings to the present
(Slawomir Gala) 147
PART II: Portraits of Major Polish Linguists

CHAPTER 6
Jan Baudouin de Courtenay's Contribution to General Linguistics
(Arleta Adamska-Salaciak) 175
CHAPTER 7
Mikolaj Kruszewski and 20th-century Linguistics (Fedor M. Berezin) . . 209
CHAPTER 8
Mikolaj Rudnicki's General Linguistic Conceptions (Jerzy Bańcze-
rowski) 232
CHAPTER 9
Jerzy Kuryłowicz as Indo-Europeanist and Theorist of Language
(Wojciech Smoczynski) 255
viii TABLE OF CONTENTS
C H A P T E R 10
Aspects of Ludwik Zabrocki's Linguistic World (Jerzy Bańczerowski) . 273
Polish Summaries (Streszczenia polskie) 313
Index of Authors 319
Index of Subjects 329
LOCATION OF PHOTOGRAPHS AND ILLUSTRATIONS

Photograph of statue of Samuel Bogumił Linde (1771-1841) in Toruń . 107
Title-page of Volume I (1807) of Linde's monolingual Polish dictionary 109
Map 1: Schematic distribution of Polish dialects 133
Map 2: The loss of voicing of v v following voiceless consonants (after
Dejna 1994[1981], Map 10) 152
Picture of the young Baudouin de Courtenay (1845-1929) 177
Photograph of Mikolaj Kruszewski (1851-1887) 211
Title-page of Kruszewski's Uber die Lautabwechslung (Kazan, 1881) . 216
Photograph of Mikolaj Rudnicki (1881-1978) 233
Photograph of Jerzy Kurylowicz (1895-1978) 262
Photograph of Ludwik Zabrocki (1907-1977) 274
Fig.l: The degrees of susceptibility to nasal resonance 292
EDITORS' INTRODUCTION
Looking at previous Polish scholarship devoted to the History of Lin
guistics during the 20th century in general, not to mention the historiography
of linguistic scholarship in Poland specifically, one comes up with a rather
meagre crop. Having left hardly any stone unturned to dig up whatever may
have been written that touches upon or is in fact devoted to the history of lin
guistic work in Poland during the past two or more centuries (see the bibliog
raphy appended to this introduction), we believe it is not unfair to say that
most of it is essentially textbook history written for the general reader in lin
guistics, more often than not addressed to neophytes and, quite typically,
derivative and unoriginal.
Still, it would be unfair not to acknowledge the particular political situa
tions Poland has had to endure in its at times rather tormented history and, on
the other hand, not to take notice of the fact that at least in recent years good
progress has been made in linguistic historiography, if we scan the publica
tions in this area of interest between 1901 (an essay by Baudouin de Courte-
nay, followed by a much larger account in 1909) and 1999 (the volume edited
by Andrzej Srodka, which was conceived as part of an overall stock-taking of
the sciences in Poland). However, if we look at this volume more closely, we
realize that we should have been forewarned that the subject reads "Nauki
filologiczne [Philological sciences]", not linguistics. As a result, the bulk of
the contributions is devoted to literature, not the science of language. It's true
that the chapters on "Classical philology" (by Marian Plezia), "Oriental stu
dies" (by Jan Reychman), "Polish studies in linguistics" (by Irena Bajerowa),
or "Slavistic linguistics" (by Janusz Rieger) are of distinct interest to the
historian of linguistics insofar as they deal with language study, though main
ly Zdzislaw Wasik on "General Linguistics" remains central to the subject of
our present undertaking.
It appears that only the late Adam Heinz's (1914-1984) 518-page Dzieje
językoznawstwa w zarysie [A history of linguistics in outline] of 1978 pro
vided a broad survey of the methodology of linguistic thought and practice
from antiquity to the mid-20th century which would compare to accounts un
dertaken in the West (cf. Koerner 1978 for a 'tour d'horizon' of the scholar
ship between 1822 and 1976). As it is, Heinz's work remained in the conven
tional format; it reminds us, also in the addition of pictures of scholars and
x EDITORS' INTRODUCTION
other illustrations, of Holger Pedersen's popular book (Pedersen 1931),

though it is true that the scope of the Danish Indo-Europeanist's book was
less broad. However, the various scholarly efforts in this direction by others,
notably Stanislaw Urbańczyk (e.g., 1993 and 1994[1978]), should not be
overlooked. But by the 1990s, the situation generally appears to have im
proved from fairly superficial listings of names, works and problems to more
in-depth, truly historiographic studies, for instance when we take note of
Joanna Williams Radwańska's 1993 monograph on Kruszewski and Arleta
Adamska-Sałaciak's study on the historical work of the latter as well as Bau-
douin de Courtenay, and Rozwadowski.
Yet, with all due respect to our colleagues and predecessors, we believe
that the present volume attempts to go a bit farther and start to lay the ground
work for a History of Polish Linguistics still to be written. In 1998, we pub
lished, in a double issue of Historiographia Linguistica a series of articles
covering such fields as dialectology, lexicography, general and — if we take
Jan Safarewicz's piece on Kurylowicz as an Indo-Europeanist (HL 25.147-
152) also into account — historical linguistics, and so we were in a position
to retake a larger number of them here and mould them, together with several
additional articles (by Franciszek Grucza, Jerzy Bańczerowski, and Wojciech
Smoczyhski) plus the survey of general linguistics by Zdzisław Wasik, which
had previously been published in Historiographia Linguistica 26.149-198
(1999) into a fairly coherent volume of altogether ten chapters of almost
equal length.
Given the focus of the present volume on matters related to Linguistics,
both theoretical and applied, we have decided not to reprint Jerzy Pelc's
"Logic of Language and Philosophy of Language in 20th-century Poland"
(which previously appeared in Historiographia Linguistica 25:1/2.163-220
[1998]), although we certainly would want to draw attention to this almost
monograph-length piece of work that has no rival in this area of interest. In
deed, the contribution of Polish logicians to modern language philosophy is
immense, and so at least a summary of this article is offered in the next para
graph.
According to Pelc's study, the logic of language and the philosophy of
language in 20th-century Poland ran in two mainstreams, the so-called Lvov-
Warsaw school and that of phenomenological thought. The former was
dominant, the latter was represented mainly by the work of Roman Ingarden
(1903-1970). Among works of the Lvov-Warsaw school, this essay considers
the most important achievements of its founder, Kazimierz Twardowski
(1866-1938), and the oldest generation of his disciples: Stanislaw Leśniewski
HISTORY OF LINGUISTICS IN POLAND xi
(1886-1939), Tadeusz Kotarbiński (1886-1981), Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz

(1890-1963), and Izydora Dambska (1904-1983), as well as Alfred Tarski
(1902-1983) who, in philosophy, was a disciple of Jan Lukasiewicz (1878—
1956), Lesniewski and Kotarbiński. The paper is limited to the discussion of
the most important of their reflections on natural language, in particular to
what is most characteristic of them: elaborated and deep analyses of semantic
sections connected with epistemological ones, and pragmatic sections con
nected with psychological ones, all presented with great attention to clarity,
precision and comprehensibility of formulations. Major semantic conceptions
of Ingarden were also mentioned: the theory of meaning as a relation between
an intending object and an intentional object, as well as semantic differences
between a name, verb and sentence. (The article also carries photographs of
Twardowski, Lesniewski, Ajdukiewicz, Tarski, and Ingarden.)
The present volume has been organized under two major headings. The first
five chapters deal with historical accounts of the development of the various
linguistic subfields whereas the following five chapters focus on the legacy of
one major linguistic thinker.
Chapter One, authored by Zdzislaw Wasik, 'The Development of General
Linguistics within the History of the Language Sciences in Poland: Late
1860s - late 1960s", is about the longest of them all, covering more or less
exactly the one hundred years between 1868 and 1968. It offers an overview
of the contribution of Polish linguists to the development of general linguis
tics during the period between Baudouin de Courtenay's celebrated doctoral
work on analogy conducted under the guidance of Schleicher at the Univer
sity of Jena and Leon Zawadowski's departure for North America. It ana
lyzes, within an epistemological perspective, the heritage of academic teach
ers of the period who developed their own proposals to the theory of lan
guage against the scientific legacy which characterized European linguistics
of the time. The division into periods of development considers not only his
torical-political circumstances contributing to the formation of linguistic
centers, but also professional turning points in the careers of individual lin
guists illustrated by the nature and dates of particular publications as well as
at times by changes in university appointments.
Chapter Two, drafted by Franciszek Grucza, "Origins and Development
of Applied Linguistics in Poland", argues that, although applied aspects of
language science have been pursued for many centuries, the history of any
conscious separation of applied linguistics from supposedly pure linguistics
and its objects is barely two hundred years old. This division was first intro
duced by a German scholar August Friedrich Bernhardi (1769-1820) in 1801,
xii EDITORS' INTRODUCTION
and made much later again by the Pole Baudouin de Courtenay (1870). In the
second half of the 20th century Applied Linguistics has become a rather
complex — and important — part of the language sciences. First, it divided
into such subdisciplines as glottodidactics, translation studies, and contrastive
analyses of various kinds; secondly, within each of these research dimensions
there have developed basic (pure) and applied strands. The chapter presents
the main developments in Poland in many of those areas.
Chapter Three, written by Tadeusz Piotrowski, "Lexicography in Poland:
From the early beginnings to the present", sketches the history of research in
Polish lexicography and of the most important dictionaries of Polish from the
beginnings in the late Middle Ages until the end of the 20th century. Its focus
is on monolingual dictionaries, while bi- and multilingual publications are
touched upon only insofar as they constitute significant contributions to the
development of monolingual dictionaries. This chapter stresses the continuity
of some solutions which relate above all to what may be called the opposition
between prescriptivism and liberalism. Individual dictionaries are discussed
against a wide cultural background, and the evolution of lexicographic meth
ods and techniques is treated at some length as well. Ample space has been
given to the discussion of the situation after 1990, the year when Poland re
gained its full sovereignty, and when dictionary publishers, like other en
trepreneurs, endeavoured to adjust to new market conditions.
Chapter Four, by Stanisław Gogolewski, "Dialectology in Poland, 1873—
1997", is devoted to the development of dialectology in Poland. Its author
sees the first stage of development dialect geography in connection with what
he terms 'the neogrammarian trend', but which in fact goes back to work of
the teachers of the Junggrammatiker, specifically August Schleicher (1821—
1868). In 1873, Lucjan Malinowski (1839-1898), a student of Schleicher,
published in Leipzig the first scientific description of a Polish dialect. In turn,
his student, Kazimierz Nitsch (1874-1958), included in his research the en
tire territory of the Polish language, and in 1915 published the first synthesis
Dialekty języka polskiego [Dialects of the Polish language]. In the inter-war
period and later, there appeared a number of descriptions of dialects of indi
vidual villages and larger regions. A new, synthesizing discussion of the sub
ject, in Karol Dejna's (b.1911) Dialekty polskie [Polish dialects], was pub
lished in 1973. Geolinguistic atlases of particular dialects were produced, as
well as Mały atlas gwar polskich (Little atlas of Polish dialects) comprising
the whole country. A number of dialectal dictionaries were issued; work on
the voluminous Slownik gwar polskich [A dictionary of Polish dialects] is in
progress. Gogolewski concludes his account by stating that a new area of re-
HISTORY OF LINGUISTICS IN POLAND xiii
search is developing: historical dialectology, concerned with the issues of the

participation of particular dialects in the formation of literary Polish.
Chapter Five, penned by Slawomir Gala, "Onomastics in Poland: From
19th-century beginnings to the present", deals with the particular area of lin
guistic investigation called onomastics "the study of names". It discusses its
scope of research, methodology, and relation to other branches of linguistics,
such as language history, dialectology, as well as other fields outside of lin
guistics such as history. The central part of the chapter presents particular
periods of onomastic research. A systematic development of the discipline is
shown through a discussion of the relevant literature and mention of the most
important scientific organizations and institutions. According to the author,
the essence of the qualitative development of Polish onomastics consists in
undertaking ever new problems which attest to the broadening of the scope of
research to include new classes of speech signs recognized as nomina pro
pria. Gala also regards it as essential to grapple with theoretical issues, such
as defining the place and function of proper names within the system of lan
guage.
The second part of the volume is devoted to the life and work of arguably the
most prominent Polish linguists of the 19th and 20th centuries, but the work
of others, some may say of equal importance, is treated in various places in
the present book as well, notably in Chapter One, We are thinking of person
ages like Jan Rozwadowski, Witold Doroszewski, Adam Heinz, Tadeusz
Milewski, and others.
Chapter Six, written by Arleta Adamska-Salaciak, "Jan Baudouin de
Courtenay's Contribution to General Linguistics", is devoted to the 60-year
career of the internationally best known Polish scholar who spanned the last
third of the 19th and almost the entire first third of the 20th century. The ex
tent of Jan Baudouin de Courtenay's (1845-1929) contribution to general
linguistic theory, she argues, is still hard to assess. He never wrote a major
synthetic work, nor has the bulk of his production ever been translated into
English. Thanks primarily to Roman Jakobson (1896-1982), at least his for
mative influence on modern phonology is generally acknowledged. Fewer
linguists, the author holds, are aware of the relevance of Baudouin's teach
ings devoted to the study of language change. His conceptualisation of the
nature of change, its causes and goals, and the role played in it by the
language system, all seem of more than merely historical interest to the
theoretically-minded diachronic linguist.
Chapter Seven, "Mikolaj Rruszewski and 20th-century Linguistics", has
been authored by the only non-Polish contributor and the most distinguished
xiv EDITORS' INTRODUCTION
Russian historian of linguistics during the last third of the 20th century, Fedor
M. Berezin of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow. The chapter
deals with important issues in general linguistic theory discussed by Mikołaj
Habdank Kruszewski (1851-1887), who, in the author's view, is an unjustly
forgotten linguist of genius of the late 19th century. Berezin argues that
Kruszewski could be seen as standing at the roots of the 20th-century struc
turalism, long before the appearance of Ferdinand de Saussure's lectures on
general linguistics. In his major book Ocerk nauki o jazyke [An outline of the
science of language] of 1883, l Kruszewski conceived of language as a system
of signs, laying stress on the semiotic function of language. His under
standing of sound alternation is in many ways close to modern principles of
phonology and morphonology. His hypothesis of the universal character of
the sound laws too, Berezin holds, anticipated the discovery of language uni
versals in the 20th century. As a result, the author agrees with Radwanska
Williams' (1993) characterization of Kruszewski's theory as 'a lost para
digm' in the history of linguistics. Well-known linguists of the 20th century
such as Jakobson, Kuryiowicz, and others rightly have argued that Kruszew
ski was one of the founders of modern linguistic theory.
In Chapter Eight, by Jerzy Banczerowski, "Mikołaj Rudnicki's General
Linguistic Conceptions", the author interprets Rudnicki's (1881-1978) views
in terms of current linguistic knowledge, without necessarily being presentist.
Language, in Rudnicki's view, is a form of consciousness, understood as lan
guage knowledge — essentially a form of cognition. This language con
sciousness is a consciousness of a given language community which is re
flected in the language consciousness of the individual. Fundamental in such
a conception are reproduced and reproductive images. The reproduced im
ages are individual, concrete language objects in articulatory and acoustic
forms. The reproductive images are the entities which exist within language
consciousness. Language performance is a set of countless acts of language
reproduction characterized by a certain psycho-physiological parallelism — a
chain of images makes its way through the consciousness, and correspond
ingly there is a chain of movements of the speech organs. Language is sus
ceptible to historical change comprehended as a mutability of the language
consciousness. Rudnicki formulated a series of general laws of such phenom
ena as assimilation, dissimilation, metathesis, and palatalization which are
merely various manifestations of the identification-differentiation forces op-
1
Cf. Koerner (1995), which contains the first English translation of Kruszewski's major
work, which until then had only been available in German (and barely accessible, one may
add).
HISTORY OF LINGUISTICS IN POLAND xv
erating as causa movens in the space of language images. Rudnicki devel

oped two types of structural phonetics: articulatory and auditory, as well as a
theory of diacrisis and phonology in quite an advanced form.
Chapter Nine, by Wojciech Smoczyński, "Jerzy Kurylowicz as Indo-Eu-
ropeanist and Theorist of Language", affirms, quite rightly we believe, that
Kurylowicz (1895-1978) was one of the greatest Polish linguists ever. A
polyglot (speaking English, German, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese,
Russian, Arabic, Persian, and a few other languages), he was primarily inter
ested in language structure and its mechanisms. Having studied with re
nowned linguists in Paris early in the 20th century, notably with Antoine
Meillet (1866-1936), by also with Joseph Vendryes (1875-1960), Marcel
Cohen (1884-1974), among others, he worked out his own methodology and
theories. His main achievements were in Indo-European and the theory of
language, and, moreover, in all areas of language structure — phonology,
morphology, and syntax. One of his major work according to Smoczyński,
Etudes indo-européennes of 1935, once described by a contemporary as 'a
theoretical outline of the structural basis of Indo-European grammar', con
tains in nuce his main ideas about language and linguistics. Still, it is true that
his theory of laryngeals brought him the most enduring recognition and last
ing fame.
Finally, in the concluding Chapter Ten, "Aspects of Ludwik Zabrocki's
Linguistic World", Jerzy Bańczerowski tries to give full justice to Zabrocki's
(1907-1977) wide scholarly interests which included general linguistics,
comparative (historical, typological, contrastive, confrontative) linguistics,
psycho- and sociolinguistics, cybernetic linguistics, Indo-European linguis
tics, and applied linguistics (glottodidactics). His original contributions were
in linguistic codematics, synchronic and diachronic structural phonetics, di-
acritology, communicative and language communities, aspects of language
comparison, cybernetic systems of language communication. The concept of
code allowed Zabrocki to capture the dynamic aspect of language and lan
guage communication. He viewed sound processes as purely phonetic (uni
versal) or initiated and controlled by a particular phonological system. It de
serves to be pointed out that Zabrocki was the first to work out a comprehen
sive theory of communicative and language communities. As Bańczerowski
puts it, a language community is a communicative community, which makes
use of a fairly uniform means of communication, that is, a shared, common
language. Hence, each language community is a communicative community,
but not conversely. Cybernetics was defined by Zabrocki as the science of
abstract optimal information systems. In linguistics his work is still relevant
xvi EDITORS' INTRODUCTION
to general linguistics, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, and indeed to glot-

todidactics and language teaching methodology as well.
It remains true that the present volume constitutes little else than a dedicated
attempt at a stock-taking of Polish scholarship in various areas of linguistic
science as well as of the contribution of Poland to world linguistics. The em
phasis of our endeavours has been on accounting for the development of
these subfields and the theoretical advances made over the past two hundred
and more years rather than on explaining them within their respective histori
cal, political, and intellectual settings. However, at least for the moment we
will be satisfied if we have succeeded in reaching what has since Noam
Chomsky's work of the 1960s (actually building on ideas developed by Louis
Hjelmslev during the 1940s) been called the level of 'descriptive adequacy'.
It would then be the next step to develop the kind of methodological and
epistemological bases for a true historiography of the sciences of language in
Poland, and this we could call the stage of 'explanatory adequacy', a level
which even within linguistics tout court has thus far not yet been reached to
everyone's satisfaction.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adamska-Salaciak, Arleta. 1996. Language Change in the Works of Kruszewski,
Baudouin de Courtenay and Rozwadowski. Poznań: Motivex.
Bajerowa, Irena. 1987. "J^zykoznawstwo polonistyczne [Studies in Polish linguis
tics]". Historia nauki polskiej [A history of Polish science] ed. by Bogdan Sucho-
dolski, vol.IV: 1883-1918, part III, 802-819. Wroclaw-Warszawa, [etc.]: Zaklad
Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich. [See also Srodka 1999:203-228.]
Basaj, Mieczyslaw & Stanislaw Urbańczyk, eds. 1989. Slowianoznawstwo w okresie
międzywojennym (1918-1939). Częsc I [Slavic studies in the interwar period
(1918-1939). Part I]. Wroclaw: Zaklad imienia Ossoliiiskich (Komitet Slowia-
noznawstwa PAN), 223 pp.
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1901. "Językoznawstwo czyli lingwistyka w wieku
XIX [Linguistic trends in 19th-century science of language]". Prawda No.l
(Warsaw, January 1901), (Expanded version in Baudouin, Szkice językoznawcze
[Linguistic sketches], 1-23. Warsaw: Piotr Laskauer, 1904. — A slightly shortened
English transl., entitled "Linguistics of the Nineteenth Century", appeared in A
Baudouin de Courtenay Anthology ed. by Edward Stankiewicz, 237-254. Bloom-
ington & London: Indiana University Press, 1972.)
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1909. "Zarys historii językoznawstwa czyli lingwistyki
(glottologi) [On outline of history of the science of language, that is linguistics
(glottology)]". Poradnik dla samouków wskazówki metodyczne dla studjujqcych
poszczegolne nauki [A guide for self-instructions ...], Series III, vol.11, fasc.2.35-
HISTORY OF LINGUISTICS IN POLAND xvii
302. Warszawa: A. Heflich & S. Michalski. [Also published separately as a text

book.]
Fisiak, Jacek. 1972. Wklad Polski do językoznawswa światowego [The Polish con
tribution to world linguistics]. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniw. im. Adama
Mickiewicza. [Inaugural lecture.]
Handel, Jakob. 1935. Dzieje językoznawstwa [The evolution of linguistics]. Lwów:
Nakladem Filomaty, Lwow Universytet, xxvi, 266 pp. [See Koerner 1978:95, for a
brief summary.]
Handtke, Kwiryna & Ewa Rzetelska-Feleszko. 1977. Przewodnik po językoznawst-
wie polskim [A guide to Polish linguistics]. Wroclaw-Warszawa, [etc.]: Zaklad
Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich.
Heinz, Adam. 1966. "Językoznawstwo ogolne i indoeuropejskie w 20-leciu PRL
[General and Indo-European linguistics in the 20 years of the Polish People's
Republic]". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 24.17-33.
Heinz, Adam. 1978. Dzieje językoznawstwa w zarysie [A history of linguistics in
outline]. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 518 pp., illustr., por
traits.
Heinz, Adam. 1979. Historia językoznawstwa [History of Linguistics]. Wroclaw:
Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich, 91 pp.
Heinz, Adam, Jan Safarewicz, Franciszek Sławski & Stanislaw Urbańczyk. 1970.
""Aktualny stan polskiego językoznawstwa (ogolnego, indoeuropejskiego, slawis-
tyki i polonistyki) w 25-leciu PRL i postulaty dotycz^ce jego dlaszego rozwoju
[The current state of Polish linguistics (general, Indo-European, Slavic, Polish) in
the 25 years of the Polish People's Republic and postulates concerning its further
development]". Sprawozdania z prac naukowych wydzialu I PAN [Reports on
works of the first department of PAN] 3/4 (58/59).69-135. Warszawa: Państwowe
Wydawnictwo Naukowe. [Heinz's paper, "Dorobek językoznawstw ogolnego w
ostatnim 25-leciu [Output of general linguistics in the last 25 years]", takes up
pp.69-94.]
Klemensiewicz, Zenon. 1955. "Dorobek językoznawstwa polonistycznego wdzie-
siecioleciu Polski Ludowej [Achievements of linguistics in Polish language studies
in the decade of the People's Poland]". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Ję-zy-
koznawczego 14.35-72.
Klemensiewicz, Zenon. 1966. "Polonistyczne językoznawstwo ostatniego dwudzies-
tolecia [Polish language studies in the last two decades]". Biuletyn Polskiego
Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 24.41-58.
Koerner, E. F. K. 1978. Western Histories of Linguistics, 1822-1976: An annotated,
chronological bibliography. (= Studies in the History of Linguistics, 11.) Amster
dam: John Benjamins, ix, 113 pp.
Koerner, [E. F.] Konrad, ed. 1995. Mikolaj Kruszewski, Writings in General Lin
guistics: On Vocalic Alternations; An Outline of Linguistic Science. (= Amsterdam
Classics in Linguistics, 1800-1925, 11.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Ben
jamins, 1995, xxxix, 188 pp.; 1 portr., illustr. ["Editor's Introduction" (xi-xxxix).]
Kryński, Adam Antoni. 1911. Szkic językoznawstwa polskiego odpoczqtku w. XIX
[Sketch of Polish linguistics until the end of the 19th century]. Krakow: Drukarnia
xviii EDITORS' INTRODUCTION
Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego, 16 pp. [Lecture given on the occassion of the 250th

anniversary of the founding of Cracow University in 1761.]
Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1955. "J^zykoznawstwo og61ne w dziesięcioleciu 1945-1954
[Gener-al linguistics in the decade 1945-1954]". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa
Językoznawczeg o 14.1-10.
Lewicki, Andrzej Maria. 1993. "Językoznawstwo polskie w XX wieku [Polish lin
guistics in the XXth century]". Wspólczesny ję?zyk polski by Jerzy Bartmiński (=
Encyklopedia kultury polskiej, 2), 589-624. Wroclaw: Wiedza o Kulturze.
Milewski, Tadeusz. 1947. Zaiys językoznawswa ogólnego [Outline of general lin
guistics]. Part I: Teoria językoznawstwa [Linguistic theory]. Preface by Tadeusz
Lehr-Spławinski. Lublin & Krakow: Nałiad i Wydawnictwo Towarzystwa Ludo-
znawczego, viii, 208 pp. [Brief summary in Koerner 1978:96-97.]
Milewski, Tadeusz. 1965. Językoznawstwo. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo
Naukowe, 272 pp. [English translation by Marsha Brochwicz as Introduction to
the Study of Language, The Hague: Mouton; Warsaw: Polish Scientific Publishers,
1973.]
Milewski, Tadeusz. 1966. "Dzialalnosc naukowa Polskiego Towarzystwa Języko-
znawczego w 20-leciu PRL [The scientific activity of the Polish Linguistic Society
on the 20th anniversary of the Polish People's Republic]". Biuletyn Polskiego
Pedersen, Holger. 1931[1924]. Linguistic Science in the Nineteenth Centwy. Transl.
from the Danish by John Webster Spargo. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press. (Repr., with the new title The Discovery of Language, Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 1962.)
Polański, Kazimierz. 1975. "Jezykoznawstwo polskie w powojennym 30-leciu
[Polish linguistics in the 30 year post-war period]". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzyst
wa Językoznawczego 33.15-22.
Porzeziński, Wiktor. 1910[1907]. "Hauptmomente der Geschichte der Sprach-
wissenschaft". Einleitung in die Sprachwissenschaft authorized transl. from the
Russian by Erich Boehme, revised by the author, 8-39. Leipzig & Berlin: B. G.
Teubner. [Brief summary in Koerner 1978:12.]
Porzeziński, Wiktor. 1927. "Die allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft in Polen seit 1868".
Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 1.44-79.
Radwańska Williams, Joanna. 1993. A Paradigm Lost: The linguistic theory of
Mikoł aj Kruszewski. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Rieger, Janusz, Mieczyslaw Szymczak & Stanislaw Urbańczyk, eds. 1989. Jan
Niecislaw Baudouin de Courtenay a lingwistyka swiatowa: Materialy z konferencji
międzynarodowef Warszawa 4-7IX1979 [Jan Niecislaw Baudouin de Courtenay
and world linguistics: Materials from the international conference, Warsaw 4-7 IX
1979]. Wrocław-Warszawa-Krakow-Gdańsk-Lodz: Zaklad Narodowy imienia
Ossolińskich.
Rozwadowski, Jan. 1918. "Udzial Polakow w językoznawstwie [The participation of
Poles in linguistics]. Polska w kulturze powszechnej [Poland in world culture] ed.
by Feliks Konieczny, vol.11, 130-136. Krakow: Ekspozytura Biura Patronatu dla
Spolek Oszczęd. i Pozyczek [Bureau of Auspices for Loan & Saving Companies].
HISTORY OF LINGUISTICS IN POLAND xix
Rudnicki, Mikolaj. 1956. Językoznawstwo polskie w dobie oswiecenia [Polish lin

guistics during the Enlightenment (1741-1839)]. Poznań: Państwowe Wydawnict-
wo Naukowe, 33 pp.
Rudnicki, Mikoiaj. 1971. "J^zykoznawstwo polskie w dobie uzyskiwania niepod-
leglosci [Polish linguistics in the period of regaining independence]". Slavia Occi-
dentalis 28/29.205-221.
Safarewicz, Jan. 1955. "J§zykoznawstwo indoeuropejskie w Polsce w latach 1945-
1954 [Indo-European Linguistics in Poland in the years 1945-1954]". Biuletyn
Polskie go Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 14.11-23.
Safarewicz, Jan. 1982. "Polskie towarzystwa językoznawcze i polskie czasopisma
językoznawcze [Polish linguistic societies and Polish linguistic journals]". Język i
językoznawswo polskie w szescdziesięciolecie niepodleglosci (1918-1978): Mate-
riały konferencji naukowej y Warszawa, 25 pazdziernika 1978 [Language and Pol
ish linguistics on the sixtieth anniversary of independence (1918-1978): Materials
of the scientific conference, Warsaw, 25 October 1978] ed. by Janusz Rieger &
Mieczyslaw Szymczak, 209-212. Wroclaw-Warszawa-Krakow: Zakiad Naro-
dowy imienia Ossolińskich.
Srodka, Andrzej, ed. 1999. Historia nauki polskiej: Wiek XX [A history of Polish
science: The 20th century], vol.Ill: Nauki filologiczne [Philological sciences].
Warszawa: Instytut Historii Nauki, Polska Akademia Nauk.
Szlifersztejnowa, Salomea. 1969. Kategoria strony: Z historii mysli lingwistycznej
[The category of voice: On the history of linguistics]. Wroclaw-Warszawa, [etc.]:
Zakiad Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich, 119 pp. [Brief summary in Koerner 1978:
101.]
Urbańczyk, Stanisław. 1955. Jezykoznawsw polskie 1-szej polowy XIX wieku [Pol
ish linguistics in the first half of the 19th century]. Warszawa: .
Urbańczyk, Stanislaw. 1977. "J^zykoznawstwo [Linguistics]". Historia nauki pol
skie] [A history of Polish science] ed. by Bogdan Suchodolski, vol.111:1795-1862,
762-769. Wroclaw-Warszawa, [etc.]: Zakiad Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich.
LTrbańczyk, Stanislaw, ed. 1978. Encyklopedia wiedzy o języku polskim [Ency
clopedia of the knowledge of the Polish language]. Wroclaw-Warszawa, [etc.]:
Zakiad Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich. (2nd revised and extended edition ap
peared as Encyklopedia języka polskiego [Encyclopedia of the Polish language],
1994.)
Urbańczyk, Stanislaw. 1993. Dwiescie lat polskiego językoznawstwa (1751-1950)
[Two hundred years of Polish linguistics (1751-1950)]. Krakow: Wydawnictwo i
drukarnia "Secesja", 269 pp.
Wcasik, Zdzislaw. 1999. "Językoznawstwo ogolne [General linguistics]". Srodka
1999.37-63.
Weinsberg, Adam. 1983. Językoznawstwo ogolne [General linguistics]. Warszawa:
Paiistwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 291 pp.
Wierzchowski, Jozef. 1993. "On the History of Word Formation Analysis in
Poland". Trends in Semantics I, 74-86. Bialystok: Katedra Językoznawstwa Ogol-
nego i Stosowanego Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego - Filii w Bialymstoku.
Zagorski, Zygmunt. 1973. "Zarys Rozwoju językoznawstwa polskiego w Wiel-
kopolsce (d. r. 1918) [The development of Polish linguistics in Great Poland (until
xx EDITORS' INTRODUCTION
1918)]". Nauka w Wielkopolsce, 473-498. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie.

[Brief summary in Koerner 1978:69.]
Zaleski, Jan. 1975. "50 lat dzialalnosci Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego
[50 years of activities of the Polish Linguistic Association]". Biuletyn Polskiego
Towarzystwa Jçzykoznawczego 33.23-28.
PART I
POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS
CHAPTER 1
GENERAL LINGUISTICS IN THE HISTORY OF THE
LANGUAGE SCIENCES IN POLAND
LATE 1860S - LATE 1960S*
ZDZISŁAW WĄSIK
University of Poznań
0. Introductory remarks
Before reviewing the contribution of Polish philologists to the develop
ment of general linguistics as a scientific discipline practiced in the 19th and
20th century over a one hundred year period of Poland's history, we have to
specify the borderlines between the subject-matter of general linguistics and
that of particular linguistics, making a distinction between 'language as a
theoretical construct' and 'languages as empirical data'. From such a view
point, general linguistics is approached as a discipline which deals with lan
guage as a definitional model formulated in theoretical, i.e., non-observa
tional statements.
Thus, the choice of historiographical materials is limited here to such
works which search for the genus proximum and differentia specifica of lan
guage as a whole, its elements and structures, while separating extrasystemic
facts, belonging to the investigative field of the neighboring disciplines of
linguistics, from the systemic facts of language constituting the investigative
domain of linguistics proper studied in relation to or in the abstraction from
its environment.
1. Landmarks in the Polish panorama of general linguistics

1.1 Attitudes towards comparative linguistics in the period of Romanticism
The theoretical view of language arose in the context of comparative
studies of languages. At the beginning of the 19th century, when the concep
tions of Franz Bopp (1791-1867), Rasmus Kristian Rask (1787-1832), and
Jacob Grimm (1785-1863) were prevailing in Europe, the author of Polish
grammars for national schools, Onufry Kopczyński (1735-1817), still ad
hered to a belief that there must be a universal grammar of human speech
* This chapter first appeared as an article in Historiographia Linguistica 25.149-198 (1999).

4 POLISH LINGUISTICS : ORIGINS AND TRENDS
which reflects the grammars of particular languages of the world (cf. Urbañ-
czyk [1977:762]; for details, see Florczak [1978:147]).
More advanced was Walenty Skorochód-Majewski (1764-1835) as far
the knowledge about the discoveries of the first comparatists is concerned. In
his papers on Sanskrit delivered from 1815, he informed Warszawskie To-
warzystwo Przyjaciól Nauk [Warsaw Society of the Friends of Sciences], on
such subjects as "Badania o pochodzeniu Slowian i ich języku tudziez oby-
czajów i zwyczajów Indostanów ... [The search for the origin of Slavs and
their language as well as the customs and ways of life of Hindustans ...]". He
also organized the first printing-house in Warsaw equipped with Sanskrit
fonts and edited some booklets popularizing the knowledge of Sanskrit in
Polish translations (nota bene distributed free of charge), as, for example,
Gramatyka mowy starozytnych Skuthów czyli skalnych górali [The grammar
of the ancient Scyths or rock mountaineers), published in Warsaw in 1828
and Gramatyka mowy starozytnych Skuthów [...] Sanskrytem, czyli dokladnq
mową zwaney [The grammar of the ancient Scyths ... called Sanskrit, that is
exact speech] of 1833 (for further information see Rudnicki 1956:7). Yet the
ideas of Boppian-style comparative grammar met with resistance in Poland.
Seen as 'a fruit of the Germanic Spirit' which could only bring 'great dam
ages and disasters' to the Polish language, their adoption was considered as 'a
sin against a nationality' (Urbańczyk 1977:767-768).1
1.2 External and internal factors in the formation of Polish linguistic centers
It has been noted (cf. Bajerowa 1987:803) how a breakthrough in the his
tory of Polish linguistics was heralded by the investigations of two Indo-Eu-
ropeanists, Jan Niecislaw Baudouin de Courtenay (1845-1929) and Jan
Michal Rozwadowski (1867-1935), working in two distant academic centres
of Kazan, the provincial town of tsarist Russia on the Volga, and Cracow, the
original site of the Polish kings, then under the control of the Austro-Hungar-
ian Empire.
At the time of Baudouin's studies in the Historical-Philosophical Faculty
of the Warsaw Main School, linguistics with a theoretical pretention was lec
tured from the handbooks of Hipolit Cegielski (1815-1869), O powstaniu
mowy i szczególnych języków (On the origin of speech and particular lan
guages) of 1841, and Jan Poplawski (1819-1885), O początku i rozmaitosci
mowy (On the beginnings and varieties of speech) of 1867. But neither of
1
Here and elsewhere throughout this historical overview quotations from Polish sources
have been translated by the author (Zdzislaw Wąsik) and marked by single rather than double
quotation marks. Editors.
GENERAL LINGUISTICS IN POLAND: LATE 1860S - LATE 1960S 5
them took account of the findings of the new language sciences. Popiawski
was, in the later opinion of Baudouin, even more backward than Cegielski. It
is reported that when 'explaining the origin of speech he sent the listeners and
readers back to paradise with Adam and Eve, and [when] explaining the di
versities of speech — to the Tower of Babel' (Weinsberg 1987:790).
It was not only customary for Poles studying linguistics both at Russian
and Austrian universities to apply for grants to allow them to extend their ed
ucation in Western centers of scholarship, such as in Jena, Prague, Leipzig
and Berlin, but its was also a necessity, since the university chairs of Sanskrit
and comparative grammar of Indo-European were created in Poland as late as
in the 1870s (cf. Williams 1993:30). Paris too, in this respect, with its Lin
guistic Society having since 1866 as a publishing organ the Bulletin de So
ciété Linguistique de Paris at the École Pratique des Hautes Études, was
recognised as an important center of learning.
The history of Polish theoretical thought on language begins in 1868 (ac
cording to Porzeziński 1927:44), the date of publication of Baudouin's study
"Einige Fälle der Wirkung der Analogie in der polnischen Deklination",
edited by August Schleicher (1821-1868) in Jena (cf. also Baudouin 1904)
and recognized later in Leipzig in 1870 as a doctoral dissertation at the insti
gation of August Leskien (1840-1916). Note that in the same year (1868) the
rules of analogy were explicated on German material by the Austrian-born
philologist Wilhelm Scherer (1841-1886), who has been credited, rightly or
wrongly, for being a discoverer of this phenomenon (for details, see Weins-
berg 1987:791).
Linguistic thought developed elsewhere in the world, outside the main
Polish centers of learning, at the end of 1881 and the beginning of 1882 after
Baudouin had presented several philological works from the University of
Kazan, by himself and his student Mikolaj Habdank Kruszewski (1851—
1887), at four consecutive meetings of Société de Linguistique de Paris (cf.
Williams 1993:139). Three of these meetings were attended by no other than
Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913), at that time the assistant secretary of the
Linguistic Society of Paris and in charge of writing the reports of the Soci
ety's bimonthly meetings. It was noted by historiographers that, on preparing
his lectures in Geneva, Saussure mentioned Baudouin de Courtenay and
Kruszewski along with the names of contemporary linguists 'that should be
cited' (Saussure 1954[1908]:66), especially "when discussing cardinal con
tributions to the theory of language", as Roman Jakobson (1896-1982) un
derlined (Jakobson 1971[1960]:420-421).
Professional-organizational possibilities opened up for Polish linguistics

in Cracow, the heart of Polish academic tradition since the late medieval pe
riod, as soon as the Akademia Umiejçtnosci (Academy of Arts and Sciences)
had begun its operation in 1873,2 and which subsequently gave birth to
Komisja Językowa Akademii Umiejçtnosci, i.e., the Commission of Lan
guage of the same Academy in 1874. Its first secretary, until 1898, was
Lucjan Malinowski (1839-1898), who was working in the field of Polish dia
lectology. The importance of the Commission (with Rozwadowski as its
secretary from 1898) increased during the presidency of Baudouin de Cour-
tenay (between 1894 and 1900). After Baudouin left Cracow in 1900, the
responsibilty fell to Rozwadowski who acted as president in subsequent years
between 1908 and 1935. Its next secretary (1908-1935) and its last president
(1935-1952) was Kazimierz Nitsch (1874-1858), a Slavist and Polish dialec-
tologist, pupil of both Malinowski and Baudouin de Courtenay. For over 76
years the proceedings of linguistic meetings were recorded first in Sprawoz-
dania Komisji Językowej Akademii Umiejętności (Minutes of the Commis
sion of Language of the Academy of Arts and Sciences), 1880-1884, then in
Materialy i Prace Komisji Językowej (Materials and Works of the Commis
sion of Language), 1901-1918, and eventually in Prace Komisji Językowej
Polskiej Akademii Umiejçtnosci (Works of the Commission of Language of
the Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences), 1917-1950. After the creation of
the Polska Akademia Nauk (Polish Academy of Sciences) in 1951, which
started its activity in 1952, the earlier series was replaced by Prace Jçzy-
koznawcze Polskiej Akademii Nauk (Linguistic Works of the Polish Akademy
of Sciences) which have been edited by the Komitet Językoznawstwa Pols
kiej Akademii Nauk (Linguistics Committee of the Polish Academy of Sci
ences) from 1954 onwards.
As fat* as the developmental periods in Polish theoretical thought on lan
guage are concerned, one has to concede that their division did not always
depend on historical events. Professional and generational changes too would
have to be considered as contributing to the formation of scientific centers, as
well some upheavals in the scientific curricula of individual linguists marked
by the dates of their publications or their appearance on the international
scene. Thus, the following major time spans may be distinguished in the his
tory of general linguistics in Poland: 1868-1918, 1918-1939 and 1944-1952,
1952-1958, 1958-1979, and from 1979 onwards to the present day.
2
TheAkademia Umiejętności was founded in 1871 and renamed as Polska Akademia Umie
jętności after 1919. (Its official English translation is Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences.)
2. Periods in the development of Polish linguistics

2.1 The first great period of Polish linguistics, 1868-1918
In the this period between, one can distinguish two groups of Polish prac
titioners of language sciences whose works influenced the rise of theoretical
linguistics. To the first belonged scholars coming from the Russian empire:
Baudouin de Courtenay, educated in Warsaw, Jena, and Petersburg, who held
university positions in St. Petersburg (1870-1871), Kazan (1874-1883), Dor-
pat (1883-1893), Cracow (1893-1899), again in St. Petersburg (1900-1914,
1917/1918), and finally in Warsaw (1918-1929); Kruszewski who graduated
from the russified Warsaw University and who held university positions as a
pupil of and later a successor to Baudouin in Kazan (1881-1886); and Jan
Wiktor Porzeziński (1870-1929), Polish by birth but raised in Russia, who
received his education and held university positions in Moscow (docent from
1895, professor from 1902, from 1914 as the successor of the leading Russian
Indo-Europeanist Filipp Fedorovic Fortunatov (1848-1914), and then in War
saw and Lublin (1922-1929).
The second group of scholars of the period consisted of linguists working
in Cracow and Lvov forming, until the end of World War I, important centers
of learning in Galicia, a crown land of the Austro-Hungarian empire: Jan
Rozwadowski associated with the Jagellonian University, first as a student
from 1885, then as professor from 1899 until his death in 1937; Mikolaj
Rudnicki (1881-1978), who had studied and obtained his habilitation (1912)
in Cracow and then became professor at the University of Poznań in 1919
where he worked until his death; and Andrzej Gawroński (1885-1927), edu
cated first in Lvov and then in Cracow where he obtained his habilitation in
1912, who received his first university position at the Jagellonian University
in 1916, and then moved to Lvov becoming professor at Jan Kazimierz Uni
versity (1917-1927).
Within the time interval between 1868 and 1918, one has to highlight the
1871-1887 period in recognition of their anticipation of a structural-systemic
theory of language in the work by the two Polish linguists, Baudouin and
Kruszewski. The importance of their findings may be summarized in four
points:
1) It was initiated by Baudouin's St. Petersburg inaugural lecture
(published in 1871) in which he explained his conception of linguistics in
general and of the study of language change in particular.
2) The period also encompasses the dates of Baudouin's published pro
grams of lectures in the academic years 1875-1876, 1876-1877, and
1877-78, when he served as docent and then professor of Indo-European
in Kazan (see Jakobson 1971 [1960]:397-402, for details).
3) Baudouin 's early works of the time exhibits important traces due to
his co-operation with Kruszewski during 1878-1883 (cf. Williams 1993:
134-142).
4) A caesura was introduced by the date 1887 which ended the Peters
burg-Kazan period of Baudouin's activity, marked by the death of Kru
szewski and the subsequent change of Baudouin's views (cf. the inter
pretations of Jakobson 1971[1960]:417, and by Williams 1993:143-150,
especially p. 142), supposedly under the influence of Kruszewski's obit
uary written by Leonard Kolmaczewski (1850-1889) in 1888 (cf. Bau
douin 1888 and 1888-1889).
During the 1870s and 1880s the Polish scientists in Russia who were
identified with a 'new movement in linguistics' formed in the West by Neo-
grammarians developed their views "concurrently and partly independently
of the West" (Williams 1993:31). Even sharing with Western scientists a
positivistic pursuit for generalizations by collecting and comparing empirical
facts and explaining regularities and laws on the basis of experience, they
formulated some of their statements earlier than Neogrammarians or antici
pated the opinions of their opponents, thus paving the way towards a future
structuralist movement which viewed language as a system of invariant ele
ments.
The merits of Polish linguists, in comparison with the achievements of
German scholars in the theoretical domain of comparative linguistics, were
recognized by historiographers on the strength of the following practices:
1) The admission of a psychologically motivated principle of analogy to
historical comparative studies, aiming at the explanation of phonetic
changes which occur in the actual use of language (Baudouin; cf. Wil
liams 1993:29);
2) the application of empricist associationism generalizing the operation
of analogy across all observable phenomena of human culture (Kru
szewski; cf. Williams 1993:60ff.);
3) the reinforcement of the idea of a uniformitarian evolution (on the
source and history of the term see Christy 1983, cf. Adamska-Salaciak
1996:16-17), which shifted the emphasis from historical studies of docu
mented dead languages to the registration and explanation of changes
found in contemporary (living) variations of a given language or in dif
ferentiations of separate languages (Baudouin and Kruszewski; cf. also
Williams 1993:30);
4) the unification of the perspective of a divergent evolutionism with
that of a convergent diffusionism in order to emphasise that languages
develop not only exclusively by splitting up in new branches, but also by
influencing each other through the dissemination of changes, so that ev
ery language might be recognized as having a mixed character (Bau
douin; cf. Stememann & Gutschmidt 1989:314; Olmsted 1989:31-32);
5) the promotion of a methodological holism postulating an overall view

of language which admits various approaches to its nature (Baudouin; cf.
Adamska-Salaciak 1996:73-74);
6) the arrival at such distinctions as those between a psychological and a
physiological, i.e., acoustic and articulatory (individual language proper
ties), and the psychological vs. the social (collective language as an aver
age of the properties of the speech of individuals) nature of language
(Baudouin; cf. Adamska-Salaciak 1996:67-68);
7) the anticipation of the terminology of a future structuralist movement
by such distinctions and categories as language vs speech (Baudouin);
systems and their parts, forms and their functions, static and dynamic as
pects of speech sounds (Baudouin and Kruszewski); phonemes and mor
phemes (Kruszewski and Baudouin); signs and their significations, a tax
onomy of assimilations into phonetic, morphological, and lexical assimi
lations (Kruszewski); a taxonomy of alternations (Kruszewski following
Baudouin) into divergents (later called variants of a phoneme, i.e., allo-
phones) and correlatives (later called alternation series of speech sounds,
i.e., morpho(pho)nemes), and into sound changes and sound alternations
(cf. German Lautwandel vs Lautwechsel/Lautabwechslung); associations
by contiguity and associations by similarity (Kruszewski), later termed
rapports syntagmatiques and rapports associatifs or syntagmatic and
paradigmatic relations (cf., inter alia , van Schooneveld 1989:11-16; Leš-
ka 1989:17-23; Olmsted 1989:25-34).
Since 1888, as Weinsberg, a Polish linguist and historiographer, notes
(1987:797), we move from a short precursory stage in the history of general
linguistics to a longer receptive period, the achievements of which are to be
measured not by preceding certain developments in international linguistics,
but by keeping pace with its subsequent evolution (on Poland's contribution
to world linguistics, see also Fisiak 1972).
The next three decades between 1888 and 1918, partly extended in the
history of Polish linguistics until 1929, passed mainly under the dominance
of Neogrammarians positions, such as, for example, historicism — stating
that languages as changeable objects should be studied from genetic and
evolutional perspectives; atomism — maintaining that each element in a lan
guage has its separate history; individualism — assuming that the only acces
sible objects are verbal means of communication produced by particular
speakers; empirical mentalism or positivistic psychologism — believing that
verbal means may be observed and memorized, but their meaning exist only
in the mind of their users; and heteronomism — claiming that languages are
user-dependant, and hence, may be studied by disciplines which study hu
mans in their environments (Rozwadowski, Gawroński, and Rudnicki).
10 POLISH LINGUISTICS: ORIGINS AND TRENDS
A separate position in the discussion with theNeogrammarians was held

by Baudouin whose theory of language united both heteronomous and auton
omous, historical and geographical, psychological and sociological aspects.
He approached various forms of existence of language in a monistic way,
confronting, for example, language as a psycho-physical unity with language
as a psycho-social unity, and considering the statics of language as a specific
manifestation of its dynamics (kinematics), or consequently claiming that his
tory is both chronology and development, i.e., based, on the one hand, on a
series of successive substitutions of uniform and/or different phenomena,
and, on the other, on an uninterrupted continuity of their essential transforma
tions (cf. Szober 1959[1930]:412-413; see especially Baudouin's autobiogra
phy of 1896 in Vengerov [1897:18-45], where he characterized himself as a
theoretician of language).
2.2 Linguistic life at Polish universities between the two world wars
The period between 1918 and 1939 was crucial for Polish linguistics from
institutional-professional, social-organizational, and scientific-didactic points
of view. In this period we can point to the following developments 1) the first
Polish Linguistic Society was created; 2) new linguistic chairs headed by
scholars with recognizable names were founded, others restored; and 3) Pol
ish linguists, now members of learned societies, investigated (and resolved)
problems in their fields and presented their findings at international confer
ences while at the same time reflecting their reception on national scale
through the publication of papers as well as through major works and synthe
sizing handbooks.
Assuming that the turning point in the history of world linguistics was the
year 1930 marked by the appearance of new schools of linguistic thought in
Europe and America, the period between 1918 and 1939 may be divided into
the 1920s and 1930s.
2.2.1 In the 1920s, the life of linguistic departments at new or restored Polish
universities was organized, among others, by Baudouin de Courtenay and
Stanislaw Szober (1879-1939) in Warsaw, Wiktor Porzeziński in Warsaw as
well as Lublin, by Jan Rozwadowski in Cracow, by Mikolaj Rudnicki in Poz
nan, and by Andrzej Gawroński in Lvov.
This period was rich in organizational events both in Poland and abroad.
On 31 May 1925, the first general assembly of Polish linguists, under the
leadership of Rozwadowski, Gawroriski, and others, gathered at Lvov and
decided to launch the Polish Linguistic Society, which was to meet annually
and to publish a new journal devoted to general linguistics (cf. Safarewicz
GENERAL LINGUISTICS IN POLAND: LATE 1860S - LATE 1960s 11
1982:209-212; Zaleski 1975:21-28). Abroad, there was the creation of the

Prague Circle of Linguistics in October 1926 on the initiative of the Czech
Anglicist Vilém Mathesius (1882-1945). The difference, however, between
the role of Polish Linguistic Society and that of the Prague Circle was re
markable with regard to the range of their respective influence on the interna
tional scale. The propagation of the principles of Prague School was crucial
for the development of European structuralism. And it was accomplished in
the 1930s, as soon as a postulate to separate phonology from phonetics had
been put forward on the first International Congress of Linguists held at The
Hague in 1928.
The opinions of Polish linguists, however, between 1918 and 1930 were
expressed in:
1) The continuation of a neogrammarian agenda with regard to linguistic
study (Rozwadowski, Gawroński, and Rudnicki);
2) the critical evaluation (Gawroński) or the partial appropriation (Roz
wadowski) of Saussure's perspectives on language, such as synchronism
— assuming that particular languages are relatively static in their func
tioning, and when their structure and constituents change they differenti
ate into new types of languages; systemism — defining languages as or
dered sets of elements related to each other through functional coexis
tence and/or alternative collocations, correlations, or commutability; col
lectivism or sociologism — stating that languages are properties of
speech communities; their users are not allowed to introduce any changes
in their structure except that they have to obey rules of social conduct
while acquiring them or introducing innovations into them being enabled
by an inborn linguistic capability; only the activities of speaking and
thinking are recognized as having an individual character; rational men-
talism or idealistic psychologism — believing that verbal signs are mem
orized as a twofold unity of meaning and form in the minds of their users;
autonomism — stating that language should be studied as a fact in itself
by internal linguistics, but it may constitute the investigative domain of
external linguistics concerned with its relation to nations, personalities,
territory, and the like;
3) the rejection of Karl Vossler's (1872-1949) aesthetic idealism — re
garding language as a creation of an individual which reflects his intu
itions, his way of life and habits of thought; but, at the same time, the re
ception of Hugo Schuchardt's (1842-1927) type of individualism and
collectivism — assuming that language is a manifestation of personality
generalized into a collective body of society through imitation (Rozwad
owski);
4) the acceptance of Bronislaw Malinowski's (1884-1942) functional
anthropologism — treating a language as one of the institutional forms of
culture, with reference to processualism — searching for the meaning of
speech acts realized in order to satisfy integrational, narrative, practical,
and magic needs of people, as well as to contextualism — relativizing the

role of language with respect to situations, uses and functional require
ments (Gawroński and Rozwadowski);
5) the assumption that language is the most comprehensive reflection of
man, embedded in his culture and civilization, his cognition and morality,
religion and poetry (Rozwadowski); and
6) the confrontation between semantic associationism (Szober), on the
one hand — taking into account Anton Marty's (1847-1914) psychologi
cal philosophy of language and Hermann Paul's (1846-1921) association-
ist psychology of individuals based on Johann Friedlich Herbart's (1776-
1841) psychology and partly opposed to asssociationist social psychology
(Völkerpsychologie) of Heymann Steinthal (1823-1899) and Moritz
Lazarus (1824-1903) — and grammatical formalism, on the other, in de
fining words as parts of speech (Porzeziński).
2.2.2 In the 1930s, except for the leading role of Rozwadowski (d.1935) and
the achievements of Szober (d.1939), significant contributions to the theoreti
cal foundations of their disciplines were made by Witold Doroszewski
(1899-1976) from Warsaw University and Jerzy Kurylowicz (1895-1978)
from the University of Lvov. Mikolaj Rudnicki (1881-1978), one of the theo
reticians of psychological linguistics, devoted his energies to descriptive and
historical studies of the Polish language.
The decade between 1929 and 1939 has been recorded by historians of
world linguistics as a early period of structuralism, dominating international
journals and conferences. Important European centers emerged in Prague,
Vienna, Geneva, and Copenhagen, and, in America, at Yale. The ideas of the
Kazan School, originated by the forerunners of structuralism, Baudouin de
Courtenay and Kruszewski, and the theoretical thought of Saussure bore fruit
in the form of a functionalist and formalist structuralism on the European
ground, and the distributional structuralism in the U.S.A.
As to the participation of Polish scholars in these discussions on structural
linguistics, the 1930s could be characterized, inter alia, in the following
terms:
1) As a search for the sources which had inspired the ideas of Saussure
and by the postulation of a kind of processualism as opposed to factual-
ism which presupposed that language is a social activity, and not a social
fact in the Durkheimian or Saussurean understanding (Doroszewski);
2) by transplanting structural methods of chronological relativism from
synchrony to diachrony, with the aim of explaining the evolution of lan
guage on the basis of oppositions between its productive and non-pro
ductive intrasystemic elements (Kurylowicz);
3) by refuting the dualism of phonology as a linguistic discipline op
posed to phonetics as a part of the natural sciences, in favor of monism
uniting descriptive phonetics and functional phonetics as two branches of

the same discipline; and, consequently — by postulating the analysis of
speech sounds as functionally active, passive or neutral depending on
their position within a word (Doroszewski following Rudnicki);
4) by opposing synchronic analyses while favoring the theory of struc
tural bipartition in the explanation of the meaning of derivatives, at the
same time postulating that the historical formation of words should be
analyzed in terms of word-stems being divided into the hierarchy of
word-formatives and word-bases (Doroszewski following Rozwadowski);
5) by applying functionalist methods in a search for distinctive features
of speech sounds on the basis of their role in communication or by adher
ing to a formalist perspective in order to determine the function of lan
guage units on the basis of their homotopic occurrence and commutability
(Kurylowicz);
6) by confronting the methods of qualitative isoglosses with the methods
of quantitative isoglosses used in linguistic geography in order to register
the boundaries between dialects and to check the instability of the output
of their speakers being under the influence of a standard variety (Doro
szewski); and
7) by formulating two principles of word evolution: a) lexicalization —
the tendency of word-structures to be autonomized as word-signs in use,
and b) crystallization of dominants — the tendency to select one domi
nant form over another or to separate functions which are determined by
each particular form (Doroszewski).
Studying the history of the Polish science of linguistics with reference to
generational and professional successions we can notice that the partitions of
Poland had contributed to the formation of two informal circles during the in-
terwar period: 1) Warsaw-Vilnius-Lublin, with Baudouin de Courtenay,
Porzeziński, Szober, and Doroszewski, and 2) Lvov-Cracow-Poznań, with
Rozwadowski, Rudnicki, Gawroński, and Kurylowicz. This tacit division of
labor shaping the science of the interwar period had also been partly renewed
by linguists affected by political settings at the universities of contemporary
Poland after World War II.
2.3 The heritage of Polish thought on language afterWorld War II

From those theoreticians of language who took pan in the discussions of
world linguistics of the interwar period and who continued their careers at
Polish universities after the World War II only two remained, Doroszewski
and Kurylowicz. Shortly before the war they were joined by Tadeusz Milew-
ski (1906-1966), an Indo-Europeanist, who emerged in the late 1940s as the
author of a handbook on general and comparative linguistics.
After 1944, there was a noticeable generation gap at Polish universities.
As a result of war and occupation, linguistic departments had been rebuilt by
very old professors who survived, surrounded by young assistants and stu
dents. The legacy of such a situation was a conservatism of their teachers (cf.
Lewicki 1993:595). Hostile attitudes towards structural methods were ex
pressed, for example, by Doroszewski whose adherence to Rozwadowski's
and Szober's way of thinking contributed to the fact that until the 1980s no
changes of note could be made in the academic grammar of Polish (cf. Le
wicki 1993:610). Methodological conservatism, however, had protected lin
guists from politically motivated tendencies of regarding Saussurean and
Hjelmslevian type linguistics as not conformity with Marxist-materialistic
philosophy, because they stood in opposition to historicism. Owing to the fact
that Western and American science had been banned by the Communist au
thorities, those who worked according to the principles of structuralism had
only very limited possibilities to publish (cf. Lewicki 1993:595).
At the end of 1950s younger philologists gathered around professors of
fering informal seminars on structuralism, such as Tadeusz Milewski in War
saw, Ludwik Zabrocki (1907-1977, Poznan), Leon Zawadowski (1914-,
Wroclaw), Olgierd Wojtasiewicz (1916-1991) and Maria Renata Mayenowa
(1910-1988), both in Warsaw, to mention the major scholars only. Partici
pants in these seminars, working on modem languages, later played an active
role in the dissemination of Western ideas in the 1960s and 1970s, and were
open to new trends in the 1980s and 1990s (cf. Lewicki 1993:611-612).
Modern ideas were traded in Milewski's Wstęp do językoznawstwa (Intro
duction to linguistics) as early as in 1954, extended subsequently in his much
revised book Językoznawstwo (Linguistics) in 1965, but a structuralist turn
over was given a significant boost by Jakobson's paper presented at a meet
ing of the Linguistic Committee of the Polish Academy of Sciences on 12
January 1958 in Warsaw, entitled "The origin of the concept of phoneme in
Polish and world linguistics" (summary and discussion in Jakobson 1958)
which brought to the attention of Poles their pioneering structuralist heritage
in the work Baudouin de Courtenay and Kruszewski. Symptomatic of the af
termath of thepost-war attitude toward structural linguistics was the fact that
the first Polish translation in 1961 of Saussure's Cours de linguistique géné
rale was published with an introduction by no other than Doroszewski who
was not favourably disposed toward Saussurean structuralism. Its reviseded
second edition appeared 30 years later, but this time with a historiographical
and unbiased introduction written by Kazimierz Polański (1991).
In 1966, Lingwistyczna teoría języka (A linguistic theory of language)
based on inductive methodology was published by Leon Zawadowski, and in
1968, the achievements of European and American structuralism against the
background of traditional perspectives were summarized in Słownik termi-

nologii lingwistycznej [A dictionary of the linguistic terminology] compiled
by Zbigniew Gołąb, Adam Heinz, and Kazimierz Polański. The following
decades saw the production of a series of new university manuals and ency
clopedias. A synthesis of heteronomous approaches to language was pre
sented in Językoznawstwo otwarte (Open linguistics) by Antoni Furdal (1990
[1977]), whose author advocated an interdisciplinary position of linguistics,
taking into account the relationship of language to humans in their biological,
psychological and sociological settings, and Językoznawstwo ogólne [General
linguistics] by Adam Weinsberg (1983), which provided, among others, a
critical overview of structural methodologies, semiotics as well as various
other approaches to the analysis of meaning, sociolinguistics, the differentia
tion of languages in time and space, as well as an introductory model of lan
guage based on generative-transformational rules and grammatico-semantic
formulas. Furthermore, an anthropocentric view of language was advocated
in Zagadnienia metalingwistyki: Lingwistyka—jej przedmiot, lingwistyka
stosowana [Issues in metalinguistics: Linguistics — its subject-matter, ap
plied linguistics] by Franciszek Grucza (1983), postulating a search for the
main object of linguistics neither within the system of verbal means of com
munication nor in the processes of communication, but in human linguistic
capacities of speaking and learning. A systemic autonomous view of the lin
guistic domain was propagated in Wstep do jçzykoznawstwa [Introduction to
linguistics] by Jerzy Bańczerowski, Jerzy Pogonowski and Tadeusz Zgólka
(1982), presenting a highly formalized description of the system of language,
its entities, units and constructions. It resembles in part the approaches of
Copenhagen school Glossematics with its application of notations and dis
tinctions used in logic and the methodology of science with special reference
to categorial grammars.
It was during this period of Polish linguistics that a first historiographical
account was made in Dzieje jçzykoznawstwa w zarysie [A history of linguis
tics in outline] by Adam Heinz (1914-1984), which provided a history of the
methodology of linguistics from antiquity to the 20th century (Heinz 1978).
The achievements of the Polish practitioners of language sciences in the do
main of general linguistics and the studies on the Polish language in the years
1900-1970 were summarized by Kwiryna Handtke and Ewa Rzetelska-Fe-
leszko in their annotated bibliography Przewodnik po jçzykoznawstwie pol-
skim [A guide through Polish linguistics] of 1977 (cf. Lewicki 1993:619).
At present general linguistics is in very good condition to develop, given
the state of knowledge included not only in the mentioned academic hand-
books but also in such encyclopedias, as the: Encyklopedia wiedzy o języku

polskim [Encyclopedia of the knowledge of the Polish language] and Encyk
lopedia języka polskiego [Encyclopedia of the Polish language] both edited
by Stanislaw Urbańczyk (1978, 1994); and Encyklopedia językoznawstwa
ogólego [Encyclopedia of general linguistics] edited by Kazimierz Polański
(1992). Unfortunately, General Linguistics has lost its traditional place within
the modern language programs at Polish universities. Relegated to an intro
ductory subject, it has been reduced to a course offering selected linguistic
topics of various kinds. However, as a pilot discipline, within the frame of
structuralism and semiotics, it has at least made some inroads among ethnol
ogists and theoreticians of culture-oriented disciplines.
3. An assessment of the contribution of individual Polish linguists to

a theoretical view of language and linguistics since 1868
The precursory nature of some of the views held by Baudouin de Courte-
nay in matters concerning a structuralist conception of language was recog
nized by no other than Saussureas became public knowledge in 1957 when
the Swiss linguist Robert Godel (1902-1984) published some of Saussure's
scientific papers. Among the notes written by Saussure in 1908 one could
find an opinion that 'Baudouin de Courtenay and Kruszewski were closer
than anyone else to a theoretical view of language, without digressing from
purely linguistic considerations; yet they are unknown to most Western
scholars' (Godel 1957:51; quoted after Jakobson 1971[1960]:420-421). In
deed, the name of Kruszewski did not mean much to Slavic scientists in 1957
(Weinsberg 1987:791-792), either before or after. Inspired by Saussure's
praise, however, Jakobson, one of the founding fathers of Prague structural
ism, investigated the scientific work of this forgotten Polish linguist as well
as the early writings of Baudouin from the period of his cooperation with
Kruszewski, 1878-1883). Some interesting facts not revealed before came to
light when Jakobson presented the results of his inquiries in Warsaw in 1958,
making them known more widely through his publications of 1960 and 1967.
3.1 Baudouin de Courtenay s legacy

In his work "Einige Fälle der Wirkung der Analogie in der polnischen
Deklination" (1868) Baudouin showed the influence of one inflectional form
on the other forms, as, for example, the development of Piotrze (loc. and
voc.sg. of Piotr "Peter") from the form Pietrze under the influence of forms
such as Piotra (gen.sg. of Piotr), Piotrowi (dat.sg. of Piotr), and mężowie
(nom.pl. of mąż "man, husband") from the form meężwie under the influence
of panowie (nom.pl. of pan "lord, master"), etc. Owing to this work Bau-
douin's name found itself mentioned together with the Neogrammarians,

whose theory of analogical creations became widely known, together with
their thesis of the exceptionless sound laws, as one of the pillars of linguistic
reconstruction in comparative-historical linguistics (cf. Weinsberg 1987:791-
792).
In the history of linguistics, the Baudouin's Kazan period of scientific ac
tivity has secured itself a permanent place. Yet as early as in his inaugural
lecture of 1870 at St. Petersburg, Baudouin insisted on treating the study of
'static' aspects of sounds in a language as equal in right with those of the so-
called 'dynamic' aspects, arguing against the view that only a historical ap
proach is scientific and that concentrating one's attention on the actual state
of a language might be of comparable importance to the scientist. In fact, he
claimed that the grammarian's studies may be regarded as truly scientific if
they connect the investigations of linguistic facts at one given moment with
the full development of the language in question (cf. Adamska-Salaciak
1996:78). In his own words: "Statics deals with the laws of linguistic equi
librium; dynamics with the laws governing the historical movement of lan
guage, its mobility in time" (Baudouin 1879-1881, quoted in Jakobson
1971[1960]:398). Thus, Baudouin was one of the first to speak in favor of
this dichotomy, which later was called synchrony and diachrony by Saussure
(cf. 1922[1916]:138-140). By 'static laws' Baudouin meant to say that the
laws operating within a given contemporary language are not to be explained
with the laws of past periods or those of other languages. At that time, his
view of the subject-matter of linguistics was very broad when he insisted on
the study of the life of language in all its manifestations (Baudouin
1990[1871]:45; cf. Adamska-Salaciak 1996:75). In the same lecture we may
also find the distinction between the two forms of existence of language, ab
stract and concrete: i.e., a language as a determined complex of certain con
stituent parts and categories, existing only in potentia, and a language as a re
current process steadily renewing itself in use; the former called simply
'language' (jazyk), and the latter, 'speech' (riecz) reminds us the opposition
between langue and parole, introduced in Saussure's lectures of 1907-1911
(cf. 1922[1916]:138-140; for details, see Williams [1993:31-32], especially
p.55).
The next of Baudouin's published works considered relevant for the de
velopment of general linguistics were his detailed programs of his Kazan
lectures during the academic years 1875-1878 (Baudouin 1876, 1877-1878,
1879-1881). At the head of Baudouin's contributions to structuralist views of
language, some fifty years before its first theses were formulated, one has to
place his treatment of linguistic facts from the viewpoint of their role in lan
guage. As one of the objectives of his lectures he asks and also answers the
question as to "why, to what end is accent used by different peoples?"
(Jakobson 1971[1960]:401-402). Baudouin also provides examples of a mov
able accentuation in Russian, like wysypat ("to pour out", cf. Polish wysypac)
vs wysypát ("to habitually pour out", cf. Polish wysypywac), where it may
serve to express the morphological opposition, against a stabilizing stress as,
e.g., in Polish, where accent plays a role 'of phonetic cement' binding sylla
bles together into words (see Weinsberg 1987:792-793).
The awareness of the difference between the mere physical nature of
sounds and their significance for the people who use them in a certain lan
guage brings Baudouin to treat phonetics either as an acoustic-physiological
part of natural sciences or as a morphological-etymological part of the gen
eral sciences of sounds standing 'in connection with the word meanings' they
contribute to. The former, called 'anthropophonics', 'considers all sounds of
human speech [...] from the objective-physical and physiological point of
view'; and the latter, defined as 'phonetics in the strict sense of this word',
should 'sudy and analyze the equivalents of sounds (of sound units and their
combinations) with respect to certain of their properties, i.e. to the role they
play in language' (Baudouin 1871; see Jakobson 1971[1960]:399). Again the
awareness of the conventional nature language and its systemic-relational
character was formulated in a typically structuralist way, as we may conclude
from Baudouin's statement: 'In different languages physiologically identical
sounds may possess different values in accordance with the whole sound sys
tem, i.e. in accordance with their relations to the other sounds of the same
language' (1877-1878; see Jakobson, p.400). "These investigations", writes
Jakobson (402-403), "entered an entirely new phase in 1878 when the 27-
year-old Polish linguist Mikolaj Kruszewski [...] came to Kazan' to work on
his dissertation under the supervision of Baudouin de Courtenay".
3.2 Kruszewski's (and Baudouin s) work during the Kazan period

In Kruszewski's independent work "Ob 'analogii' i 'narodnoj etimologii'
('Volksetymologie') [On 'analogy' and 'folk-etymology' ('Volksetymolo
gie')]" of 1879, and the works carried out under Baudouin's supervision,
such as Ueber die Lautabwechslung (1881b) and "Prinzipien der Sprachent
wicklung" (1884-1890), the pioneering proposals of the pupil were inter
weaving with the thoughts initiated by his teacher (cf. Baudouin 1904[1888-
1889]: 96-175; cf. Jakobson 1967:x-xxv; on Kruszewski's contribution to
general linguistics and his theoretical innovations, see Koerner 1986: 60-67,
68ff. and in Kruszewski 1995:xxviii-xxxii). Here the neo grammarian notion

of analogy, applied earlier by Baudouin, Scherer, and their followers only to
matters of inflection, was explicated in a more generalized way. Kruszewski
noticed, for example, that the phenomenon of the so-called folk etymology
does not differ in essence from the inflectional analogy, that is, the transfor
mation of the stem of one word under the influence of that of another (as, for
example, the change of the Polish word cmentarz "cementary, burial-ground"
into smętarz under the influence smętek, smętny "sadness/sorrow, sad/sor
rowful" (cf. Weinsberg 1987: 792-792).
Another pair of structuralist notions which is identified today with that of
'syntagmatic' and 'paradigmatic' relations, was formulated by Kruszewski as
'the order of co-existence' and 'the order of succession' nearly in the same
psychological manner as Saussure (cf. 1922[1916]:170-175) did it later on
when distinguishing rapports syntagmatiques and rapports associatifs. Ac
cording to Kruszewski (1883:149) 'The laws of association transform an un
limited mass of words in one harmonious whole. Thanks to association by
similarity words form many co-ordinated systems, or nests; association by
contiguity orders them into series' (see Williams 1993:83-85, for a detailed
analysis).
One of the main theses (ascribed later to Saussure although with the stress
on synchrony over and above diachrony), was proclaimed by Baudouin as
early as in 1870 (cf. 1990[1871]:43; for pertinent quotations and comments,
see Adamska-Salaciak 1996: 75, 78) and realized by him and Kruszewski,
when they postulated a 'static' linguistics as being equally indispensable as a
'dynamic' linguistics. As well, they introduced the two basic notions, impor
tant for a grammatical description of modern languages, namely the notion of
'morpheme' as the smallest indivisible entity which bears meaning as a word
in itself or as a constituent of a word (such as root, prefix, suffix, inflectional
ending, and the like) and the concept of 'alternation', that is, the variation in
the form of speech sounds as they occur in inflectional derivational mor
phemes in different environments or under different conditions. The term
'morpheme' (morfema) was introduced by Baudouin in 1881 ex post to the
program of his Kazan lectures of 1877-1878. The term 'alternation', referring
to the exchange or replacements of speech sounds in the same phonetic envi
ronment, occurs for the first time in 1881 in Baudouin's review of Kru
szewski's Master' thesis of (1881a) "K voprosu o gune: Issledovanie v obla-
sti staroslovianskogo vokalizma" [On the question of guna: A study in the
domain of Old Slavic vocalism] devoted to the phenomenon of vowel gra
dation in the Indo-European languages. The notion of alternation was first put
forward by Baudouin, but as he himself emphasized, Kruszewski set forth the

theory of alternations 'much more philosophically, concisely and precisely'
(Baudouin 1894:234; quoted from Jakobson 1971[1960]:406). Both notions
became popular somewhat later thanks to the German version of Baudouin's
1894 treatise Versuch einer Theorie phonetischer Alternationen: Ein Capitel
aus der Psychophonetik (1895).
The third notion, connected with the functional theory of sound systems
and decisive for the role of meaningful components in a language, was the
notion of 'phoneme'. As Weinsberg (1987:794) has pointed out, in the same
year, 1881, both chief representatives of the Kazan linguistic school were
aware that the distinction, introduced by Baudouin by distinguishing between
anthropophonics and phonetics proper which required a parallel of variables
that would represent phonetic units of language in both domains of their oc
currence. However, Baudouin (1881:69) placed this notion within the realm
of comparative and genetic linguistics when he defined the phoneme as 'the
sum of generalized anthropophonic properties of a given phonetic part of the
word, indivisible in the process of establishing the links of correlation within
one language and the links of correspondence within several languages', and,
more specifically, as 'what is phonetically indivisible from the point of view
of the comparability of phonetic parts of the word' (quoted after Adamska-
Salaciak 1996:105). So, it was again Kruszewski, seen from the present-day
structuralist perspective, who reached the essence of the descriptive and 'stat
ic' linguistics when he stated (1881:14): T propose to call the phonetic unit
(i.e., what is phonetically indivisible) a phoneme, as opposed to the sound —
the anthropophonetic unit. The benefit and indispensability of such a term
(and of such a concept) are obvious a priori'. (On differences of interpretation
of this observation, compare Jakobson 1971[1960]:407 and Adamska-Sala-
ciak 1996:27.)
Kruszewski might also be considered as the discoverer of the notion of
combinatorial variants, not only of phonemic, but also morphemic types,
when one interprets the statement included, in his only article written in Pol
ish, the following statement: 'Every linguistic unit [...] occurs in speech in
different environments. [...] Every sound unit changes its form in accordance
with its environment" (Kruszewski 1885:91, also quotated in Jakobson 1971
[1960]:410, note 68). And he nearly came to a functional definition of pho
neme (based on its relevant features and its social universality) when he
formulated the so-called static law of sounds, stating that "each sound is, in
the same conditions, approximately the same, acoustically and physiologi
cally, for all individuals of a given dialect and period" (Adamska-Sałaciak's
[1996:46] transl, of Kruszewski 1883:17; on the concept of the uniformity

and harmony of the sound and the sound system, see Williams 1993:89-94).
The extraordinary significance of Kruszewski's work and his scientific
independence from Baudouin was highlighted in the obituary written after his
death by Leonard Koimaczewski (1888), professor of West-European litera
ture in Kazan. Baudouin reacted to what he considered an exaggerated ap
praisal of his pupil in his own obituary of Kruszewski (Baudouin de Courte-
nay 1888) and a subsequent critical analysis (1888-1890) of all of Kru
szewski's publications (cf. Weinsberg 1987:795-796). For example, in a
polemic with Kruszewski's dualist division of words into morphemes as be
longing to the psychological domain and phonemes to the physical domain of
human speech, Baudouin proposed a twofold division of words on a psycho
logical level, first into morphemes and then into phonemes as mental images
of sounds connected with meaning-bearing units, and on a physical-physio
logical level into syllables and then into sounds considered as parts of phrases
realized in articulated speech. This conclusion was drawn by Williams
(1993:148) from the following quoted passage from Baudouin (1888-1889:
146-147):
1) The psychological division is from the point of view of the brain center of speech;
thus it is a division into units which are endowed with meaning, into units, which are
associated with a whole series of both linguistic and extra-linguistic images. 2) The
phonetic division, the anthropophonetic division, [...] a division from the point of
view of the linguistic periphery. From this point of view the particular manifestations
of speech, which represent an uninterrupted continuity of sound, are divided first
into series of sounds [...] which are pronounced with one breath.
3.3 Baudouin s views after Kruszewski's death

As Weinsberg pas pointed out (1987:796-797), Baudouin — like Kru
szewski and, later, Saussure — always stood under the partial influence of
psychologism, but from 1888 he propagated it in its most extreme form (cf.
Heinz 1978:217; Horálek 1989:105). Quite characteristically, in his 1894
monograph written during his professorship at the University of Dorpat, 'An
attempt at a theory of phonetic alternations', whose German translation was
provided with the characteristic subtitle 'A chapter from psychophonetics'
(1895), Baudouin defined the phoneme as 'the psychic equivalent of a sound'
(Baudouin 1894:234).
Later still, Baudouin redefined the opposition between anthropophonetics
and phonetics proper in terms of an opposition between phonetics and psy
chophonetics. Suffice it to point out the titles of Baudouin's works dealing
with the subjects of general linguistics from the period before the World War
I to illustrate his position: "O psychicznych podstawach zjawisk językowych
[On psychical foundations of linguistic phenomena]" (1903), "Próba uzasad-

nienia samoistnosci zjawisk psychicznych na podstawie faktów językowych
[An attempt at justifying the autonomy of psychical phenomena on the basis
of linguistic facts]" (1905), "O zwi^zku wyobrażeń fonetycznych z wyobra-
zeniami morfologicznymi i semazjologicznymi [On the connection of pho
netic images with morphological and semasiological images]" (1908), "Cha-
rakterystyka psychologiczna języka polskiego [The psychological character
istics of the Polish language]" (1915). The latter provides the reader with an
elaborate definition of the phoneme as 'the fusion in one monolitic represen
tational group of the images of the actions of the articulatory organs as well
as the images of the acoustic shades connected with these actions — images
joined in one whole by the image of simultaneously performing the actions
and perceiving the impressions of the acoustic shades' (Baudouin 1915:163;
quoted after Jakobson 1971[1960]: 419).
Finally in 1918, at age 73, when Baudouin received the Chair of Indo-
Indo-European Linguistics at Warsaw University, his academic work merely
reflected his earlier creative labors. In the period between 1918 and 1929,
Baudouin wrote articles on theoretical aspects of language, for example,
"Różnica między fonetyką. a psychofonetyką. [The difference between pho
netics and psychophonetics]" and "Ilościowość w mysleniu językowym
[Quantitativeness in linguistic thinking]" (1927a, b), discussing such phe
nomena as number, measure, duration, diminutiveness, iteration, augmenta
tion, etc., in which he stressed the significance of statistics in language study.
A posthumously published paper was devoted to the problem of the cogna
tion of languages (Baudouin 1930). These works were replete with the spirit
and imagery of psychologism. As Baudouin was interested in the Humbold-
tian problem how a given language may exert an influence upon the world
view of its speakers (for an analysis of this issue see Grodziński 1989) and
the mood of its speakers, Baudouin (1929) investigated the character of dif
ferent grammatical categories. Constituting the system of abstract ideas, the
categories of grammar specific to a given language, are not to be equated, in
Baudouin's view, with extralinguistic reality. They are, rather, to be com
pared to a kind of 'mythology' which transforms, in a manner of speaking,
the whole of human experience into gold while touching it. On searching for
the ways in which grammatical categories may affect lexical units, Baudouin
found illustrations where they had stigmatized religious beliefs, folklore, and
art, and should therefore be regarded as sources of various 'etymological
myths' (cf. Stankiewicz 1986[1976]:47; Wąsik 1991:48).
In his appreciation of the role of Baudouin in the development of Polish

linguistics Szober (1959[1930]:412-415) lists twenty-two points of Bau
douin's autobiography included in the dictionary of writers and scholars
edited by Vengerov (1897). In Baudouin's view, the recognition of language
as a product of psycho-social factors with the claim that the basis for linguis
tics should constitute not only individual psychology but also sociology in
confrontation with the traditional treatment of language is an organism, was
of crucial methodological importance for contemporaries working at universi
ties during the particular period when Baudouin was active in international
discussions, because even such prominent linguists as Schleicher and his
followers, and also Kruszewski, were influenced by the idea that linguistics
was to be considered a part of the natural sciences.
Among Baudouin's principal theses, which did not lose its scientific vi
tality among his followers and pupils, was his distinction between phonetic
and psychophonetic values of speech sounds, his theory of phonetic alterna
tions, his methodological postulate to examine linguistic facts within the to
tality of the system in which they function as constituents, his requirement to
study the living language(s) befor proceeding to deal with documents of dead
languages in order to strive for generalizations, and, apart from this, the pos
tulate to take into account not only the history but also the geography of a
language, bearing in mind that 'every fact should be considered in its appro
priate spatial and temporal environment' (see Jakobson 1971 [1960]:399, ref
erence 16).
3.4 Porzeziński' s contribution to Polish linguistics

Another linguist among the theoreticians of language who worked at first
in Russia and then continued their career in Poland was Wiktor Porzeziñski
(1870-1929), who was Baudouin's junior by twenty-five years. He was
known not only as a most gifted student of Fortunatov (and his successor at
Moscow University in 1901), who transmitted the teachings of his scarcely
publishing master (Weinsberg 1987:801-802), but also as a defender of the
neogrammarian credo concerning the law of exceptionless phonetic changes.
In Porzeziński's view, even the principle of analogy is to be rejected, and all
exceptions from sound laws, considered hitherto as apparent, should be ex
plained by borrowings from another language or dialect. Accordingly, in his
Introduction into Linguistics, both in its Russian version (Vvedenie v jazy-
kovedenie) and its German translation Einleitung in die Sprachwissenschaft,
Porzeziñski (1910[1907]) spoke in favor of the distinction of linguistics from
psychology, physiology, and philology when defining, on the one hand, the
study of language as the ensemble of signs of our thoughts and emotions
which are accessible to perception, and on the other the science of the history
of human languages (cf. Weinsberg 1987:801). After 1922 Porzezinski
moved to Poland permanently, to take up the Chair of Indo-European linguis
tics at the University in Warsaw and, concurrently, at the Catholic University
in Lublin. Despite certain anachronistic views in the period before World
War I, Porzezinski was very progressive with respect to structural trends de
veloping at the turn of 1920s. His contributions to theoretical problems of
linguistics during the last seven years of his life spent in Poland included sev
eral works on the history of Polish linguistics, on questions of methodology
as well as on selected problems of semantics and orthoepics. Worthy of men
tion is his approach towards the classification of the parts of speech (pub
lished in Polish in 1923 and known from its French translation of 1929);
Porzeziński (1929) he compared the state of traditional grammar with the
achievements of modern linguistics of his time, with special reference to their
practical applications. The subject of several of his critical analyses were di
visions based on semantic criteria which, in his view, relied unduly on im
pressionistic-psychological data. In opposition to Jan Los (1860-1928) and
Szober, Porzeziński proposed to apply only strictly formal criteria for defin
ing the parts of speech, that is, the grammatical criteria derived from mor
phology and syntax. In his semantic studies on grammatical forms in 1927,
devoted to Łoś, where he critically analyzed the viewpoints of Bertold Del
brück (1842-1922), Wilhelm Streitberg (1864-1925), and others, Porzeziński
proposed to distinguish (1) the sense inherent in a language from the coinci
dental, secondary sense implied by the context; (2) the actual state of the
sense as distinct from the historical one, and (3) the grammatical sense
marked by a formal feature derived from the sense in which this feature does
not occur.
3.5 Rozwadowski's contribution to Polish linguistics

One of the most prominent organizers of the scientific life in linguistics in
the Polish speaking world, not only in the period between the two World
Wars but also earlier, was Jan Rozwadowski (1867-1935), professor of Com
parative Grammar at the Jagellonian University in Cracow from 1899, and
co-founder of the Polish Linguistic Society in 1925. As an Indo-Europeanist
and Slavist, he made his name known in Poland through works pertaining to
all domains of the sciences of language: descriptive phonetics, the historical
study of sound changes, history of language, dialectology, word formation
and inflection, etymology and semasiology, syntax and stylistics, as well as
toponomastics. Yet he was best recognized also as a general theorist of lan-
guage (cf. Lehr-Spławiński 1936:3-21; Szober 1959:189-195[=1937:421-

425]; Mańczak 1960:5-17; and Rokoszowa 1991:17-27).
Rozwadowski's contribution to general linguistics was outlined in the
following works: (1) Wortbildung und Wortbedeutung (1904), an elaboration
of a Polish study on semasiology (Rozwadowski 1903); (2) "Ein quantitatives
Gesetz der Sprachentwicklung" (1909), and (3) the lecture "Zjawisko dys-
automatyzacji i tendencja energii psychicznej [The phenomenon of disauto-
matization and the tendency of psychical energy]" delivered in 1911, but not
published until 1922. Rozwadowski characterized the results of these earlier
studies after World War I in a journai Polska w kulturze powszechnej [Poland
in the public culture] (2.133-134 [Cracow, 1918]), as follows:
I formulated some observations which with the scope of their generalization may de
serve the names of Taws' and namely, the law of bipartition, that the basis of every
linguistic product, provided that it is an expression of a clear apperception, is biparti
tion; furthermore, the law of quantitative development of a language stating that the
difference between pairs of linguistic products must present a certain constant quan
tity; when it diminishes under this measure, one of the products, as independent, dis
appears; when it augments above this quantity, a new independent product comes
into existence;finally, the law of disautomatization stating that the principal cause of
evolution in linguistic creativity, equally as good as in cultural creativity, is a con
stant need for the refreshment of an emotional factor being used up through automa
tization. (Quoted in Szober 1959[1937]:423)
Within the domain of a theory of diachronic word-formation the concept
of duality in the structural division of words which was presented by Roz
wadowski in Wortbildung und Wortbedeutung undoubtedly played an inspir
ing role. Its original extension, in the interwar and early postwar period in
Poland, was a word-formation theory of Doroszewski (1928-1931, 1946),
which, in effect, impeded the progress of synchronic analyses of words per
taining to the meaning of their lexical and grammatical constituents (cf.
Wierzchowski 1993:75-77). Rozwadowski tried to find the answer how the
structure of a newly created word reflects its creator's conception about its
designate. In opposition to Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920), who claimed that
the objects are usually named after one unique feature,3 Rozwadowski stated
that the base of every language product consists of two parts: a distinguishing
component pertaining to its semantic aspect; and an identifying component
pertaining to its formal aspect. For example, in the words wiatrak ("wind-
3
Cf. the following passage included in chapter 3, ''Benennung von Gegenständen" of the
2nd volume of Wundt's Völkerpsychologie (31912 II.505 [= 1909 II.464]; spread print in the
original): "Jede Benennung von Gegenständen, mag sie eine primäre oder eine sekundäre
sein, pflegt nun nach e i n e m e i n z e l n e n M e r k m a l zu geschehen."
mill"), German Windmühle, compared with other words of the type chlopak
("boy"), wieszak ("rack"), Wassermühle, Kaffemühle, it is -ak, or respectively
-mühle which appear as identifying components, contrary to wiatr-, Wind-
playing the role of distinguishing components. Hence, as Mańczak (1960:7)
underlined, the identifying component corresponds approximately to the ele
ment which is called in logic genus proximum, and the corresponding ele
ment of the distinguishing component is differentia specifica (see also Weins-
berg 1987:797-798).
As a popularizer of scientific knowledge Rozwadowski became famous
after editing, in 1921, all of his representative works in one collection O zja-
wiskach i rozwoju języka (On the phenomena and development of language).
This fact had been noticed even by the Indo-Europeanist Antoine Meillet
(1866-1936) who expressed his regret that this book was not published in
French (cf. Weinsberg 1987:799).
Another linguistic subdiscipline on which Rozwadowski presented his
own views was semantics. In one of his major works dealing with 'Semantics
and grammar: The science of meaning within the domain of the sciences of
language' (1924), he argued that semantics is not to be placed in the same
dimension with the fields describing other systems of language, such as pho
netics, inflection, derivation, and syntax. The same cannot be said with regard
to word morphology. In his view, every language product, being a unity of
form and meaning, can be treated at the same time either from the point of
view of morphology or from the point of view of semantics. And, as to their
hierarchy within the system of language, he argued that such units as (1)
sound products: phones, groups of phones (diphthongs, affricates), syllables
and groups of syllables, (2) word products: uniform words (radical words),
suffixal words, compound words, fused words, groups of words, (3) sentence
products: uniform sentences (unisegmental), simple bisegmental sentences,
compound sentences, (4) conventionalized 'sayings' such as propositions, re
ports, questions, answers, orders, wishes, and the like (among them also
proverbs, greetings, etc.), (5) compositions: stories, instructions, conversa
tions, recommendations, reprimands, and, more generally, (6) speech (lan
guage); social languages, professional languages, dialects, etc., being the
products of different levels and different structures, are mutually overlapping
and intersecting. As a result, Rozwadowski argued that it is inappropriate to
separate phonetics, inflection, and syntax in the same way as in traditional
grammar, According to him, the interrelationships between different levels of
grammar may be shown hierarchically and componentially. For example,
phonetics is not to be treated as a separate discipline, but it should be investi-
gated from the point of view of morphology or semantics and vice versa, as
either a phonetic morphology or a phonetic semantics. Furthermore, distin
guishing the different levels of language products, one may speak about
things such sound phonetics, word phonetics, sentence phonetics, the phonet
ics of 'sayings', and the phonetics of dialects. Following this point of view,
inflection is not to be reduced to the plane of words alone; it can also refer to
sounds, while explaining the conditions of sound change, further to syllables,
words, word compounds, and so on. The same may be said with reference to
syntax (cf. Wąsik 1991:49).
Rozwadowski was at the peak of his scientific accomplishments, when he
delivered a lecture before the audience of the Société de Linguistique de Paris
in 1925. Assuming that language is one of the most comprehensive reflec
tions of human culture, he presented linguistics as in the highest degree pre
destined, among the other humanistic disciplines, to formulate generaliza
tions about the main mechanisms of human thinking. As the best way to learn
more about the relevant features of culture and the psychical development of
man, he proposed to undertake the following urgent tasks which presented
themselves, at the time, to the linguistic world, namely to describe: (1) the
general grammar including all linguistic categories and the structures of all
languages of the world, (2) the general lexicon containing the choice of all
possible lexical entries, arranged systematically and notionally, with etymo
logical explanations and semantic values, and (3) the general or, in other
words, universal 'literature' collecting those kinds of literary products which
had not been documented in writing, that is to say, transmitted orally from
generation to generation only.
Rozwadowski was aware of the fact that it would be 'an enormous enter
prise demanding the cooperation of mankind as a whole', but he was con
vinced that
the result of it would be a delivery of the great register of all civilizations, the picture
of its present state in different phases and, in other words, also the picture of the de
velopment of our cognition, morality, philosophical ideas, religion, and poetry.
(Rozwadowski 1960[1925] :239)
3.6 Rudnicki's contributions to general linguistic ideas in Poland
Rozwadowski's ideas regarding the bipartite apperception of linguistic
facts were developed further by Mikolaj Rudnicki (1881-1978), an Indo-Eu-
ropeanist and Slavist, in his habilitation on 'psychophonetic' subjects (Rud
nicki 1912-1913). Assuming the Chair of Linguistics at the University of
Poznań in 1919, he devoted much of his energies to the substantiation of the
thesis of a long-standing Slavic habitat in the river-basin between Vistula and
Oder (see Rudnicki 1971:219; cf. Bańczerowski [1981:32] and Wąsik [1991:
47], for details). Moreover, he extended the law concerning the relations of
association between reproducing and reproduced mental images (which were
seen as affecting the development of language and its dialectal disintegration)
into the law of the identification of insufficiently different associations, pub
lished in the 1927 Rozwadowski Festschrift under the title "Język jako
zjawisko pamięciowe [Language as a memory phenomenon]". In this latter
work he included his theoretical ideas mainly from his doctoral dissertation
on the operation of assimilation in Indo-European, in particular the Romance
and Slavic languages.
Among the basic principles of Rudnicki's understanding of language as a
memory phenomenon, one can reconstruct the following assertions: (1) Lin
guistic phenomena are to be studied in relation to individual subjects and cul
tures; (2) language is one of the forms of individual and collective conscious
ness; (3) linguistic consciousness and linguistic reproductions constitute two
separate phenomena that condition two kinds of notional images which are
stored in the minds of subjects: the reproducing and the reproduced ones; 4)
phonetic changes in a language result from a disturbance of the balance in the
consciousness between the reproducing and the reproduced images; 5) lin
guistic consciousness manifests itself in the particular acts of linguistic re
production, when the processes of identification or differentiation of the no
tional images come into prominence, and, finally, (6) speech sounds in the
psychophonetic system of a given language may have different degrees of
semasiological significance, depending on their quality and the number of
words in which they occur, as well as one the length of words, or the types of
morphemes as parts of words, and on their position within these entities.
3.7 Gawroñski' s contribution to general linguistics

One of the co-founders of the Polish Linguistic Society was Andrzej
Gawroñski (1885-1927), a prominent Indologist, the author of the first Polish
handbook of Sanskrit, who first received the Chair of Sanskrit at the Jagel-
lonian University in Cracov in 1916 and then moved to Lvov in order to take
over the Chair of Linguistics a year later. He died prematurely, leaving a
great output behind him, but only few articles in which he treated language as
a subject-matter of philosophy, logic, psychology and sociology and origins
of language were noticed in the history of linguistics (Kurylowicz 1927:37-
46; Rysiewicz 1948:3-29). As Kurylowicz stated in his obituary (1927:38)
Gawroñski also left behind many interesting marginalia.
The summary of Gawroński's theoretical approach to language can be
found in his paper "La langue, sa nature et son origine" (1927). It was written
in France with the aim to be delivered as a lecture for the Société de Linguis
tique de Paris, but could be published only after the author's death. As a pupil
of Gerson Blatt (1858-1916) in Lvov, Karl Brugmann (1849-1919), August
Leskien (1840-1916) and Eduard Sievers (1850-1932) in Leipzig, he persis
tently held to the neogrammarian position in his approach to comparative
Indo-European studies, defending at the same time the principles of autono-
mizing psychologism and individualistic expressionism, also leaning towards
aesthetic idealism. The article of 1927 was not only an exposé of the follower
of a certain movement, but also a critical discussion of the new ideas of
structuralism and stylistics, represented by the work of Saussure and Charles
Bally (1865-1947). In fact, Gawroński was against the definition of language
as a system of signs, and rejected the division of linguistic investigations into
synchronistic and diachronistic perspectives, the conception of language as a
collective property as well as such notions as language, parole, valeur, and
the like.
The main theses of Gawroński's general linguistic views may be summa
rized in the following statements: (1) Language is a phonic and articulated
form of the psychic interior of an individual, and, as a medium expressing the
human mind; it may be compared to the fine arts. (2) The psychic interior
consists both of intellectual elements related to the senses of words, to their
notional representations, and of emotional elements evoked by extralinguistic
factors and/or language forms. (3) All changes in language correspond to
changes in the mind, but not all changes in the mind have to be reflected in a
language, (4) Language as a lifeless form of a living psychical interior,
adapted by an individual to his needs, is always in arrears in its development
in relation to the development of human intelligence when it is relatively per
sistent as a means of communication. (5) Communication, constituting a so
cial matter, is subordinated to the automatization of human habits, whereas
language as a personal matter is dependent, with regard to the possibilities of
changes, upon the will of an individual striving for the disautomatization of
habits. (6) Social language does not exist at all; similarly, there is no collec
tive spirit nor is there collective intelligence; it is merely a kind of fiction
based on the content of communication (cf. Wąsik 1991:50).
3.8 Szober's views in the area of general linguistics

Another Polish linguist who worked in a similar spirit of psychologism as
Gawroński was Stanislaw Szober (1879-1939); on him, cf. Taszycki (1938:3-
9) and Wieczorkiewicz (1959:7-22). He was the pupil of, inter alia, Jan Kar-
lowicz (1836-1903) and Porzeziński, and a successor of Adam Antoni Kryń-
ski (1844-1932) in the Chair of the Polish Language at the University of
Warsaw. As a theoretician of language searching for the explanation of lin

guistic facts in reference to the human mind, Szober explained himself in the
second revised edition of his Gramatyka języka polskiego (Grammar of the
Polish language) of 1923, and later in his Zarys językoznawstwa ogólnego
[An outline of general linguistics], of which only the first volume was ever
pub lished (Szober 1924). Writing in the first part of this book on the psycho
logical foundations of language, Szober remained true to the position of an
associatinist psychologism. He defined, for example, words as signs of the
images of things, the notions of which form features representing only partial
constituents of thought; only sentences are signs of the whole finished
thought, i.e., as only they represent an ensemble of images (Gesamtvorstel
lung).
In the chapter on the meaning of words, Szober devoted his main atten
tion to the classification of the parts of speech. Arranging them in elaborated
tabular form, he distinguished altogether 27 categories of so-called language
signs replacing the traditional parts of speech. In the first category signs were
divided into (1) signs as constituents of thought, i.e., formal words, formal-
concrete words, and general words, and (2) signs of emotions. In the second
category, we find (1) words with a concrete meaning, i.e., signs designating
concrete objects, and (2) words with an abstract meaning, ordered in accord
ance with the degree of their abstracteness, i.e., signs of features (properties,
acts, and states) of objects, signs of properties of features, and signs of ab
stract notions.
In the second part of his book, dealing with the interrelationship between
language and society, Szober discussed the conventional nature of language
and presented his opinion on creativity in language and the role of the indi
vidual in the following terms:
Man can never become an independent creator of his language; at best he happens to
be only its co-author. The nature of language does not refuse him this particular
work of co-authorship, whether in a conscious or an unconscious manner, and
supplies him with the vast domains of style, syntax, and word formation, within
which an individual, in dependence of his mental resources and in accordance with
his own intellectual competence and emotional attitude, is able to develop, within
the boundaries of established customs, his own independent creativity [...]. (Szober
1924:211-212)
The relation between the language of an individual and the language of socie
ty, he characterized as follows:
The products of individual language activity happen to possess their assured stability
inasmuch as they, having broken their bonds with their individual creator, become
transformed into the common property of a national language. (Ibid.)
3.9 Doroszewski' s impact on Polish linguistics from the 1930s to the 1970s
The linguistic output in Poland, starting in the 1930s before World War
II, was enriched by Witold Doroszewski (1899-1976), Szober's successor of
to the Chair of the Polish Language at the Warsaw University since 1939. His
name appeared on the international scene thanks to his thought-provoking
claim that Saussure's insights into the social nature of language derived from
the work of French sociologist Emile Durkheim (1858-1917). Doroszewski's
statement on the subject was published in French in 1929, followed by a pa
per given at the fourth meeting of the Polish Linguistic Society in 1930, and
presented abroad at the Second International Congress of Linguists, held in
Saussure's birthplace (Doroszewski 1931) and, last but not least, in a further
article, also in French and published in Paris (Doroszewski 1933) in which he
argued that while Saussure's concept of 'langue' as fait social was inspired
by Durkheim, the individual aspect, 'parole', was due to a concession Saus
sure had made to Durkheim's opponent, Gabriel Tarde (1843-1904). Al
though Doroszewski never supplied any textual evidence for his claims, his
suggestions became almost a dogma in the historiography of linguistics (cf.
Koemer 1975: 787, 795-796).
In general linguistic matters Doroszewski was inclined (according to Sko-
rupka 1977:3) to encompass linguistic phenomena holistically in their rela
tion to man, studied not only by linguists but also by representatives of other
disciplines as philosophy, ethnography, physiology, psychology, neurology,
and other both natural and social sciences. Therefore, he did not accept the
structuralists' innovations without criticism. For example, when the program
of the Prague School became widely known, he rather preferred to submit his
own solutions. His writings of that period were marked by a monistic ap
proach, insisting on the inseparability of phonology from phonetics and of the
description of language from its history. At the same time he held to a prag
matic utilitarianism which presupposed that language is a social activity, and
not merely a social fact in the Durkheimian and Saussurean understanding.
Linguists should pay their attention, in his view, not to the sounds as types, as
ideal objects, but rather to the phonetics of the speaker. Indeed, Doroszewski
utilized the term 'phoneme' only as a synonym for a sound which distin
guishes meanings, since he ascribed a greater practical profit to classifying
the sounds as constituents of words, i.e., as being functionally active, func
tionally passive, and the valiants of sounds being functionally neutral. Such
an approach resulted from his claim that phonetics as a science is only one,
and that its two subdivisions: descriptive and functional phonetics, have the
same object of study; they differ only in methodological standpoints. Simi-
larly, in the domain of semantics, Doroszewski proposed not to ask for the
meaning of words following the chronology of their formation but for their
uses, as far as they are acts of people who speak and write in a given lan
guage.
At the same time, when the tendency to construct a theory of language in
stead of depicting its history prevailed in linguistics, and when themphasis
shifted from the search for laws governing linguistic evolution to the detec
tion of laws determining the function of language in social life, Doroszewski
intervened in the international debate on subjects like dialectology and the
search for quantitative isoglosses (Doroszewski 1935a, b), which were to be
applied in registering the instability of language norms being under the influ
ence of a standard variety. Its importance, however, was to be appreciated not
earlier than after the 1960s with the development of urban sociolinguistics
(cf. Ivić 1966[1963] §155).
A remarkable step towards the theory and method of empirical linguistics
was made by Doroszewski in his series of "Monografie slowotwórcze"
(Monographs on word formation) of 1928-1931. They contributed (1) to the
development of the Rozwadowski's bipartition concept regarding the division
of word-stems into word-formatives and word-bases according to their histor
ical formation; (2) to the distinction between structural and truly semantic
specialization of derivational formatives; (3) to the differentiation between
logical and syntactic types of derivativations, considered as functionally (i.e.,
derivationally) motivated vs non-motivated forms, and subjective vs predica
tive formations, and (4) to the specification of the two principles of evolution,
namely, (a) lexicalization — connected with a transformation of derivation-
ally motivated word-structures into autonomous word-signs, and (b) crystal
lization of dominants — stating that among the forms having the same com
mon function, or among different functions related to one and the same lan
guage form, there is a natural tendency to select one dominant form or to sep
arate functions which are connected from this time on with each particular
form.
The methods of word formation proposed by Doroszewski before War
War II and summarized in his publication on "Kategorie slowotwórcze [Word
formation categories]" in 1946 were continued by some of his students until
the 1970s. The idea of bipartition in the analysis of word forms was first
challenged in 1957 by Jozef Wierzchowski (1927-1999) who proposed ex
cluding the concept of derivation from the synchronic, that is, pre-grammat-
ical analysis of words which are to be treated as linguistic signs with uniform
meaning. (For further discussion, see Wierzchowski 1993:79.)
During the period of political liberation of scientific thinking from Marx

ist dogma which took place in Poland after 1954-1956, Doroszewski also
made known some of his convictions on the roots of structuralism, especially
on Baudouin de Courtenay as a precursor of new trends in linguistics (1955),
the historical foundations of structuralism (1957), on the fundamental con
cepts of de Saussure's Cours (1961).
Lexicographical team-work, started during the pre-World War II period,
and continued with great impetus thereafter; Doroszewski's academic posi
tion allowed him to formulate many principles guiding the activities of a lexi
cographer. A series of practice-oriented articles based on Polish material
were published in the journal Poradnik Językowy ["Language Advisor"].
Some of them were of considerable value for general semantics. The most
vivid theoretical questions which fostered the attention of his pupils and fol
lowers and to which Doroszewski returned steadily in all his works were col
lected in his Elementy leksykologii i semiotyki [Elements of lexicology and
semiotics] published in Poland and abroad (Doroszewski 1970, 1973). In the
preface of this work the author states that there is only one reality which de
serves the full attention of a linguist, namely, language as a unity of bio-psy
cho-social properties of man. His monistic view of mind and body in social
interaction is expressed in chapters such as 'Thought and experience'; The
trend of dualism and the trend of monism in the history of linguistic thought';
The soul and the brain. Thinking as cognitive process and the lexical myth-
creating activity'; The notion of the subject of thought'; The notion of law:
Two systems of signals' (Doroszewski 1973). In some other parts of his book
Doroszewski explains his understanding of the relationship between lexicol
ogy and lexicography; he considers the notion of sign as an object of percep
tion and as an element of the linguistic system, discusses the notion of word
(lexeme), and reflects upon the properties which an appropriate definition of
word should possess. In short, Doroszewski' s work resolves not only theoret
ical-linguistic questions, but also epistemological and methodological-philo
sophical ones in general (cf. Skorupka 1977:7).
3.10 The place of Kurytowicz in national and international linguistics

The first Polish linguist who accepted new structural approaches to the
evolution of language, while working within the traditional domain of histor
ical-comparative linguistics, was Jerzy Kurylowicz (1895-1978). He became
Professor of Comparative Linguistics at the University of Lvov in 1928. Af
ter World War II he briefly worked at the University of Wroclaw (1946-
1948), and from then on until his retirement at the Jagellonian University in
Cracow (cf. Wąsik 1991:52).
Although he did not produce any synthesis of his general linguistic views
which would deliver a theoretical model of language comparable to what had
been provided by Saussure, Karl Bühler (1879-1963), and Louis Hjelmslev
(1889-1965) in Europe or by Leonard Bloomfield (1887-1949) in America,
Kuryłowicz was, however, in his own theoretical achievements and in his
empirical work, a 'match for the classics of structuralism' of the circles of
Vienna, Prague, or Copenhagen, by systematically paving the way, alongside
the members of these 'schools', step by step, for acceptance of the new meth
odology, as Adam Heinz illustrated in his obituary "Professor Jerzy Kury
lowicz as a theoretician of language" (Heinz 1998[1980]).
Out of Kurylowicz's sixty-two publications written before 1939 only two
had a directly theoretical character (in Heinz' [1998:158-160] estimation),
namely, the articles on "Dérivation lexicale et dérivation syntaxique" of
1936, and the "Struktura morfemu [The structure of a morpheme]" of 1938,
where the empirical side (Indo-European philology) and the theoretical side
(structuralism) were fruitfully combined. However, fewer than thirty out of
around three hundert scientific books and papers published after the World
War II, could be selected as useful for the purposes of reconstructing Kury
lowicz's general theory of language. To his most quoted works belong eight
articles written in the early postwar period: "Le sens des mutations consonan-
tiques" (1947a); The poetic language from a linguistic point of view'
(1947b); "Contributions à la théorie de la syllabe" (1948a); "Les structures
fondamentales de la langue: Groupe et proposition" (1948b); "Le problème
du classement des cas" (1949a); "La notion de l'isomorphisme" (1949b);
"Linguistique et théorie du signe" (1949c); "La nature des procès dits 'ana
logiques'" (1949d), as well as also his booklet on Język a cztowiek [Language
and man], which had a popular-scientific impact (Kurylowicz 1948c).
Kuryłowicz's theoretical reflections which contributed to the establish
ment of a systematic treatment of language can be summarized on the basis
of the following frames of reference (cf. Heinz 1998[1980]:158):
1) The substantiation of a structuralist methodology with special adher
ence to Praguean functionalism oscillating towards Copenhagen formal
ism, based on the principle of abstractive relevance and the signi-
fied/signifier distinction under special consideration communicative acts.
These concepts were successfully applied in his monograph The Inflec
tional Categories of Indo-European (Kurylowicz 1964b).
2) The distinction between the primary and the secondary form of a
given function, assuming that its 'firstness' is determined by the language
system and its 'secondness' by the text; hence, inter alia the need for a
distinction between a lexical derivation and a syntactic derivation (Kury
lowicz 1936).
3) The, assumption of a hierarchical organization of language where the

organization of linguistic levels, units, and their functions within the
whole system depends on the structure of the system, and, within the text,
on the range of its use determined by the distribution of a given function
or a given textual form (Kurylowicz 1948b).
4) The assertion of isomorphism existing within textual structures (syl
lable, word, and sentence), expressed in terms of the parallel identity of
their composition on every linguistic level (Kurylowicz 1949b).
5) The transposition of structural methods from synchrony to diachrony,
in order to investigate the relative chronology of linguistic elements and
structures on the basis of their occurrence in textual valiants, i.e., follow
ing the method of 'internal reconstruction' (Kurylowicz 1964a[1962],
1962/63).
6) The specification of such notions as, among others, analogy (Kury
lowicz 1949d), variance (1947a, 1958), sign (1949c), grammatical and
concrete cases (1949a), syllable and syllabication (1948a).
7) The distinction between the objects studied within the domain of lin
guistics proper and objects of the related disciplines (Kurylowicz 1947b,
1948c).
3.11 Milewski s contribution to general linguistics

The events of the war and the German occupation of Poland (1939-1945)
had, strangely enough, influenced the crystallization of theoretical interests in
the representative of younger generation of linguists, such as Tadeusz Milew-
ski (1906-1966), who had obtained his habiltation in Slavic Philology after
his studies at the University of Lvov in 1933 and, following a scholarship, in
Indo-European linguistics in France in 1937.
Being imprisoned at the beginning of the war together with other profes
sors of the Jagellonian University, Milewski did not waste the time of his stay
in the Nazi camp, as Jan Safarewicz (1904-1992) writes in his scientific bio
graphy of Milewski (1966:3-4). Thanks to his contact with Tadeusz Kowalski
(1889-1948), a professor of oriental studies, he had the opportunity to get ac
quainted with Turkish in order to extend his knowledge of languages beyond
Indo-European. Thus, after his return to Cracow Milewski started to work on
the problems of general linguistics, with special reference to language typol
ogy, interested as we was in the comparative study of their structure. The
'Minutes from the activities and sessions of the Polish Academy of Learning'
(Sprawozdania z czynności i posiedzeń Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności), vol.
XLV, Sept. 1939 - Dec. 1944, a collective volume published in 1945, pp. 14-
15, point to a number of clandestine meetings held during the war. However,
among the eighteen linguistic communications presented at these sessions of
the Commission of Language only two were devoted to general linguistics.
Those were the papers read by Milewski on 20 April 1941 on "Problematyka

lingwistyki ogólnej [Issues in general linguistics]" and on 31 May 1942,
"Rozmieszczenie języków w czasie i przestrzeni [The distribution of lan
guages in time and space]". Referring to Saussurean principles, Milewski dis
tinguished three research domains in general linguistics: (1) the distribution
of languages in time and space including the history and geography of lan
guages, (2) the investigation of language functions, and (3) the causes of the
evolution of language (for details see Wąsik, in press).
Milewski was able, however, to publish a synthesis of his research only
after the war, when he became docent at the Jagellonian University in 1946.
At the same time, he prepared a popular booklet on 'Language and society'
(Milewski 1947) and an encyclopedic reference book of a hitherto unattained
thematic scope, composed of two parts under the main title 'An outline of
general linguistics5 (Milewski 1947-1948). The abbreviated version of its
third part was to deal with synchronic comparisons of world's languages; it
appeared later as 'Theoretical foundations of the typology of languages'
(Milewski 1950). Four years later it was used as a material source for a chap
ter in the introductory text Wstęp do językoznawstwa (Milewski 1954) and in
a revised version of a more advanced handbook Językoznawstwo (Milewski
1965). A comparison between works which Milewski published between
1947 and 1965 with regard to the approaches to the theory of linguistics re
flects the state of the knowledge available to their author. The first theoretical
part of Milewski's Outline of 1947 dealt not only with the topics of general
linguistics, but also provided a fairly detailed history of linguistic ideas. As
far as its methodological framework is concerned, Milewski's attention was
concentrated more on precursors of structuralism than on Saussure, and
where functionalism is concerned, he was under a strong influence of the Vi
enna psychologist Bühler and his main work Sprachtheorie (1934). In the
second part of 1948 Milewski provided a synthesis of 'external linguistics',
summarizing the history and geography of the world's languages in an acount
of their origin, expansion and decline, as well as their mutual relationships.
But in the 1950s new points of view emerged, deriving especially from
American schools, which led Milewski to refer to a logical analysis of lin
guistic phenomena and the application of mathematical methods. Milewski
was much less dependent on Bühler's views, and presented in a very careful
and critical way some of the more recent points of view. However, due to a
political crisis between 1954 and 1956, a structuralist turn-over in Polish lin
guistics was preceded by Milewski's Wstęp do jçzykoznawstwa (1954), be
fore a series of Western works began to become available in Polish transía-
tion. The extended version of Milewski's handbook, since 1965 entitled

simply Językoznawstwo, has played an important role in the dissemination of
structuralist's thought until the late 1980s.
Milewski's opus magnum of 1947-1948 was very highly estimated by
Kurylowicz, who wrote: 'We deal here with the first Polish synthesis in the
respective domain. Thus, disregarding any objections whichever at present or
in the future could be raised, its author's merit remains durable' (1950:98).
Another theoretical achievement was Milewski's article of on 'Phonolog
ical derivation' of 1949, which evoked a vivid discussion, inter alia, of
Zdzislaw Stieber (1903-1980) and Przemyslaw Zwolinski (1914-1981),
around the openess of synchronic phonological systems and the diachronic
nature of the so-called potential phoneme in a language.
3.12 Zawadowskïs contributions to linguistic theory

The circle of the theoreticians of language became stronger at the end of
1940s when a pupil of Kurylowicz's, Leon Zawadowski (employed at the
University of Wroclaw between 1946 and 1969, from 1955 as professor in
the Department of General Linguistics) defended his doctoral dissertation on
the on the theory of relative clauses in 1948 (published as Zawadowski
1952), in which he had applied newer structuralist approaches to issues in
comparative-historical linguistics. Educated as a classical philologist, Zawa
dowski also cultivated Romance languages at the University of Wroclaw.
Moreover, he published many papers in English. In the 1950s and 1960s he
was engaged mostly in resolving the topics from the domain of general and
comparative linguistics in combination with issues of a theory of cognition.
His theoretical contributions to linguistics at that time were mainly in the ar
eas of semantics and syntax.
To the most quoted of Zawadowski's early publications belong articles
dealing with semantic relationships on various levels of the linguistic system:
"On the elements of semantic systems" (1950) and 'A real or apparent influ
ence of the context upon the meaning' (1949). The empirical standpoint of in
ductive functionalism exhibited in the works of the Prague School and of de
ductive formalism developed by the Copenhagen School were applied in his
paper on "The so-called relative motivation in language", read to the 7th In
ternational Congress of Linguists held in Oslo in 1957 (cf. Zawadowski
1958a) and more extensively in his book Constructions grammaticales et
formes périphrastiques (Zawadowski 1959). Subsequently, the role of this
dual methodological approaches to modem linguistics was explained theoret
ically in his articles on "Induction et déduction en linguistique" (1965a) and
"Primary data of linguistic analysis" (1965b); terminological distinctions of
functional textual linguistics were proposed in his treatises on "Substance and

relation in language" (1963) and "La signification des morphèmes poly
semes" (1958b), both dealing with the mutual relations between lexicon and
grammar with reference to the question of the meaning of morphemes. The
author's epistemological views are expressed throughout his discussion of
these and other issues of linguistic theory.
The culmination of Zawadowski's theoretical inquiries was his mono
graph Lingwistyczna teoría języka [A linguistic theory of language] of 1966
(published in an extended English version in 1975), in which he discussed
both the hitherto prevailing aspectual theories of language as well as charac
terized his own structural-functional and text-oriented approach to the object
of linguistic study. Much attention is devoted in his works to theoretical re
marks on the acquisition and use of language, and, furthermore, to the divi
sion of language elements into entities, units and constructions as well as
methods of text segmentation based on the functional analysis of categorial
and semantic relationships between text elements and their referents in the
extratextual reality and other subjects.
A linguistic theory had to be — in Zawadowski's understanding — a the
ory of language independent of any other outside discipline. Nevertheless,
thinking about the autonomy of his discipline he delimited the subject-matter
of linguistics proper in abstraction from man, society and mind, albeit within
the framework of logical semiotics and epistemology. The point of departure
of his theory constituted the definition of language as a semantic system with
grammar and universal lexicon in a functional and 'ecological' sense, i.e., the
system that can be used everywhere by everyone for every task as a set (of
classes) of text elements serving to communicate about the (set of classes of
referents in the) extratextual reality. By 'lexicon' Zawadowski means an in
ventory of morphemes, the smallest entities of meaning, composed of 'dia-
crits' (cf. Gk. diákrit), the smallest entities of (i.e., diacritic) distinctive and
delimitative function, and by 'grammar' the set of relationships, that is, the
rules of functional co-existence, and the rules of substitutional alternativeness
organizing and ordering its lexicon, its diacrits and morphemes, into texts el
ements of a concrete human language. The description of language consists
of two parts — according to Zawadowski — (1) morphology in the broadest
sense, dealing with the form of texts, and (2) with semantics in the broadest
sense concerned with the meaning of texts, specified as their relationships to
the extratextual reality (cf. Handtke & Rzetelska-Feleszko [1977:28-29], for
elaboration).
Engaging in polemics with traditional trends, Zawadowski (1966:27)

moved to define the subject-matter of modern linguistics in terms of the fol
lowing sets of oppositions: 1) communicativism and functionalism vs tradi
tional expressionism; 2) textualism (and referentialism) vs psychologism; 3)
collectivism vs solipsism (individualism); 4) systemism (and relationism) vs
atomism, and 5) synchronism (not excluding diachronism) vs an exclusive
diachronism.
4. Concluding remarks
It seems that Milewski's death in 1966 and Zawadowski's emigration in
1969 first to the United States, then to Canada marked the end of an era in
Polish general linguistic theory. Both Milewski and Zawadowski, trained in
Indo-European comparative-historical philology, were able to encompass the
whole scope of the linguistic discipline, both in terms of 'data orientation'
and 'theory-orientation'. They familiarized themselves with the tenets of the
various competing structuralist schools, but went on to develop their own
postulates as to how to delimit the the domain of linguistic study and to go
about their self-imposed tasks. Starting from the 1970s, more energy was de
voted in Poland to conduct empirical investigations on the basis of more
recent Western theoretical trends embracing more specific — and restricted
— areas of linguistic inquiry.
REFERENCES
Adamska-Salaciak, Arleta. 1996. Language Change in the Works of Kruszewski,
Baudouin de Courtenay and Rozwadowski. Poznan: Motivex.
Bajerowa, Irena. 1987. "Językoznawstwo polonistyczne [Polish studies in lin
guistics]". Historia nauki polskiej [A history of Polish science] ed. by Bogdan
Suchodolski, vol.IV: 1883-1918, part III, 802-819. Wroclaw-Warszawa, [etc.:]
Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich.
Bally, Charles. 1926. Le langage et la vie. Paris: Payot.
Bańczerowski, Jerzy, Jerzy Pogonowski & Tadeusz Zgółka. 1982. Wstęp do języ-
koznawstwa [Introduction to linguistics]. Poznań: Uniwersytet imienia Adama
Mickiewicza.
Bañczerowski, Jerzy. 1981. "Z ogólnojęzykoznawczych koncepcji Mikołaja Rud-
nickiego (1888-1978) [From the general-linguistic concepts of Mikolaj Rud-
nicki]". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 38.11-32. [English
translation in the present volume, Chapter 8.]
Bartschat, Brigitte. 1989. "Die kritische Weiterentwicklung der morphologischen
Typologie des 19. Jahrhunderts durch J. Baudouin de Courtenay und H. G. C. von
der Gabelentz". Rieger et al. 1989.295-212.
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1868. "Einige Fälle der Wirkung der Analogie in der
polnischen Deklination". Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung auf dem
Gebiete der arischen, cel tischen und slawischen Sprachen 6.19-88. (Polish transl,
with restored preface in Szkice jçzykoznawcze [Linguistic sketches] by J. Baudouin
de Courtenay, 176-248. Warszawa: Piotr Laskauer, 1904; photographic repr. in
Dziela wybrane [Selected works] by J. Baudouin de Courtenay, vol.1.176-248.
Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1974.)
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1869. "August Schleicher". Tygodnik ilustrowany
104.317-319. (Russian transl, in /. A. Boduen de Kurtenè: Izbrannye trudy po ob-
ščemu jazykoznaniju [J. Baudouin de Courtenay: Selected works in general lin
guistics] ed. by V. P. Grigorev & A. A. Leont'ev, 35-44. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo
Akademii Nauk, 1963.)
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1871. "Nekotorye obscie zamecania o jazykovedenii i
jazyke [Some general remarks about linguistics and language]". Zumal Mini-
sterstva Narodnogo Prosvescenija 153.279-316 (Feb. 1871). (Repr. in Dziela wy
brane [Selected works] by J. Baudouin de Courtenay, vol.IV.35-64. Warszawa:
Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1990; English transl, in Baudouin de Cour
tenay 1972.49-80.)
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1876. "Programma ctenij docenta sravnitel' noj gram-
matiki indoevropejskix jazykov v tekuscem 1875/76 akademiceskom godu [A
program of readings by a docent of comparative grammar of Indo-European lan
guages in the current academic year 1875-1876]". Izvestija imperatorskogo
Kazanskogo Universiteta 12:1.191-195. (English transl, in Baudouin de Courtenay
1972.81-91.)
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1877-1878. 'Todrobnaja programma lekcij v 1876-
1877 akademičeskom godu [The detailed program of lectures in the academic year
1876-1877]". Izvestija imperatorskogo Kazanskogo Universiteta 13.309-324;
14:1.61-133. (English transl, in Baudouin de Courtenay 1972.92-113.)
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1881. "Nekotorye otdely 'sravnitelnoj grammatiki'
slavjanskix jazykov [Some chapters of the 'comparative grammar' of the Slavic
languages]". Russkij filólogičeskij vestnik 5.265-344.
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1879-1881. "Podrobnaja programma lekcij v 1877-
1878 akademiceskom godu [The detailed program of lectures in the academic year
1877-1878]". Izvestija imperatorskogo Kazanskogo Universiteta 16:2.350-380,
6.445-492; 17:6. 370-480; 18:1.481-612.
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1888. "Zametka k nekrologu Nikolaja Vjaceslavovica
Krusevskogo [A remark on the obituary of Nikolaj Vjaceslavovic Krusevskij]".
Russkij filolo gičeskij vestnik 1888:3/4.296-302.
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1888-1889. "Mikoiaj Kruszewski, jego zycie i prace
naukowe [Mikołaj Kruszewski, his life and scholarly works]". Prace Filologiczne
2:3.837-849, 3:1.116-175. (Repr. in Szkice jçzykoznawcze by J. Baudouin de
Courtenay, 96-175. Warszawa: Piotr Laskauer, 1904; repr. in Dziela wybrane
[Selected works] by J. Baudouin de Courtenay, vol.1, 96-175. Warszawa: Pañst
wowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1974.)
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1894. "Proba teorii alternacji fonetycznych [An
attempt at a theory of phonetic alternations]". Rozprawy Akademii Umiejętności.
Wydzial Filologiczny 2:5.219-364. (Repr. in Dziela wybrane [Selected works] by
J. Baudouin de Courtenay, vol.IV. 140-278. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo

Naukowe, 1990.)
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1895. Versuch einer Theorie phonetischer Alterna
tionen: Ein Capitel aus der Psychophonetik. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner.
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1903. "O psychicznych podstawach zjawisk języ-
kowych [On psychical foundations of linguistic phenomena]". Przeglqd filo-
zoficzny 6:2.153-171. (Repr. in Dziela wybrane [Selected works] by J. Baudouin
de Courtenay, vol.IV.355-371. Warszawa: Paiistwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe,
1990.)
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1905. "Proba uzasadnienia samoistnosci zjawisk
psychicznych na podstawie faktów językowych [An attempt at justifying the
autonomy of psychical phenomena on the basis of linguistic facts]". Sprawozdania
z posiedzeń Wydzialu Filologicznego Akademii Umiejętności w Krakowie 1-3.
(Repr. in Dziela wybrane by J. Baudouin de Courtenay, vol.IV.372-392. War
szawa: Paiistwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1990.)
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1908. "O związku wyobrażeń fonetycznych z wyo-
brazeniami morfologicznymi i semazjologicznymi [On the connection of phonetic
images with morphological and semasiological images]". Sprawozdania z Posie
dzen Towarzystwa Naukowe g o Warszawskiego 1:4/5.9-28.
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1915. "Charakterystyka psychologiczna języka pols
kiego [The psychological characteristics of the Polish language]". Encyklopedia
polska, vol. 11:3.154-226 (Repr. in Dziela wybrane [Selected works] by J. Bau
douin de Courtenay, vol.V.28-98. Warszawa: Paiistwowe Wydawnictwo Nau
kowe, 1983; also in O języku polskim [On the Polish language] by J. Baudouin de
Courtenay, ed. by Jan Basara & Mieczyslaw Szymczak, 139-225. Warszawa:
Paiistwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1984.)
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1917[1909]. Vvedenie v jazykovedenie [Introduction to
linguistics]. 4th ed. St.Petersburg. (Repr. in I. A. Boduèn de Kurtenè, Izbrannye
trudy po obščemu jazykoznaniju [J. Baudouin de Courtenay: Selected works in
general linguistics] ed. by V. P. Grigor'ev & A. A. Leont'ev, II, 246-293. Moskva:
Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk, 1963.)
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1927a. "Różnica między fonetyką a psychofonetyką
[The difference between phonetics and psychophonetics]". Sprawozdania z
Posiedzeń Towarzystwa Naukowego Warszawskiego 19.3-9.
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1927b. "Ilościowość w mysleniu językowym [Quan-
titativeness in linguistic thinking]", Symbolae grammaticae in honorem Ioannis
Rozwadowski vol.I.3-18. Cracow: Gebethner & Wolff.
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1929. "Einfluss der Sprache auf Weltanschauung und
Stimmung". Prace Filologiczne 14.184-225.
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1930. "Zagadnienie pokrewieństwa językowego [The
problem of the cognation of languages]". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Języ-
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1972. Baudouin de Courtenay Anthology: The begin
nings of structural linguistics. Edited with an introduction by Edward Stan-
kiewicz. Bloomington & London: Indiana University Press.
Bühler, Karl. 1934. Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena:

Gustav Fischer. (2nd ed., Stuttgart, 1965.)
Christy, Thomas Craig. 1983. Uniformitarianism in Linguistics. Amsterdam & Phi
ladelphia: John Benjamins.
Doroszewski, Witold. 1928-1931. "Monografie slowotwórcze [Monographs on
word formation]". Prace Filologiczne 13.1-261; 14. 34-85; 15:1.275-300; 15:2.
423-436.
Doroszewski, Witold. 1929. "'Langue' et 'parole': Une page d'histoire des idées
générales en linguistiques". Prace Filologiczne 14.485-487. (Polish version in
Studia i szkice jçzykoznawcze by W. Doroszewski, 80-88. Warszawa: Państwowe
Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1962.)
Doroszewski, Witold. 1930. "Socjologia i filozofja Durkheima [Sociology and
philosophy of Durkheim]". Przeglqd Filozoficzny 33.181-195.
Doroszewski, Witold. 1931. "Sociologie et linguistique, Durkheim et de Saussure".
Actes de Deuxième Congrès international de Linguistes, 146-147. Paris: Adrien
Maisonneuve.
Doroszewski, Witold.. 1933. "Durkheim et F. de Saussure". Journal de Psychologie
normale et pathologique 30. 82-91.
Doroszewski, Witold. 1935a. "La linguistique générale et l'étude des dialectes". Atti
del III. Congresso Internationale dei Linguisti, Roma 1933, p.34. Firenze: Felice
Lemonnier.
Doroszewski, Witold. 1935b. "Pour une réprésentation statistique des isoglosses".
Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 35.28-42.
Doroszewski, Witold. 1946. "Kategorie slowotwórcze [Word formation cate
gories]". Sprawozdanie Warszawskiego Towarzyswa Naukowe go 39.20-42 (Repr.
in Studia i szkice jçzykoznawcze by W. Doroszewski, 205-222. Warszawa: Pañst
wowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1962.)
Doroszewski, Witold. 1955. "Jan Baudouin de Courtenay na tle swojej epoki i jako
prekursor nowych prądów w językoznawstwie [Jan Baudouin de Courtenay
against the background of his epoch and as a precursor of new trends in lin
guistics]". NaukaPolska 1.47-58.
Doroszewski, Witold. 1957. "Historyczne podstawy strukturalizmu [Historical foun
dations of structuralism]". PoradnikJezykowy 1957.241-255.
Doroszewski, Witold. 1961. "O podstawowych koncepcjach Kursu de Saussure'a
[On the fundamental concepts of de Saussure's Cours]". Kurs jçzykoznawstwa
ogólnego by F. de Saussure, transl, by Krystyna Kasprzyk, 5-11. Warszawa:
Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Doroszewski, Witold. 1970. Elementy leksykologii i semiotyki. Warszawa: Pañst
wowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. (Transl, by Iain Taylor as Elements of Lexicology
and Semiotics. Berlin & New York: Mouton & de Gruyter, 1973.)
Fisiak, Jacek. 1972. Wklad Polski do językoznawstwa światowego [Poland's con
tribution to world linguistics]. Poznań: Uniwersytet imienia Adama Mickiewicza.
Fisiak, Jacek. 1975. Wstęp do wspólczesnych teorii lingwistycznych [An introduction
to contemporary linguistic theories]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedago-
giczne. (2nd ed., 1978.)
Florczak, Zofia. 1978. Europe]skie zródla teorii jçzykowych w Polsce na przelomie

XVIII i XIX wieku. Studia z dziejów teorii języka i gramatyki [European sources of
the theories of language in Poland at the turn of the XVIIIth and XlXth centuries.
Studies from the history of the theory of language and grammar]. Wroclaw, War-
szawa, Krakow & Gdańsk: Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich.
Furdal, Antoni. 1977. Językoznawstwo otwarte. Opole: Zaklad Narodowy imienia
Ossoliñskich. (2nd enl. ed., Wroclaw, 1990.)
Gawroñski, Andrzej. 1927. "La langue, sa nature et son origin". Biuletyn Polskiego
Towarzystwa Jçzykoznawczego 1.3-93. (Polish transl. "O istocie i rozwoju jçzyka
[On the nature and development of language]" in Szkice jçzykoznawcze by A.
Gawroñski, 1-37. Warszawa, Krakow, Lublin, Lodz, Poznań, Wilno & Zakopane:
Gebethner & Wolff, 1928.)
Godel, Robert. 1957. Les sources manuscrites du Cours de linguistique générale de
F. de Saussure. Geneva: Droz.
Gołąb, Zbigniew, Adam Heinz & Kazimierz Polański. 1968. Slownik terminologii
jçzykoznawcze] [A dictionary of the linguistic terminology]. Warszawa: Państ-
wowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Grabowski, Yvonne 1989. "The Views of Baudouin de Courtenay on Mixed Char
acter on All Languages". Rieger et al. 1989.97-102.
Grodziñski, Eugeniusz 1989. "Jan Baudouin de Courtenay o wplywie jçzyka na
światopogląd [Jan Baudouin de Courtenay about the influence of language on the
world view]". Rieger et al. 1989.141-147.
Grucza, Franciszek. 1983. Zagadnienia metalingwistyki: Lingwistyka—jej przed-
miot, lingwistyka stosowana [Issues in metalinguistics: Linguistics — its subject-
matter, applied linguistics]. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Gutschmidt, Karl. 1989. "Jan Baudouin de Courtenay und Hugo Schuchardt: Einige
Bemerkungen", Rieger et al. 1989.155-164.
Handtke, Kwiryna, & Ewa Rzetelska-Feleszko. 1977. Przewodnik po języko-
znawstwie polskim [A guide to Polish linguistics]. Wroclaw, Warszawa, [etc.]:
Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossoliñskich.
Heinz, Adam. 1966. "Językoznawstwo ogólne i indoeuropejskie w 20-leciu PRL
[General and Indo-European linguistics on the 20th anniversary of the Polish
People's Republic]". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Jçzykoznawczego 24.16-33.
Heinz, Adam. 1978. Dzieje jçzykoznawstwa w zarysie [A history of linguistics in
outline]. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Heinz, Adam 1980. "Profesor Jerzy Kurylowicz jako teoretyk jçzyka [Professor
Jerzy Kurylowicz as a theoretician of language]". Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu
Jagiellońskiego 557; Prace Jçzykoznawcze 66.53-60. (Repr. in Studia jçzykoznaw
cze. Wybór prac opublikowanych w języku polskim [Linguistic studies: A selection
of works published in Polish] by J. Kurylowicz, 5-12. Warszawa: Pañstwowe
Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1987.)
Heinz, Adam. 1980. "Profesor Jerzy Kurylowicz. Wspomnienie posmiertne [Pro
fessor Jerzy Kurylowicz: A memoir after the death]", Biuletyn Polskiego Towar
zystwa Językoznawczego 37.3-7.
Horálek, Karel 1989. "Jan Baudouin de Courtenay a psychologizm w języko-

znawstwie [Jan Baudouin de Courtenay and the psychologism in linguistics]".
Rieger et al. 1989.103-109.
Ivić, Milka 1966[1963]. Kierunki w lingwistyce [Trends in linguistics]. Polish transl,
from Serbo-Croatian by Anna Wierzbicka. Wroclaw-Warszawa-Kraków: Zaklad
Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich. (2nd enl. ed. transl, from the 3rd Serbo-Croatian
ed. of 1974 by Kazimierz Feleszko & Anna Wierzbicka, Wroclaw, Warszawa,
Krakow & Gdańsk: Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossoliñskich, 1975.)
Jakobson, Roman. 1958. "Powstanie pojęcia fonemu w lingwistyce polskiej i swia-
towej [The origin of the concept of the phoneme in Polish and world linguistics]".
Sprawozdania z prac naukowych Wydzialu Nauk Spolecznych Polskiej Akademii
Nauk [Minutes from the scientific works of the Faculty of Social Sciences of the
Polish Academy of Sciences] 1:6.48-54.
Jakobson, Roman 1960. "Kazaiiska szkoia polskiej lingwistyki i jej miejsce w świa-
towym rozwoju fonologii [The Kazan school of Polish linguistics and its place in
the international development of phonology]". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa
Językoznawczego 19.3-34. (Repr. in English transl, in R. Jakobson, Selected Writ
ings, vol.11: Word and language, 394-428. The Hague: Mouton, 1971.)
Jakobson, Roman 1967. "Znaczenie Kruszewskiego w rozwoju językoznawstwa
ogólnego [The significance of Kruszewski in the development of general lin
guistics]". Wybór pism [Selected writings] by M. Kruszewski, x-xxv. Wroclaw-
Warszawa- Kraków: Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossoliñskich.
Koerner, E[rnst] F[rideryk] K[onrad]. 1973. "European Structuralism: Early begin
nings". Current Trends in Lnguistics ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok, vol. XIII: Histo
riography of linguistics, 717-827. The Hague: Mouton.
Koerner, E. F. K. 1986. "Kruszewski's Contribution to General Linguistic Theory".
Linguistics across Historical and Geographical Boundaries: In honour of Jacek
Fisiak, vol.1: Linguistic theory and historical linguistics ed. by Dieter Kastovsky
& Aleksander Szwedek, 53-75. The Hague: Mouton.
Kolmaczewski, Leonard = K[olmacevskij] L[eonard Zenonovic]. 1888. "Krusevskij,
Nikolaj Vjaceslavovič". Russkij filologičeskij vestnik 1888:1.70-75.
Kruszewski, Mikolaj. 1879. "Ob 'analogii' i 'narodnoj etimologii' ('Volksetymo
logie') [On 'analogy' and 'folk-etymology' ('Volksetymologie')]". Russkij filolo-
gièeskij vestnik 2:3/4.109-122.
Kruszewski, Mikolaj. 1881a. "K voprosu o gune: Issledovanie v oblasti staro-
slovianskogo vokalizma [On the question of 'guna': A study in the domain of Old
Slavic vocalism]". Russkij filologie eskij vestnik 5:1.1-109. (Extracts in Polish
transl, in Wybór pism [Selected writings] by M. Kruszewski, 25-46. Wroclaw-
Warszawa-Kraków: Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossoliñskich, 1967.)
Kruszewski, Mikolaj. 1881b. Ueber die Lautabwechslung. Kazan: Universitätsbuch
druckerei. (English transl, by Robert Austerlitz in Kruszewski 1995.5-34.)
Kruszewski, Mikolaj. 1883, Ocerk nauki o jazyke [An outline of the science of
language]. Kazan: Tipografija Imperatorskogo Universiteta. (Polish transl, in
Wybór pism, [Selected writings] by M. Kruszewski, 47-150. Wroclaw, Warszawa
& Krakow: Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossoliñskich, 1967; English transl, by
Gregory M. Eramian in Kruszewski 1995.43-172.)
Kruszewski, Mikolaj 1884-1890. "Prinzipien der Sprachenentwicklung". Interna

tionale Zeitschrift für allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 1.295-307, 2.258-268, 3.
145-170, 5. 133-144, 360-399, (Friedrich Techmer's transl, of Kruszewski 1883,
rev. by the author.)
Kruszewski, Mikolaj. 1885. "Przyczynek do historii pierwotnych samoglosek
dlugich [A contribution to the history of original long vowels]". Prace Filolo-
giczne\.9\-\0\.
Kruszewski, Mikolaj. 1995[1881b, 1883]. Writings in General Linguistics: On
Vocalic Aternations; An Outline of Linguistic Science. Ed., with an introduction,
by Konrad Koerner. (= Amsterdam Classics in Linguistics, 1800-1925, 11.)
Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1927. "Andrzej Gawroński (1885-1927)". Biuletyn Polskiego
Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1936. "Dérivation lexicale et dérivation syntaxique (Contribution
à la théorie des parties du discours)". Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de
Paris. 37. 79-92. (Repr. in Kurylowicz 1960.41-50.)
Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1938. "Struktura morfemu [The structure of a morpheme]".
Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Jçzykoznawczego 7.10-28. (Repr. in Kurylowicz
1960.51-65.)
Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1947a. "Le sens des mutations consonantiques". Lingua 1:1.77-
85. (Repr. in Kurylowicz 1960.240-247.)
Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1947b. "Język poetycki ze stanowiska lingwistyki [The poetic
language from a linguistic point of view]". Sprawozdania Wroclawskiego To-
warzystwa Naukowego 2.4-11. (Repr. in Kurylowicz 1960.299-304.)
Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1948a. "Contributions à la théorie de la syllabe", Biuletyn Pol
skiego Towarzystwa Jçzykoznawczego 8.80-114. (Repr. in Kurylowicz 1960.193-
220.)
Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1948b. "Les structures fondamentales de la langue: Groupe et
proposition". Studia Philosophica 3.203-209. (Repr. in Kurylowicz 1960.35-40.)
Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1948c. Jçzyk a czlowiek [Language and Man]. (= Jçzyko-
znawswo ogólne [General linguistics], 1.) Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna.
Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1949a. "Le probème du classement des cas". Biuletyn Polskiego
Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 9.20-43. (Repr. in Kurylowicz 1960.131-150.)
Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1949b. "La notion de l'isomorphisme". Travaux du Cercle Lin
guistique de Copenhague (= Recherches Structurales dédiées à L. Hjelmslev)
9.48-60. (Repr. in Kurylowicz 1960.16-26.)
Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1949c. "Linguistique et théorie du signe". Journal de Psycho
logie 1949.170-180. (Repr. in Kurylowicz 1960.7-15.)
Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1949d. "La nature des procès dits 'analogiques'". Acta Lin
guistica 5.15-37. (Repr. in Kurylowicz 1960.66-86. English transl, by Margaret E.
Winters, "The So-Called Laws of Analogy", Diachronica 12:1.122-144 [1995].)
Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1950. "Tadeusza Milewskiego Zarys językoznawstwa ogólnego
Il [Tadeusz Milewski's Outline of general linguistics II]". Biuletyn Polskiego
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1955. "Językoznawstwo ogólne w dziesiçcioleciu 1945-1954

[General linguistics in the decade 1945-1954]". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa
Jçzykoznawczego 14.1-10.
Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1958. "Allophones et allomorphs". Omagiu lui lorgu lordan cu
privilejul împlinarii a 70 de ani, 495-500. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Repu-
blicii Populare Romîne. (Repr. in Kurylowicz 1960.27-34.)
Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1960. Esquisses linguistiques. (= Prace jçzykoznawcze [Lin
guistic works], 19) Wroclaw & Krakow: Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich.
Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1962/63. "O tzw. wewnętrznej rekonstrukcji [On the so-called
internal reconstruction]". Sprawozdania Wydzialu Nauk Spolecznych Polskiej
Akademii Nauk 19-41. (Repr. in Studia językoznawcze [Linguistic studies] by J,
Kurylowicz, 48-70. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1987.)
Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1964a. "On the Methods of Internal Reconstruction", Proceed
ings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, Cambridge, Mass., August
27-32 1962 ed. by Horace G. Lunt, 9-36. The Hague: Mouton.
Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1964b. The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European, Heidel
berg: Carl Winter.
Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1967. "Mikołaj Kruszewski". Wybór pism [Selected writings] by
M. Kruszewski, iii-ix. Wroclaw-Warszawa -Krakow: Zaklad Narodowy imienia
Ossolińskich.
Lehr-Spławiñski, Tadeusz. 1936. "Plon prac językoznawczych Jana Rozwadow-
skiego (1867-1937) [The fruits of Jan Rozwadowskie's linguistic works]". Biu
letyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Jçzykoznawczego 5.3-21.
Leska, Oldrich. 1989. "The Structure of Language: Jan Baudouin de Courtenay and
present-day linguistics". Rieger et al. 1989.17-23.
Lewicki, Andrzej Maria. 1993. "Językoznawstwo polskie w XX wieku [Polish lin
guistics in the XXth century]". Wspólczesny język polski by Jerzy Bartmiński (=
Encyklopedia kultury polskiej, 2), 589-624. Wroclaw: Wiedza o Kulturze.
Mańczak, Witold. 1960. "Zagadnienia ogolnojęzykoznawcze w pracach Jana Roz-
wadowskiego [General linguistics issues in the works of Jan Rozwadowski]".
Wybór pism [Selected writings], vol.III: Językoznawswo ogólne [General linguis
tics] by J. M. Rozwadowski, 5-17. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Nau
kowe.
Milewski, Tadeusz. 1947. Język a spoleczeństwo [Language and society]. (=
Wyklady i Przemówienia, 25). Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uni-
wersytetu Lubelskiego.
Milewski, Tadeusz. 1947-1948. Zarys językoznawstwa ogólnego [An outline of
general linguistics ] (= Prace Etnologiczne [Ethnological Works], vol.1), part 1:
Teoria jçzykoznawstwa [A theory of linguistics], part II: Rozmieszczenie języków
[The distribution of languages], fasc.l: Tekst, fasc.2: Atlas. Lublin & Krakow:
Naklad i Wydawnictwo Polskiego Towarzystwa Ludoznawczego.
Milewski, Tadeusz. 1949. "Derywacja fonologiczna [Phonological derivation]".
Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Jçzykoznawczego 9.43-57. (Repr. in Z zagadnień
językoznawstwa ogólnego i historycznego [From the issues of general and his
torical linguistics] by T. Milewski, 55-70. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo
Naukowe, 1969.)
Milewski, Tadeusz. 1950. "Podstawy teoretyczne typologii języków [Theoretical

foundations of the typology of languages]''. Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Języ-
Milewski, Tadeusz 1954. Wstęp do językoznawstwa [Introduction to linguistics].
Lodz, Warszawa & Krakow. (2nd ed., 1959; 3rd ed., 1960; 4th ed. 1962.)
Milewski, Tadeusz. 1965. Językoznawstwo [Linguistics]. Warszawa: Państwowe
Wydawnictwo Naukowe. (English transl, from the 1969 ed. by Maria Brochwicz
as Introduction to the Study of Language. The Hague: Mouton; Warszawa: Pañst
wowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe/Polish Scientific Publishers, 1973.)
Milewski, Tadeusz. 1966. "Dzialalnosc naukowa Polskiego Towarzystwa Języko-
znawczego w 20-leciu PRL [The scientific activity of the Polish Linguistic Society
on the 20th anniversary of the Polish People's Republic]". Biuletyn Polskiego
Olmsted, D[avid] L[ockwoodl. 1989. "Baudouin, Structuralism and Society". Rieger
et al. 1989.25-34.
Polański, Kazimierz. 1975. "Językoznawstwo polskie w powojennym 30-leciu [Pol
ish linguistics in the 30 years after the war]". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa
Polański, Kazimierz. 1991. "Wprowadzenie [Introduction]". Kurs jçzykoznawstwa
ogólnego by F. de Saussure, transl, by Krystyna Kasprzyka, 5-22. 2nd improved
ed. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Polañski, Kazimierz, ed. 1993. Encyklopedia jçzykoznawstwa ogólnego [Ency
clopedia of general linguistics]. Wrociaw-Warszawa-Kraków: Zakiad Narodowy
imienia Ossolińskich.
Porzeziñski, Wiktor. 1910[1907]. Einleitung in die Sprachwissenschaft. Authorized
transl, from the Russian by Erich Boehme, revised by the author. Leipzig & Ber
lin: B. G. Teubner.
Porzeziñski, Wiktor. 1927. "Die allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft in Polen seit 1868".
Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Jçzykoznawczego 1.44-79.
Porzeziñski, Wiktor 1929[1923]. "Quelques mots sur les 'parties du discours'".
Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Jçzykoznawczego 2.82-122.
Rieger, Janusz, Mieczyslaw Szymczak & Stanislaw Urbañczyk, eds. 1989. Jan
Niecislaw Baudouin de Courtenay a lingwistyka swiatowa: Materialy z konferencji
międzynarodowej Warszawa 4-7 IX 1979 [Jan Niecislaw Baudouin de Courtenay
and world linguistics: Materials from the international conference, Warsaw 4-7 IX
1979]. Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków-Gdańsk-Łódź: Zakład Narodowy imienia
Ossoliñskich.
Rokoszowa. Jolanta. 1991. "Problemy ogólnojęzykoznawcze i filozoficzne w pra-
cach Jana Michala Rozwadowskiego". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Jçzyko
znawczego 43-45.17-27
Rozwadowski, Jan Michał. 1903. "Semazjologia czyli nauka o rozwoju znaczeń
wyrazów. Jej stan obecny, zasady i zadania [Semasiology or the science of the
development of word meanings. Its current state, principles and tasks]". Eos 9.17-
111.
Rozwadowski, Jan 1904. Wortbildung und Wortbedeutung. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
(Polish transl, by Gustaw Foss as"Slowotwórstwo i znaczenie wyrazów [Word
formation and word meaning]" in Wybór pism [Selected writings], vol.Ill: Języko-
znawstwo ogólne [General linguistics] by J. Rozwadowski, 21-95. Warszawa:
Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1960.)
Rozwadowski, Jan. 1909. "Ein quantitatives Gesetz der Sprachentwicklung". Indo
germanische Forschungen 25.38-50. (Polish transl, by Eugeniusz Sluszkiewicz "O
pewnym prawie ilosciowym rozwoju jezyka [On a certain quantitative law of
language development]" in Wybór pism [Selected writings], vol.III: Językoznawst-
wo ogólne [General linguistics] by J. Rozwadowski, 96-105. Warszawa: Pañstwo
we Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1960.)
Rozwadowski, Jan. 1921. O zjawiskach i rozwoju języka [On the phenomena and the
development of language]. Krakow: Gebethner & Wolff. (2nd ed., 1950.)
Rozwadowski, Jan. 1922. "Zjawisko dysautomatyzacji i tendencja energii psy-
chicznej [The phenomenon of disautomatization and the tendency of psychical
energy]". Kwartalnik filozoficzny 1.19-37. (Repr. in Wybór pism , vol.III: Języko-
znawstwo ogólne by J. Rozwadowski, 106-119. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydaw
nictwo Naukowe, 1960.)
Rozwadowski, Jan. 1924. "Semantyka a gramatyka. Nauka o znaczeniu w obrebie
nauk o języku [Semantics and grammar. The science of meaning within the
domain of the sciences of language]". JęzykPolski 9:97-108 & 129-143. (Repr. in
Wybór pism , vol.III: Językoznawstwo ogólne by J. Rozwadowski, 138-160, War
szawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1960.)
Rozwadowski, Jan. 1925. "Les tâches de la linguistique". Bulletin de la Société de
Linguistique de Paris 25.105-122. (Polish transl, by Eugeniusz Słuszkiewicz as
"Zadania językoznawstwa" in Wybór pism vol.III: Językoznawstwo ogólne by J.
Rozwadowski, 228-239. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1960.)
Rudnicki, Mikolaj. 1912. "Z zagadnień psychofonetycznych. (Na tle konkretnych
wypadków polskich i słowiańskich) [From psychophonetic issues (Against the
background of concrete Polish and Slavic cases)]". Materialy i Prace Komisji
Językowej Akademii Umiejętności 5.173-260.
Rudnicki, Mikolaj 1913. "Studya psychofonetyczne. I: Assymilacya [Psychopho
netic studies. I: Assimilation]". Rozprawy Wydzia łu Filologicznego Akademii
Umiejętnosci 3:5(50).98-204.
Rudnicki, Mikolaj. 1913. "Wyobrazenia reprodukują.ce i reprodukowane [The repro
ducing and the reproduced images]". Lingua Posnaniensis 16.49-59,
Rudnicki, Mikolaj. 1927. "Język jako zjawisko pamięciowe (Prawo identyfikacji
wyobrazeñ niedostatecznie róznych) [Language as a memory phenomenon. (The
law of the identification of insufficiently different images)]". Symbolae gram-
maticae in honorem Ioannis Rozwadowski, vol.1.53-698. Kraków: Gebethner &
Wolff.
Rudnicki, Mikolaj. 1956. Językoznawstwo polskie w dobie oświecenia, Poznań:
Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Rudnicki, Mikołaj. 1971. "Językoznawstwo polskie w dobie uzyskiwania niepod-
ległości [Polish linguistics in the period of regaining the independence]". Slavia
Occidentalis 28/29.205-221.
Rysiewicz, Zygmunt. 1948. "Andrzej Gawroński et les travaux linguistiques au

cours des vingt dernières années". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznaw-
czego 8.3-29.
Safarewicz, Jan. 1955. "Językoznawstwo indoeuropejskie w Polsce w latach 1945-
1954 [Indo-European Linguistics in Poland in the years 1945-1954]". Biuletyn
Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 14.11-23.
Safarewicz, Jan. 1966. "Tadeusz Milewski 1906-1966". Biuletyn Polskiego Towar
zystwa Językoznawczego 24.3-8.
Safarewicz, Jan. 1982. "Polskie towarzystwa jçzykoznawcze i polskie czasopisma
jçzykoznawcze [Polish linguistic societies and Polish linguistic journals]". Język i
jçzykoznawstwo polskie w szescdziesiçciolecie niepodleglosci (1918-1978). Mate-
rialy konferencji naukowej, Warszawa, 25 października 1978 [Language and Pol
ish linguistics on the sixtieth anniversary of independence (1918-1978). Materials
of the scientific conference, Warsaw, 25 October 1978] ed. by Janusz Rieger &
Mieczysław Szymczak, 209-212. Wroclaw-Warszawa-Kraków: Zaklad Naro-
dowy imienia Ossolińskich.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot. (2nd ed.,
1922.; Polish transl, of the 5th ed., 1955. Kurs jçzykoznawstwa ogólnego by
Krystyna Kasprzyk. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1961; 2nd
revised ed., 1991.)
Saussure, Ferdinand de 1954. ""Notes inédites de F. de Saussure", Ed. by Robert
Godel. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 12.49-71.
Schaarschmidt, Gunter 1989. "Baudouin de Courtenay and Language Contact Phe
nomena". Rieger et al. 1989.89-95.
Scherer, Wilhelm. 1868. Zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: Weidmann.
van Schooneveld, Cornelis H. 1989. "Baudouin de Courtenay's Methodological
Premisses for the Investigation of Language and their Relation to Present-Day
Linguistics". Rieger et al. 1989.11-16.
Skorupka Stanislaw. 1977. "Teoretyczny i metodologiczny aspekt badań języko-
znawczych profesora Witolda Doroszewskiego [Theoretical and methodological
aspects of the linguistic research work of professor Witold Doroszewski]".
Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 35.3-9.
Stankiewicz, Edward. 1976. Baudouin de Courtenay and theF oundations of Struc
tural Linguistics. Lisse/Holland: Peter de Ridder Press.
Sternemann, Reinhard & Karl Gutschmidt. 1989. Einführung in die vergeichende
Sprachwissenschaft. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Szober, Stanislaw. 1923[1914—1916]. Gramatyka jçzyka polskiego [Grammar of the
Polish language]. 2nd altered and enlarged ed. Lwow & Warszawa: Ksiąznica
Polska.
Szober, Stanislaw. 1924. Zarys jçzykoznawstwa ogólnego [An outline of general
linguistics]. Fasc.l. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Towarzystwa Miłośników Języka
Polskiego.
Szober, Stanislaw. 1929. "Wiktor Porzeziński (1870-1929)". Biuletyn Polskiego To
warzystwa Językoznawczego 2.69-81.
Szober, Stanislaw. 1930. "Jan Ignacy Niecislaw Baudouin de Courtenay (1845-
1829)". Prace Filologiczne 15.vii-xxiii, bibliography xxiv-liv. (Repr. in Wybór
pism [Selected writings] by S. Szober, 406-416. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydaw-

nictwo Naukowe, 1959.
Szober, Stanislaw. 1937 "Jan Michal Rozwadowski (1867-1935)". Prace Filolo-
giczne 28.189-195. (Repr. in Wybór pism [Selected writings] by S. Szober, 421-
425. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1959.)
Taszycki, Witold. 1938. "Działalnosc naukowa Stanislawa Szobera (1879-1938)
[The scientific actitvity of Stanislaw Szober]". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa
Językoznawczego 7.3-9,
Urbañczyk, Stanislaw, ed. 1978. Encyklopedia wiedzy o języku polskim [Ency
clopedia of the knowledge of the Polish language]. Wroclaw-Warszawa, etc.:
Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossoliñskich. (2nd revised and extended ed., Ency
klopedia języka polskiego [Encyclopedia of the Polish language], Wroclaw, War
szawa & Kraków, 1994.)
Urbañczyk, Stanislaw. 1977. "Jçzykoznawstwo [Linguistics]". Historia nauki pol-
skiej [A history of Polish science] ed. by Bogdan Suchodolski, vol.III: 1795-1862,
762-769. Wroclaw-Warszawa, [etc.]: Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich.
Vengerov, S[emen] A[fanas'evič]. ed. 1897. Kritiko-biograficeskij slovar' russkix
písatelej i učenyx [A critical-biographical dictionary of Russian writers and schol
ars], vol.V. St. Petersburg: Tipografija M. M. Stasjulevica.
Wsiąk, Zdzislaw, 1991. "General linguistics in Poland between 1918 and 1939".
Languages of the World (Unterschleissheim near Munich) 2.43-52.
Wąsik, Zdzislaw. 1999. "Jçzykoznawstwo ogólne [General linguistics]". Historia
nauki polskiej: Wiek XX [A history of Polish science: The 20th century], vol.III:
Nauki filologiczne[Philological sciences] ed. by Andrzej Śródka, 37-63. War
szawa: Instytut Historii Nauki, Polska Akademia Nauk.
Weinsberg, Adam, 1987, "Jçzykoznawstwo ogólne [General linguistics]". Historia
nauki polskiej [A history of the Polish science] ed. by Bogdan Suchodolski, vol.
IV, 1883-1918, part 111,786-802. Wroclaw-Warszawa, [etc.]: Zaklad Narodowy
imienia Ossoliñskich.
Weinsberg, Adam. 1983. Jçzykoznawstwo ogólne [General linguistics]. Warszawa:
Wieczorkiewicz, Bronislaw. 1959. "Zycie i dzialalnosc naukowa Stanislawa Szobera
[The life and scientific activity of S. Szober]". Wybór pism [Selected writings] by
S. Szober, 7-22. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Wierzchowski, Jozef. 1993. "On the history of word formation analysis in Poland".
Trends in Semantics I, 74-86. Bialystok: Katedra Językoznawstwa Ogólnego i
Stosowanego Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego - Filii w Bialymstoku.
Williams, Joanna Radwańska. 1993. A Paradigm Lost. The linguistic theory of
Mikolaj Kruszewski. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Wundt, Wilhelm [Max]. 1900. Völkerpsychologie: Eine Untersuchung der Entwick
lungsgesetze von Sprache, Mythus und Sitte, vol.I: Die Sprache. Leipzig: Wilhelm
Engelmann. (2nd ed., 1904; 3rd ed., 1912.)
Zaleski, Jan. 1975. "50 lat dzialalności Polskiego Towarzystwa Jçzykoznawczego
[50 Years of Activity of the Polish Linguistic Society]". Biuletyn Polskiego To
warzystwa Jçzykoznawczego 33.21-28.
Zawadowski, Leon. 1948. "Zagadnienia teorii zdań względnych (Streszczenie) [Is

sues in the theory of relative clauses (Summary)]. Sprawozdania Wroclawskiego
Towarzystwa Naukowego 3.107-201.
Zawadowski, Leon 1950. "On the Elements of Semantic Systems". Biuletyn Pol-
skiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 10.77-98.
Zawadowski, Leon. 1951. "Rzeczywisty i pozorny wpływ kontekstu na znaczenie
[A real and apparent influence of the context upon the meaning]". Sprawozdania
Wroclawskiego Towarzystwa Naukowego 4.1949-Dodatek 2:1-18.
Zawadowski, Leon. 1952. Zagadnienia teorii zdanwzgęldnych [Issues in the theory
of relative clauses]. Wroclaw: Nakladem Wroclawskiego Towarzystwa Nauko
wego.
Zawadowski, Leon. 1958a. 'The So-Called Relative Motivation in Language".
Omagiu lui Iorgu lor dan cu privilejul împlinarii a 70 de ani, 927-937. Bucharest:
Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Romîne.
Zawadowski, Leon. 1958b. "La signification des morphèmes polysémes". Biuletyn
Polskiego Towarzystwa Jçzykoznawczego 17.67-96.
Zawadowski, Leon. 1959. Constructions grammaticales et formes périphrastiques.
(= Prace językoznawcze [Linguistic works], 18.) Kraków-Wroclaw-Warszawa:
Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossoliñskich.
Zawadowski, Leon. 1963. "Substance and Relation in Language". Rozprawy Komisji
Językowej Wroclawskiego Towarzystwa Naukowego 4.5-26.
Zawadowski, Leon. 1965a. "Induction et déduction en linguistique". Biuletyn
Polskiego Towarzystwa Jçzykoznawczego 23.71-93.
Zawadowski, Leon. 1965b. "Primary Data of Linguistic Analysis". Symbolae lin-
guisticae in honorem Georgi Kurylowicz ed. by Adam Heinz et al. (= Prace Kom
isji Językoznawstwa [The works of the linguistic commission], 5), 369-378. Wroc
law-Warszawa-Kraków: Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossoliñskich.
Zawadowski, Leon. 1966. Lingwistyczna teoría języka. Warszawa: Pastwowe Wy-
dawnictwo Naukowe.
Zawadowski, Leon. 1975. Inductive Semantics and Syntax: Foundations of empiri
cal linguistics. The Hague: Mouton.
CHAPTER 2
ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT OF
APPLIED LINGUISTICS IN POLAND*
FRANCISZEK GRUCZA
University of Warsaw
1. Stratifying the field

In this chapter I shall provide an outline of the history of achievements of
Polish linguists in the area of applied linguistics, and a description of the pre
sent state of this field in Poland. However, by way of introduction, I shall be
gin with some more general remarks in order to provide a background for a
more specific, local treatment of the subject's history.
For thousands of years people have been performing metalinguistic op
erations. Nevertheless, until relatively recently humanity was performing
such acts being unaware of their nature, i.e., not knowing that they consist in,
generally speaking, producing sentences (utterances) about other sentences
(utterances). The specificity of these operations was first shown in 1933 by
Alfred Tarski (cf. Tarski 1933). Only an awareness of the specificity of such
operations made it possible to finally solve 'the eternal enigma' of logical
paradoxes and the need to adapt this discovery to linguistic discussions was
brought to general attention by George L. Trager (1949), Einar Haugen
(1951), and Roman Jakobson (1958). Years later, I also attempted to transfer
the results of this discovery to the domain of applied linguistics (Grucza
1968, 1983). I mention this here as it underlines the necessity of distinguish
ing two levels of operations: (a) a plane of basic operations that may be clas
sified as the field of applied linguistics, and (b) a plane of relevant meta-
operations, i.e., a plane of thinking, speaking and/or writing about the basic
operations included in the scope of applied linguistics and/or the conse
quences of such operations.
However, if we approach more closely such mental/linguistic meta-oper-
ations, it will become clear that it is necessary to further divide them into two
different levels as it is also important to distinguish an additional plane of de-
* Based on a much longer, discursive draft by the author, translated into English by Anna
Setkowicz-Ryszka, in consultation with Prof. Barbara Kielar of Warsaw, and reworked by the
editors with the assistance of John Kearns.
liberations in applied linguistics (and indeed in linguistics in general). We

shall call this "plane (c)" and put it directly over plane (b). These meta-opera-
tions and their effects can also be a subject for discussion. It is also obvious
that one may (and ought to) analyse ways of distinguishing the field of ap
plied linguistics within the linguistic universe, discuss the accuracy of
various divisions of this universe, the appropriateness and/or correctness of
various teleological concepts in applied linguistics, and only then may one
deal with the question of whether it is right or wrong to include particular
linguistic operations in this field.
The ideas to be discussed here are situated mainly on the last-mentioned
plane. It is this plane which offers a vantage point from which we may view
the history of applied linguistics and comment on its present state.
2. The early history of applied linguistics

The division into pure linguistics and applied linguistics was first made
expressis verbis by a German scholar, August Friedlich Bernhardi (1769-
1820) who devoted to each of the two parts of linguistics one volume of his
work Sprachlehre,, The first volume, published in 1801, was subtitled Reine
Sprachlehre, and the second one, published in 1803, was subtitled Ange
wandte Sprachlehre, In the preface to the first volume he admitted that he
had divided his Sprachlehre into the pure and the applied following the ex
ample of mathematicians.
Bernhardi believed that applied linguistics should examine possibilities of
using language as a means of presenting various strings of thoughts and/or
representations. He treated language as a means of presenting 'nature' and
'mind' (conceptions and thoughts). The combination of those statements
{Sprache in ihrer Anwendung auf Poesie und Wissenschaft) and the subtitle
given to the second volume of his work Angewandte Sprachlehre suggest
that applied linguistics is part of a 'whole' linguistics which ought to be
established in order to investigate possibilities of more effectively using the
potential of language both in the fields of conceptions and thoughts.
Moreover, he believed that applied linguistics should examine the musical
functions of sound aspects of linguistic expressions treated as if they did not
mean anything in semantic tenus.
Unfortunately, however, Bernhardi's work was forgotten relatively
quickly, similar to many other works representing 'theoretical thought' on
human languages from the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries. Certainly this
happened as a result of the process which, as early as the middle of the 19th
century, resulted in the almost complete limitation of linguistic discussion to
historical issues.
APPLIED LINGUISTICS IN POLAND 55
3. The beginnings of Polish applied linguistics

A similar division of linguistics was made by Jan Baudouin de Courtenay
(1845-1929), a Polish linguist and one of the most eminent scholars dealing
with linguistic issues in general (cf. Koemer 1972, Stankiewicz 1972). Al
though he spent the greater part of his active academic life at Russian uni
versities and published many works in Russian, he considered himself to be a
Pole (cf. Malachowska 1973). While it is true that he started his work neither
in Poland nor in Polish, one must bear in mind that Poland did not exist as an
independent state in those times, that her territory was occupied by foreign
powers, and that the locality where Baudouin de Courtenay was born (Radzy-
min near Warsaw) was under the rule of the Russian Tsar. Thus he could not
obtain the post of professor in any former Polish university of the Russian
sector of the partitioned country.
It would not be an overstatement to say that the history of Polish applied
linguistics begins with Baudoin de Courtenay. For chronological reasons the
hypothesis that he borrowed the idea from Bemhardi cannot be rejected com
pletely, but there are no documented data on which such an hypothesis could
be based. It is certain that neither he nor Bernhardi invented the distinction
from scratch. Each borrowed the idea from different sources: Bernhardi di
vided linguistics into pure and applied following the example of mathe
matics, while Baudouin de Courtenay did so under the influence of the
natural sciences. Moreover, each assigned different tasks to applied linguis
tics.
The first time he presented his ideas was in a lecture delivered in Russian
at the University of St. Petersburg in 1870 on the occasion of his appointment
to the Chair of Comparative Grammar of the Indo-European Languages. It
was published a year later under the title "Nekotorye obscie zamecanija o ja-
zykovedenii i jazyke [Some remarks on linguistics and language]" in the Žur-
nal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosvescenija 153.279-316 (quoted after Bodu-
èn de Kurtenè 1963:47-77, also available as Baudouin de Courtenay's Dziela
wybrane, vol. IV, 35-64). In this lecture Baudouin de Courtenay notes (p.57)
that "one must distinguish pure linguistics (i.e., linguistics in itself dealing
with language as a sum of uniform facts that belong — for their universality
— to the category of human phenomena) and applied linguistics, dealing
with the application of the data of pure linguistics to issues of other sci
ences."
Baudouin goes on to explain that he treats the terms jazykovedeny and

jazykoznanye as synonyms of 'linguistics' and 'glottics' 1 , respectively. Thus,
we can translate the terms chistoye jazykovedenye and prikladnoye jazykove-
denye as 'pure linguistics' and 'applied linguistics'. The goals of the latter
are determined by him more precisely on page 7 4 : 2
As regards applied linguistics, it consists in: 1) the application of data in the
field of grammar to the problems in morphology (etymological myths), ancient his
tory and the history of culture in general (comparing words important in terms of
cultural and historical background including the history of primitive (prehistoric)
times created by means of linguistics, also called linguistic palaeontology) as deter
mined through grammatical research on the mutual influence of nations upon each
other, etc.; 2) the application of data in the field of systematics to problems in
ethnography and ethnology, as well as to problems in the history of nations in gen
eral (division of languages in connection with the natural division of peoples) and
others; and 3) the application of the results of the research described in Chapter 2 (on
the beginnings of the language etc.) to the issues which are the subjects of anthropol
ogy, zoology etc. (where linguistics is only of secondary importance)."
In short, Baudouin de Courtenay believed that one objective of applied

linguistics is to find and to examine the possibility of " u s i n g " the knowledge
acquired by pure linguistics in solving problems that are the subject matter of
other branches of science. Baudouin de Courtenay recognised the possibility
of using linguistic knowledge in practice, but at the same time he said that
dealing with it is not the subject matter of science. The domains that have an
objective "to apply theory to practice" are separate from science and the arts.
H e says (p.48):
The distinction between art in the broad sense of this word (hence, not only the
fine arts) and science in general fully corresponds to the distinction between practice
and theory, as well as the distinction between an invention and discovery. Art is
specific because of its technical rules and assumptions, science — because of its
generalisation of facts, conclusions and scientific principles. There are two aspects in
art: 1) current practice pursued on the basis of tradition, and 2) improvement of mea
sures taken for the implementation of practical objectives of art. [...] In reference to
language, in contrast to the teaching of a language, one may also speak about art, or
rather about such arts whose subject matter is either language in general or particular
languages.
1
This term ('Glottik', in German) was created by August Schleicher in 1861 in order to re
place the hybrid (Latin-Greek) 'Linguistik'; of course Sprachwissenschaft remained ac
ceptable to him. Baudouin, his one-time student at Jena, took 'glottika' from him. [Eds.]
2
Translations from the Russian original have been provided by the second editor; they are
given in single quotes. An English translation of the entire paper can be found in Stankiewicz
1972:49-80 [Eds.]
The 'aits' dealing with language were divided by Baudouin de Courtenay

into three groups. The first included all arts concerned the application of the
results of linguistics to the purposes of daily life; the second group covered
arts supporting any measures taken in order to create national literary lan
guages, their standardisation, precision and development, and the third group
included activities constituting a 'technical aspect of science' (p.51) such as,
for instance, collecting data, choosing an appropriate scientific method, etc.
In the first group Baudouin de Courtenay distinguished four domains of hu
man activities that may be improved by means of linguistic knowledge. The
description of those domains is still valid, although not commonly known.
Thus, it deserves to be quoted here in extenso (48-49):
1) The first is the learning of a language or languages, starting in one's child
hood, the field that partly makes one of its subjects didactics, and is partly a question
of one's independent individual effort whose success depends on one's abilities and
practical ease to learn. It concerns the learning of (a) one's native language, or (b)
one's foreign language. Achievements in this field to a great extent depend on deriv
ing benefit from discoveries made in pure linguistics that, in relation to one's native
language, create solid foundations providing a proper method (a) to enable an infant
to speak its native language from the very beginning, and (ß) to learn in one's child
hood and youth how to master one's native language and to use it freely and per
fectly; as far as it concerns foreign languages, a practical benefit from linguistics is
to facilitate the learning of foreign languages for communication and creative
purposes, i.e. in order both to easily understand and to express one's ideas properly
and fluently. A learner's efforts should aim to improve methods of the practical
mastering and exercising of the language or to improve and to apply a proper
approach to the teaching of foreign languages. Somewhere between the learning of
one's native language and foreign languages there is the learning of a literary
language that unites a whole nation, facilitates mutual communication of all its
members, and usually constitutes (with a few modifications) a spoken language of
the so-called educated class as distinguished from dialects. In countries where the
literary language varies substantially from certain local dialects (e.g., in Germany)
such dialects are hardly easier to be learnt than foreign languages.
2) Quite a different approach is required in the art of teaching the teaching of a
language to those who are deaf-mute. No audible language exists for the deaf-mutes
who understand only the language of mime. They can even produce sounds that imi
tate the sounds of a certain language, yet such sounds exist only for their listeners
and not for themselves: they treat the movements of their facial muscles produced on
such occasions as pantomime similar to making faces and showing fingers. The
teaching of the deaf-mute to pronounce audible words is based on data in the
anatomical and physiological part of the grammar.
Only a profound knowledge of the sounds of the language, as distinguished
from their graphical representations, and a knowledge of word etymology and
collocations may be the basis of, on the one hand
3) an appropriate method of teaching children (and adults) how to read and write
in a familiar language - on the other hand
4) orthography and rules of writing appropriate to the results of scientific re
search.
From the above statements Baudouin de Courtenay drew the conclusion
that 'linguistics can be hardly applied to man's life: from this point of view
as compared with physics, chemistry, mechanics etc., it seems not to be any
thing at all' (p 50). At the same time he objected to those who believed that
linguistics was completely useless. In his view, such an opinion resulted from
a lack of understanding as to the scope of that domain. That is why he at
tempted in his lecture to present its subject matter and its objectives and, first
and foremost, to prove that linguistics is a branch of science.
In general terms, one can say that his objective was to correct the then
common opinion about the object of linguistics. He wanted to show that lin
guistics was not about formulating instructions as to how one should speak or
write, but that it was a serious science dealing with descriptions and explana
tions of linguistic phenomena, a domain whose achievements could be useful
for other disciplines. He made this attempt at a time when the thinking about
linguistics was already completely dominated by the historical vision, when
synchronic linguistics, as it was termed later, was generally denied the status
of a science. These circumstances allow us to interpret the standpoint which
he expressed in his lecture in the following way: firstly, he wanted to show
that linguistics was a domain neither of art nor of practical activity, but a se
rious science — a science useful from the point of view of other branches of
science. In other words, what he wanted was to elevate linguistics above the
plane of practice. This was undoubtedly why he classified adjusting linguistic
knowledge for practical purposes to the scope of art and not of linguistics as
a science.
Additionally, if we take into account the fact that he expressed this opin
ion on becoming the head of a chair of the historical science of language,
then we cannot but treat it as an extraordinary event for those days. It is cer
tainly a very progressive view. He saw at an early stage the possibility, in
deed the need, to supplement linguistics with an 'applied' part. Others would
for decades have questioned the scientific nature of (applied) linguistics
dealing with practical issues — and many have not yet solved the problem
until now (for more on this subject, see Grucza 1983:365 ff).
Baudouin de Courtenay soon began even to modernise his initial opinion
about applied linguistics. We can find traces of this development as early as
in the conference paper O zadaniach językoznawstwa [About the tasks of lin
guistics] presented in Dorpat in 1888 and published a year later, and also in
his texts published in 1904. In the latter, he included in applied linguistics

certain subjects which, in 1870, he had treated as belonging to the scope of
art. In these texts he wrote, inter alia, that 'applied linguistics' is 'the appli
cation of linguistic data either to consider issues that belong to the scope [...]
of other sciences or to matters of social and intellectual life in general'
(Baudouin de Courtenay 1904:288).
As regards the practical applications of linguistics, in all cases he
repeated his earlier statement that, in comparison with other sciences, the
practical applications of linguistics are not particularly big. Yet in 1889 he
wrote that it had only been this way 'so far', and in 1904 he added (p.289):
We are, however, fully justified in believing that in future the application of linguis
tics, as well as of psychology, the science which it is based on, will play an
important role both in pedagogy and in various spheres of practice [...]. Applications
of linguistic data and results in issues that belong to the scope of other sciences are
already now quite extensive'. Moreover, he criticised 'the so-called public' for their
disregard of linguistics, a disregard which was reinforced '1) by the official way,
when organising schools to which the access of the science of language is rendered
difficult in any conceivable manner (the science of language having nothing to do
with the pseudo-classical philology promoted in schools); 2) by old-fashioned
philologists and various other hide-bound conservatives on the one hand, and by
some representatives of sciences that confuse linguistics with 'philology' and with
literal pedantry, on the other.
In the 1889 text he also declared that linguistics already had certain appli
cations in 'pedagogy, or to be more precise, in didactics', 'in oratory, i.e.,
practical rhetoric' (proper pronunciation, proper word forms and proper order
thereof), in the teaching of speaking and writing of those who are deaf-mute,
in the teaching of reading and writing texts, as well as in politics: 'Its data are
used as one of the means for objectively defining and theoretically determin
ing national or State unity as long as a given group of people possesses such
unity' (Dziela Wybrane, vol.I, p. 198). As for the didactic applications of lin
guistics, it is noteworthy that Baudouin de Courtenay did not limit them to
foreign languages, but referred them also to one's "own" language, the
mother tongue' (ibid.).
4. The interwar period

Unfortunately, similar to Bernhardi's conception of applied linguistics in
Germany, Baudouin de Courtenay's conception did not have any direct con
tinuation in Poland. There were various reasons for this, but the main one, I
think, was that at that time in Poland hardly anybody understood his ideas
about applied linguistics. Nobody except Baudouin de Courtenay was dealing
with the theory of languages sensu stricto, let alone with metalinguistics. In
those times applied linguistics was studied practically only in Germany (and
even there its presence was limited to a only a few centres; cf. Grucza 1983).
Elsewhere, nobody was yet aware of its existence.
As regards the status of applied linguistics during the interwar period in
Poland, it should first be emphasised that it would be mistaken to think that
after Baudouin de Courtenay's death in 1929, the history of its development
in this country stopped altogether. In fact his death interrupted its develop
ment only partly. It was definitely the case at the level of metareflection, that
is on plane (b) which we initially distinguished and, of course, also on plane
(c). In other words, Baudouin de Courtenay's death meant that in Poland
there was a temporary interruption in dealing with applied linguistics as a
certain relatively separate, domain of academic research: analysing its tasks,
fixing its boundaries, etc. It was different, however, at the basic level of ap
plied linguistics. As for this plane, it would only be justified to conclude that
in the period between the wars in Poland — just as in the majority of other
countries — nobody dealt with any issues that were later classified as belong
ing to applied linguistics, with the awareness that they belonged to its scope.
Yet if we look at the linguistics research carried out in Poland during that
period, and in particular at the works completed in departments of neophilol-
ogy, from the point of view of the list of domains that 20 or 30 years later
were considered (first in the United States) as constituting applied linguistics,
we can easily see that in the period between the wars various kinds of re
search in this scope were initiated or continued in Poland. We shall under
stand the aptness of this statement even better if we look at these works from
the point of view of the sciences represented at AILA3 congresses as separate
sections and thereby as if classified by this organisation as domains of ap
plied linguistics (on this issue, see Grucza 1983). The fact that at that time in
Poland people did not realise to which category the work belonged is irrele
vant in this case as is the issue of whether it was right or rather wrong of the
AILA to classify this research as being within applied linguistics.
Adopting this point of view, we can say that it was as early as in the in
terwar period that some works were published in Poland which may be re
garded as precursors of the studies later distinguished in America, following
the suggestions of Benjamin Lee Whorf (1941) and Charles C. Fries (1945),
as contrastive linguistic analysis. It is even more noteworthy if we remember
that in the late fifties, mainly under the influence of the conceptions pre-
3
The acronym stands for Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquée, which has
since the 1970s been the umbrella organization for Applied Linguistics world-wide. [Eds.]
sented by Lado in 1957 (cf. also Lado 1972), it was precisely these studies or
analyses that were considered to be the basic type of research in applied
linguistics. As we know, it was in order to intensify this work that the first
independent centre of applied linguistics was established in Washington,
D.C., in 1959 and it was not without a good reason that this institution was
named the Center for Applied Linguistics.4 The results of work carried out at
the Centre or commissioned by it are presented in the famous series of
volumes published under the general title of "Contrastive Structure Studies".
In his Foreword to Volume I, Charles A. Ferguson characterised the tasks
which would have to be undertaken: "[to] describe the similarities and dif
ferences between English and each of the five foreign languages most
commonly taught in the United States: French, Gemían, Italian, Russian, and
Spanish" (cf. Moulton 1962).
As regards the Polish precursors of contrastive studies, one should add
that, generally speaking, the palm is once again carned by Baudouin de
Courtenay. He must be considered the author of the first Polish work of this
kind, a study published in St. Petersburg in 1912 entitled Polskij jazyk srav-
niteI'no s rus skim i drevne cerkovnoslavjanskim: Posobie dla prakticeskix
zanjatij po "sravnitel'noj grammatike slovjanskix jazykov" i dla samoobu-
cenija [The Polish language in comparison with Russian and Old Church
Slavic: A handbook for practical classes in the "Comparative Grammar of
Slavic Languages" and for self-study]. In this work he attempts to apply the
results of his comparative (contrastive) studies of Polish and Russian in a
clear manner for practical (glotto)didactic purposes.
It is, however, Adam Kleczkowski (1883-1949) who is generally consid
ered to be the father of Polish descriptive contrastive studies, though his
4
To add a bit of further history to the subject of 'applied linguistics', let us quote from John
C. ("Ian") Catford's autobiographical account, "Sixty Years in Lingustics", First Person
Singular: Autobiographies by North American Scholars in the Language Sciences ed. by
E.F.K. Koerner (Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1998), 3-38, notably the fol
lowing passages (pp.25-26):
In 1957 I was appointed Director of the newly opened School of Applied Linguistics (SAL) at
Edinburgh University. The SAL was set up at the instigation of the British Council as a centre for
the advanced education of experienced teachers of English overseas who were destined to become
leaders in the field in their countries.
So far as I know, the SAL, [...], was the first academic institution in the world to have Applied
Linguistics in its title — the Centre de Linguistique appliquée at Besançon was established in 1958
and the the Center for Applied Linguistics in Washington opened in 1959. In Russian, use of an
equivalent of the term 'Applied Linguistics' goes back at least to Baudouin de Courtenay's inau
gural address at St. Petersburg University in 1870 — the earliest use in English known to me is the
sub-title of Leonora Lockhart's book Word Economy: A study in applied linguistics (1931) though
the term 'Applied Phonetics' was used much earlier, in Le Maître Phonétique in 1899 and 1909.
claim to this title is only in respect of his work in what we now call neophilo-
logical contrastive studies, particularly regarding Polish and German. His
first work in this field in Poland was published in Cracow in 1935, though his
later work is also significant (Kleczkowski 1935, 1949). Kleczkowski is
rightly considered to be the father of German linguistic studies in Poland,
even of Polish linguistic neophilology as such, and was the first Polish Ger
manist and neophilologist to thoroughly deal with linguistic issues. He spent
almost all of his life in Cracow, except for the period 1919-1922, which he
spent in Poznan as the first Professor of German Philology at the University
of Pozna ń.
In the context of this essay, the attempts to create specialist didactic
(pedagogical) grammars made during the interwar period merit special atten
tion. Examples of such attempts include the works of Albert Leder's Deut
sche Grammatik (1922), Juliusz Ippoldt's Dydaktyka jçzyka niemieckiego
(1925), Karol Zagajewski's Gramatyka jçzyka niemieckiego (1927) and a
Grammaire française inductive et systématique accompagnée d'exercices by
B. Kielski and L. Pionnier. But what ought to be mentioned here in the first
place is the highly innovative conception of teaching foreign languages de
scribed by Michał Ciesla — the conception of learning 'natural grammar'
through 'viewing and conversation'. It consisted, as Ciesla put it (1974:264),
'in transforming whole sentences into ever new creations', that is in perform
ing specific grammatical transformations. In one of his earlier works, Ciesla
(1965) described Erdman's idea, in line with the opinion about applied lin
guistics prevailing at that time, as 'a specific conception of applied linguis
tics'.
Moreover, the interwar period was also a time when the foundations of
the Polish methodology of teaching foreign languages (glottodidactics) were
laid, even up to a tertiary level. There were intense discussions about many
different issues concerning the 'organisation' of teaching of foreign lan
guages in Polish schools, which were being revived after 130 years of non
existence. The discussions concerned, among other things, questions about
whether schools should teach one or two foreign languages (cf, Piatek 1929,
Trenklerówna 1929); whether the teaching of foreign languages in schools
should focus solely on communicative purposes or on educational purposes
as well (Ciesielska-Borkowska 1930, Gottlieb 1932); whether it should cover
only matters relating purely to the language or also include geographical and
cultural material (Kielski 1927, Zagajewski 1931); what methods should be
used in such teaching (Ziemnowicz 1918, Kwiatkowski 1921); to what extent
it should include the teaching of grammar (cf. Ciesla, 1974:266ff.); what vo
cabulary should be taken into account, etc.
An important role in this respect was played by the Polish Neophilologi-
cal Society (Polskie Towarzystwo Neofilologiczne [PTN]), set up in Warsaw
in 1930 during the First Congress of Teachers of Modern Languages. Its first
president was Zygmunt Lempicki, who undoubtedly was the most distin
guished Polish Germanist of the interwar period (cf. Kuczyński 1991, Szulc
1998). Other outstanding university neophilologists actively participated in
the activities of this Society, such as Roman Dybowski (1883-1945), a pro
fessor of the Jagiellonian University who established the first Polish Chair of
English Studies; Juliusz Ippoldt, an Associate Professor at the Jagiellonian
University, a Germanist and a well-known practitioner and theoretician of
methodology and didactics of foreign languages; Zygmunt Czerny, a Roman
ist and professor at the University of Lwow and later at the Jagiellonian Uni
versity; Stanislaw Wedkiewicz, a Romanist and professor of the Jagiellonian
University; and Tadeusz Grzebieniowski and Stanislaw Helsztyński, both
Anglicists and both professors of the University of Warsaw (cf. Iwan 1972,
Ciesla 1974).
The Society published a magazine entitled Neofilolog [The Neophilolo-
gist], It played quite an important role in Poland by disseminating knowledge
about the learning and teaching of foreign languages, foreign culture and lit
erature, as well as general knowledge about other countries. It published arti
cles written by eminent practitioners and theoreticians of foreign language
teaching. More publications on the subjects related to foreign language teach
ing were also included in such magazines as Szkota [School], Ruch Pedagog-
iczny [Pedagogical Movement], Gimnazjum [Gymnasium] and Muzeum
[Museum].
It is also worth noting that many of the then university professors knew
schools not only from the perspective of a student, but also from that of a
teacher, Before they were appointed as university teachers, many had worked
as teachers of foreign languages in schools. Others had learned about what
was happening in schools from their colleagues who taught classes both at
universities and schools. Finally, it is particularly noteworthy that these uni
versity professors did not spurn such practical occupations as writing foreign
language textbooks for schools. Even the most eminent of them (including
Lempicki, Czerny, Ippoldt, and Grzebienowski) devoted time to such tasks.
Moreover, during the interwar period, some chairs of Polish language and
literature also dealt with certain matters which were subsequently classified
as falling within the scope of applied linguistics. These include, firstly, the is-
sue of Polish language standardisation and various questions from the field of
the cultivation of "Polish linguistic culture". All these matters were dealt
with both from a theoretical point of view and for practical purposes. As
regards standardisation, attention was focussed not solely on matters of
orthography, but also orthoepy. Moreover, during this period Polish scholars
began dealing with certain specialist discourses and their "polonisation" and
standardisation. Such languages included, for example, the language of the
navy or — more generally — the language of seamen.
As far as orthography is concerned, it is understandable that after Poland
regained independence, there was an urgent need to standardise Polish spel
ling on a national scale. This works was carried out under the auspices of
both the Warsaw Society of the Friends of Sciences [Warszawskie Towa-
rzystwo Przyjaciól Nauk] (in the so-called Kryński project), and the Polish
Academy of Arts and Sciences [Polska Akademia Umiejętnosci]. The first
compromise was reached as early as in 1919. However, in the long run, its
results did not satisfy anybody and further work in this field started in 1934.
It was then that the new Spelling Commission was established under the aus
pices of PAU and the results of its activity were officially approved in 1936.
The most popular work was the orthographic dictionary prepared on the basis
of these results by Stanislaw Jodlowski and Witold Taszycki An Ortho
graphic Dictionary and the Rules of Polish Spelling.
In the field of orthoepy, certainly the most active scholar of that time was
Tytus Benni (professor of the University of Warsaw where he was founder of
the Institute of Phonetics), who dealt not only with Polish, but also with
German, French and English. For each of these languages, he developed a
handbook which was meant to help in the teaching of pronunciation in Polish
schools.
Mention should be made here of the efforts during this period in the field
of lexicography. In 1938 The New Dictionary of Polish edited by Tadeusz
Lehr-Spławiński began to be published. In addition, the years 1900-1927
saw the final publication of the so-called Warsaw dictionary of Polish in
eight volumes compiled by Jan Karlowicz, Adam Krynski and Wladyslaw
Niedzwiecki. Several new bilingual dictionaries were also prepared,
'Language culture' was interpreted among Polish philologists as a certain
degree of practical knowledge of a given language, a certain level of profi
ciency in the language and a certain degree of the ability to use its means in a
critical way. As for 'linguistic culture' understood in this way, it does make
sense to speak about improving and cultivating it and this was precisely the
task that the Society of Friends of the Polish Language [Towarzystwo Milos-
ników Języka Polskiego] set for itself. The Society was founded in Cracow in
1920 by a number of outstanding Polish linguists of that time including Kazi-
mierz Nitsch, Andrzej Gawronski, Jan Rozwadowski and Jan Los, and its
organ was a magazine called Język Polski [The Polish Language] established
in 1913 in Cracow, Today, the activities in the field of linguistic culture
understood this way are treated as a certain kind of applied linguistics.
5. The beginnings of Polish applied linguistics

As with everything else, all work in the field of applied linguistics that
commenced in Poland in the interwar period, was brutally interrupted in
September 1939, when Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland. During the occupa
tion, Polish academic life ceased almost completely, in many cases forever.
Many scholars, including linguists, did not survive the occupation: some died
as soldiers, some were shot at the very beginning of the war, some were
killed in German or Soviet concentration camps. As a result of the war, Pol
ish academia was devastated and many universities were bombed and/or
plundered. Moreover, after the war, Poland's frontiers were pushed west
wards and two of its oldest universities in Lvov and Vilnius were lost.
Following the war it was necessary to start academic activity anew
almost everywhere. To make things worse, this process was soon taking
place in completely different administrative and ideological conditions which
were imposed by force, conditions which made the development of Polish
neophilology particularly difficult. Although immediately after the war, mod
ern language studies started to develop as dynamically as many other
branches of Polish academia, what happened five years later came as a seri
ous blow. When the 'cold war' broke out between the US and the USSR, its
further development was blocked for several years. Worse still, its academic
institutional representation was reduced to a minimum: each of the so-called
western philologies was reduced to two departments and each was allowed to
admit only 20 students per year. Similar pressures were imposed on many
other sciences in Poland, and sociological or phonological research was pro
hibited altogether.
This situation did not change until after 1956, or more precisely, after the
so-called 'June events in Poznan", that is, after the first mass demonstrations
of the 'Polish working class' — Polish workers employed in big industrial
plants — against the social and political system. Even though the events of
1956 did not mark the beginning of a period of a fully independent develop
ment of Polish neophilology, many of the restrictions which had been im
posed were lessened or lifted. After 1956, Polish neophilology started to
grow rapidly, not only in terms of human resources, but also in institutional
terms. In Poland, this was the case not only with German and Romance stud
ies, but primarily with English studies. In the late 1970s, English and German
studies again had their institutional representations in all Polish universities
and also in some of the higher schools of teacher training. By that stage, if at
tempts to create an institutional representation of neophilology failed in a
particular institution, it was only for lack of professors or the unwillingness
of the local academic authorities to devote adequate attention to this issue.
After 1956, the range of topics which Polish neophilology took an inter
est in stalled to grow rapidly and gradually, it re-established its traditional
international contacts. Interest began to grow in applied linguistics after
1956, particularly with the arrival of the first information about the activities
and opinions of American linguists, particularly those who had been working
during the war on methods of accelerating the process of foreign language
learning, developing new teaching methods, and carrying out empirical
and/or theoretical research. What turned out to be particularly interesting for
Polish linguists were the theoretical assumptions of work carned out at the
Center for Applied Linguistics in Washington, D.C. (cf. Zabrocki 1966).
Soon after 1956 Polish scholars became quite interested in the above-
mentioned American works and concepts concerning foreign language teach
ing, because, as a result of the former restrictions, would-be students of neo-
philologies had only a rudimentary knowledge of respective foreign lan
guages and it was necessary to improve this situation immediately. Hence the
curricula of Polish neophilological studies started to include compensatory
programmes which taught these foreign languages. The necessity to act ef
fectively was even greater as one of the purposes of such studies was to train
future teachers of these languages. However, the objective was not only to
make the compensatory teaching of foreign languages at universities as ef
fective as possible, but also to provide the students (i.e., prospective language
teachers) with the best available methodological instruments. The fact that in
1956 it again became possible to publicly discuss, write and publish papers
about the American conceptions and/or studies was one of the achievements
of the 'Poznan events'. What was gained in Poland at that time was never
completely lost in the years to come.
The main promoter of academic efforts in the field of foreign language
teaching in Poland was Ludwik Zabrocki, the most eminent Polish germanist
and linguist (more information about him can be found in the essay by
Bańczerowski in the present volume). It was he who managed to gather a
group of young linguists and to offer them various topics from the scope of
applied linguistics and in this he succeeded in creating the first "Polish

school" of applied linguistics. It is this achievement that constitutes the fun
damental difference between his academic heritage and the legacy left by
Baudouin de Courtenay.
In the early 1960s, thanks to Zabrocki's efforts, the Adam Mickiewicz
University in Poznan became the main Polish centre where applied linguis
tics was not only a topic for discussion, but where certain research in this
field was practised with great intensity. Later, some of his disciples
transferred the conceptions developed in Poznan to other Polish universities.
In 1965 Aleksander S zulcleftPoznan, followed by the author of this article
in 1970. The former became a professor at the Jagiellonian University, the
latter in Warsaw. Another to leave Poznan was one of Zabrocki's oldest col
leagues Leon Kaczmarek and he deserves to be mentioned for two reasons:
firstly, because after moving to the Marie Curie-Sklodowska University in
Lublin he created a leading Polish centre of logopaedics and did much to
make this area a relatively independent academic discipline; secondly, he
started to deal with the problems of logopaedics mainly under the influence
of Zabrocki.
Naturally, those disciples of Zabrocki who remained in Poznań developed
further some of the domains of research considered to be part of applied lin
guistics. Among these we should mention, firstly Jerzy Bańczerowski, Wal-
demar Pfeiffer and, to a certain extent, Jacek Fisiak whom Zabrocki brought
to Poznan and who worked with him closely for some time. I shall write
more about the achievements of these scholars in the field of applied
linguistics later in this chapter.
6. The Poznan school of Polish applied linguistics

Zabrocki began to form the Poznan school in the late 1950s, within the
Chair of Germanic Languages at the Adam Mickiewicz University, a chair
which had been established in 1952 especially for him. He led it until 1968
when it was closed down as a result of reforms in Polish tertiary educational
institutions (reforms which, in my view, were ideologically motivated). The
traditional chairs were liquidated throughout the country and institutes were
created instead. I think that this measure was taken in order to weaken the
traditional independence of university professors, and to place them under
'party' control. Up to 1968 the heads of departments were appointed by the
national circles of professors and received tenure; subsequently directors of
institutes were appointed by administrative and political authorities, and only
for a term of three years. It was not until the 1990s that those occupying the
latter positions started to be elected, but according to quite different rules

than those applied before 1968.
Until its liquidation, the Department of Germanic Languages was the first
Polish institution to deal with applied linguistics. At the same time, it was an
institution within which many innovative projects were formulated. One such
project was the idea of creating a separate unit which would deal with
applied linguistics as its primary task. Zabrocki managed to implement this
idea as early as in 1964 in the form of an autonomous Section of Applied
Linguistics.
This Section was the first institutional representation of applied linguis
tics in Poland and it is worth noting that it was created only five years after
the Center for Applied Linguistics — the first American institutional repre
sentation of this field. Moreover, Zabrocki's Section was only the second
unit of its kind in the world! Yet in order to determine more precisely the
chronological relations between the Center in Washington and the Section of
Applied Linguistics in Poznan, we need to consider the following statement
made by Ludwik Zabrocki: "The Institute of Applied Linguistics which is be
ing set up now is only formally a new institution. Actually it has been a sec
tion of the Department of Germanic Linguistics for the last ten years. The
time has come for it to be independent" (Zabrocki 1966:134)
Together with the founding of the Section of Applied Linguistics a new
periodical was launched and was named Glottodidactica, since the main task
of the Section was to deal with the problems of methodology and/or the di
dactics of foreign language teaching, and in particular, with the methodology
of those foreign languages which were taught in Polish schools, namely En
glish, German, French and Russian. Nevertheless, the periodical had (and
still has) the subtitle An International Journal of Applied Linguistics.
Both parts of the title of this periodical taken together show that, at that
time, even Zabrocki and his colleagues identified, at least on a practical level,
applied linguistics with didactics, or the methodology of foreign language
teaching. A still stronger argument to prove this thesis is that the first volume
of the magazine contained mostly texts concerning (sometimes indirectly) is
sues of foreign language teaching. Even the already quoted text by Zabrocki,
published in the first volume of Glottodidactica (Poznan, 1966), provides an
argument in favour of this thesis, and particularly the following fragment de
scribing the tasks of the Institute of Applied Linguistics (p. 133):
The Institute of Applied Linguistics in Poznan will mainly conduct research in the
methodology of foreign language teaching [...]. Let us only add that, in the same
text, Zabrocki described the tasks of this domain as follows: The methodology of
foreign language teaching has to [...] seek the best and quickest means of teaching a
given foreign system of language communication.
On the other hand, however, it should be noted that Zabrocki was of the
opinion that the methodology of foreign language teaching should be treated
as a certain separate branch of science. At the end of the text quoted here he
makes the following statement: "It is a fact that the methodology of teaching
foreign languages is an independent branch of science" (1966:134).
The closure of the Section of Applied Linguistics brought with it the de
struction of the institutional bases of the phenomenon which I have termed
"the Poznan school of applied linguistics". Also destroyed was the unusual
creativity of Zabrocki, his innovative force and extraordinary didactic talent.
This is a sad story especially due to the fact that some linguists from Poznan
contributed to it! A few year's later, the process of reconstructing applied lin
guistics began at the Adam Mickiewicz University with the creation of the
Institute of General Linguistics. In the meantime, the University of Warsaw
managed to take over the function of the Polish centre of applied linguistics.
This also shows that applied linguistics was not politically blacklisted in this
country. The closure of the Section of Applied Linguistics in 1968 was moti
vated by quite different reasons.
The Section of Applied Linguistics created by Zabrocki played an impor
tant role in constituting this domain in Poland, particularly given that it was
brought back into existence under this very name. The appearance of this
name on an official level provoked great intellectual ferment. First and fore
most, it made Zabrocki's colleagues reflect on the subject, and deal with such
questions as: How can (should) the domain of applied linguistics be 'de
fined'? Can it really be identified with the methodology of foreign language
teaching? What is the relationship between these domains? What do they
have in common and what are the differences between them? What tasks do
they have to perform?
Yet the reflections about applied linguistics, which started in Poznan in
the 1950s and early 1960s, survived the institutional crisis of this discipline
caused by the departmental closures. Such reflections took root in the minds
of some of Zabrocki's students and it may be this that should be considered
the most important fruit of his endeavours in this field.
The first authors to present the results of the first attempts in Poznan to
deal with questions concerning applied linguistics were Jerzy Bańczerowski
and the present author. We did so in our articles published in 1971. We both
showed that in the late 1960s, in the Poznan centre, the narrow conception of
applied linguistics with regard to language didactics was definitely a thing of
the past. This change was also influenced by the later thinking of Zabrocki,
who suggested the ideas for both these articles and who saw to their publica
tion.
The parts of these articles that stirred the greatest interest were those de
voted to the nature of applied linguistics and to the domains that could be
considered among not only the cognitive, but also the practical applications
of linguistic knowledge. In my article, I divided the latter into the technical
and the non-technical. My examples of the non-technical applications in
cluded (apart from language didactics) such domains as language standardi
sation, setting the norms of linguistic correctness (orthography, orthoepy,
etc.), creating alphabets for languages, logopaedics, psychotherapy, lexicog
raphy, interlinguisties, explaining the links between language and culture,
"combating" demagogy, propaganda, etc. Among the examples of technical
domains of the application of linguistic knowledge I included machine trans
lation, automatic processing of linguistic data and telecommunication.
As a certain 'side effect' of the activity of the Poznan centre and, above
all, of the work of Zabrocki, in the late 1960s and early 1970s separate sec
tions of applied linguistics dealing with the teaching methodology of the re
spective foreign languages were set up in all Polish institutes of neophilology
and in many institutes of Russian studies. Consequently, these domains grew
in terms of human resources and soon started growing in terms of quality,
transforming from ones that mainly resolved practical problems into domains
where theoretical thinking was practised more frequently. In the 1970s, doc
toral theses in these fields started appealing, followed by the first habilitation
theses.
Yet against this background it is surprising that neither Witold Doro-
szewski nor Adam Heinz — authors of two large introductions written for the
edition of Baudouin de Courtenay's Selected Works mentioned a word about
his division of linguistics into pure and applied linguistics. Maybe Doro-
szewski can be, to some extent, excused by the fact that his text opened
volume I of the Works, published as early as in 1974, and consequently the
text must have been written a long time earlier. No such excuses can be
found for Heinz, however. His text opened volume IV of these collected
works, which was not published until 1990.5 This omission may come as a
surprise as Heinz was writing in a period when applied linguistics was
already relatively well-known in Poland and in view of the fact that he wrote
his text especially for a volume whose main part starts with a reprint of the
5
Adam Heinz had died in 1984, i.e., six years before this volume appeared in print; Doro-
szewki (d.1976), by contrast, was still alive when volume I was published. [Eds.]
above-quoted lecture given by Baudouin de Courtenay in St. Petersburg in

1870.
7. Polish contrastive linguistics

7.1 An outline of the history of Polish contrastive linguistics
Work in contrastive studies in Poland date back to the interwar period
and even earlier. As Fisiak (1984:139) pointed out the roots
can be traced back [...] to comparative synchronic studies [...] particularly [...] to
the work of BAUDOUIN DE COURTENAY [...who] in his comparative grammar of Slavic
languages (1902) laid foundations of CL, pointing out that comparative surveys of
languages are of three types, and one of them is such that 'linguistic processes can be
examined without regard to linguistic kinship, in order to establish the degree of
similarity or difference between the structures of two languages (p.319). [...] As a
result of this kind of comparison one can arrive at universal linguistic phenomena
(p.320).
In 1912 Baudouin de Courtenay published his comparative study of Pol
ish, Russian and Old Church Slavonic, a contrastive grammar par excellence.
However it was not until the late 1950s and early 1960s that these studies
were undertaken on a larger scale, beginning with Jan Stanislawski's (1950-
1951) English Grammar for Advanced Learners: A detailed analysis of dif
ferences occurring between the grammars of English and Polish, Kielski's
(1957-1960) The Structure of the French and Polish Languages in the Light
of Comparative Analysis, and Cygan's (1965) "On the system of negation in
English and Polish". Among the first Polish works on the theory of con
trastive studies was an article by a germanist Jan Czochralski, "Grundsätz
liches zur Theorie der kontrastiven Grammatik" (cf. Czochralski 1966), and a
paper "Fundamental Principles of Structural Contrastive Studies", by the
Anglicist Tomasz Krzeszowski (1967). While Czochralski did not give an
opinion on this issue, Krzeszowski included contrastive studies within the
scope of applied linguistics. In later years, both authors devoted many papers
to contrastive studies, Czochralski working on various detailed Polish-Ger
man issues and Krzeszowski also dealing with theoretical issues. Krzeszow
ski was a leading theorist in contrastive studies developing and elaborating
on such important issues as equivalence, congruence and tertium compa-
rationis (Krzeszowski 1971, 1976, 1980). Among the most important and
comprehensive works was Krzeszowski's dissertation Contrastive Gen
erative Grammar, first published in Lodz in 1974, and subsequently reprinted
in 1979 in Germany (cf. Krzeszowski 1974). Its ideas were later included in
Contrasting Languages; The scope of contrastive linguistics. Important con
tributions to the theory of contrastive studies were made by Maria Grze-
gorek-Lipinska (1977), and to the question of congruence and equivalence by

Waldemar Marton (1968), Karol Janicki (1986), and Roman Kalisz (1986).
The first complete implementations of the theory of contrastive linguistics
were studies on the Polish equivalents of the English works by Aleksander
Szwedek (1973, 1974, 1976). As for Czochralski, his work entitled Verbal
aspekt und Tempussystem im Deutschen und Polnischen: Eine konfrontative
Darstellung should be considered his main achievement in this field (Czoch
ralski 1975).
Zabrocki presented his views on contrastive linguistics in a comprehen
sive manner in an address entitled Grundfragen der konfrontativen Gram
matik, presented in 1969 in Mannheim at the first conference on contrastive
linguistics organised by germanists (cf. Zabrocki 1970). The address was
published a year later in a volume entitled Probleme der kontrastiven Gram
matik (Moser 1970),
In a summary of the results of this conference, Eugenio Coseriu (1970)
declared that it laid the theoretical foundations for a linguistics aiming at de
scribing synchronic differences and/or interlingual similarities starting from
the point of view of the structure of the German language and/or relating to
that structure. Zabrocki's conception, which distinguished between the prac
tically oriented contrastive grammar and confrontative grammar, oriented
towards scientific cognition, was widely accepted (cf. Coseriu 1970:175). As
for the term 'confrontative grammar', we should add that Zabrocki borrowed
it from linguists working in Leipzig at that time, which he himself mentioned
in a subsequent article (Zabrocki 1975).
Unfortunately, Zabrocki's distinction between 'contrastive grammar' and
'confrontative grammar' was not adopted in the practice of linguistics and it
seems that even he himself forgot about it rather quickly, because in his 1975
article he presented the geographical distribution of the use of terms 'con
trastive grammar' and/or 'confrontative grammar' in such a way as if they
were in competition on the very same plane, denoting the same ranges of lin
guistic tasks, rather than groups of tasks which are teleologically and, in a
way, also methodologically different.
Without doubt, among the Polish linguists who made the most
remarkable contributions to the development of contrastive studies in Poland
we must mention Jacek Fisiak. As early as in 1965 inspired the first
contrastive works within the framework of the first wide-scale research
programme, The Polish-English Contrastive Project implemented in co
operation with the Center for Applied Linguistics in Washington (cf. Fisiak
1973). Between 1970 and 1990, both he and his Institute of English
Philology in Poznan played an important role in this field on an international

scale and this happened, inter alia, thanks to international academic
conferences organised within the framework of the above-mentioned Polish-
English Contrastive Project. These efforts were consolidated by the
periodical edited by Fisiak (initially in co-operation with the Center for
Applied Linguistics) entitled Papers in Contrastive Linguistics (its first
volume was published in 1973 and 37 volumes have been published up to
now). Finally, many doctoral and habilitation dissertations were written in
the Institute, and various articles were published, not only on topics relating
to Polish-English contrastive linguistics, but on also various theoretical
aspects of the area. Among the most important works one should mention
two collective volumes edited by Fisiak (1984, 1990).
At that time, contrastive studies were (and, in a way, still are) of interest
not only to anglicists and germanists, but also to other neophilologists, in
cluding specialists in Russian and Slavic studies and even orientalists. Rus
sian scholars in Poland mainly use the term 'confrontantive linguistics' (cf.
Kozlowska 1985). In 1975 they devoted a special national conference in
Lodz to the subject. The papers presented at the conference were published in
1976 in a volume entitled Confrontative Grammar of the Polish and Russian
Languages: Materials from a Scientific Conference, Łódź 28-29 April 1975.
Subsequent publications edited by Jan Wawrzyńczyk (1978) and Michal
Blicharski (1980) added to discussion in the area.
Those pursuing Polish studies in Poland devoted relatively little attention
to contrastive linguistics. There is no mention of this domain in their standard
historical guides to the subject (Handke & Rzetelska-Feleszko 1977, Rieger
& Szymczak 1980, Urbańczyk & Kucaia 1999). Nevertheless, the complete
list of contrastive works written in Poland is a long one. It is impossible to
discuss them all here in detail, and numerous accounts of the subject already
exist (cf. Miemietz 1981; Fisiak 1982; Katny 1981, 1986; Płocińska 1982).
As far as the more recent period is concerned, we do not have to deal in
detail with the contrastive works written during this period as from the early
1980s contrastive works were no longer treated as belonging to the scope of
applied linguistics and were no longer automatically assigned the original ap
plied value. It was also at around this time that Polish Anglicists began to
lose interest in contrastive studies almost completely. Subsequently it was
just germanists, connected with the already mentioned project directed by
Ulrich Engel, and Russian scholars who still practice such studies on a larger
scale in Poland. In any case, I shall not discuss them here. If the reader is in
terested in this work (particularly concerning the German language), further
details can be found in bibliographical lists prepared by A. Katny (1989,

1991, 2001). For my part, I would only like to add some general remarks
about the actual usefulness of the results of contrastive linguistics.
7.2 On the applications of contrastive linguistics

Firstly, even though all neophilologies in Poland after 1965 devoted con
siderable attention to contrastive studies, so far only the germanists have suc
ceeded in developing a complete, systematic contrastive grammar (cf. Engel
et al. 2000). However, we should add that even this grammar takes into ac
count only the German-Polish perspective. The Polish-German perspective is
represented only sporadically, despite the fact that the majority of the authors
were Polish native speakers, representing German studies in Poland, and it is
this second perspective that seems to be of greater importance for Polish stu
dents wishing to learn German.
As far as English is concerned, despite the enormous momentum that ef
forts in this field gained at a certain period, until now no complete contrastive
grammar has been developed, either English-Polish or Polish-English. Only
An introductory English-Polish Contrastive Grammar has been published by
Jacek Fisiak, Maria Lipińska-Grzegorek & Tadeusz Zabrocki (1978; 2nd ed.,
1987) and English Grammar for Poles written by Krzeszowski (1980). (In
the introduction, Krzeszowski emphasises the "confrontative character of the
present grammar [...] making learners aware of differences and similarities
between Polish and English" [p. 17]). Other Polish neophilologies have not
even been able to produce an outline of the relevant grammars and so far
have made only minor contributions to such grammars.
Secondly, it is to be regretted that the glottodidactic optimism which
formed the foundations of contrastive studies — an optimism that its repre
sentatives have maintained to a large extent until now — has more to do with
wishful thinking than with concrete glottodidactic practice, The belief which
those engaged in contrastive studies held about the absolute glottodidactic
relevance of such work was fundamentally challenged by representatives of
glottodidactics as far back as the early 1970s, first in America and then in
Europe. The 'anti-contrastive' arguments put forward by opponents forced
the supporters of contrastive linguistics to weaken their originally radical
glottodidactic hypotheses for contrastive studies (cf. Grucza 1976). However,
later on many representatives of glottodidactics also considered those weak
ened hypotheses on the practical value contrastive studies to be insufficiently
realistic (cf. Sadownik 1997). In fact many representatives of glottodidactics
rejected the area completely at the beginning of the 1970s. As a result of such
a negative attitude towards contrastive hypotheses among those dealing with
glottodidactics, this domain started losing, in a way, its glottodidactic raison

d'être.
Thirdly, in my view, neither of these radical evaluations of the glottodi
dactic relevance of contrastive linguistics is adequate: neither that which au
tomatically ascribes a glottodidactic relevance to the results of contrastive
studies, nor that which denies that they possess this kind of relevance alto
gether. It is known today that their glottodidactic value is not obvious, that it
does not follow from them automatically. It is also known that the results of
contrastive studies possess some potential for glottodidactic relevance. Yet
they may attain glottodidactic relevance only if they are prepared taking into
account the specific needs of glottodidactics. Since usually this has not been
the case, so far the results of both of Polish contrastive studies in the field of
English, and their German equivalents, have failed to find any practical ap
plications in the area of glottodidactics in Poland. Moreover, they were not
reflected in any special way in the materials used for teaching the respective
foreign languages in Poland, and this certainly was not the fault of the au
thors of such materials. In brief, expectations of the kind which are found in
the papers published in the volume Contrastive Linguistics and the Language
Teacher did not materialise (cf. Fisiak 1981).
I think it was Fisiak who, driven by the belief in their glottodidactic rele
vance, once suggested dividing contrastive linguistics into theoretical and ap
plied contrastive linguistics. To some degree this suggestion converges with
the already mentioned division of the field into contrastive and confrontative
linguistics proposed by Zabrocki. Initially both these divisions had their sup
porters. But in my view they are both problematic for quite fundamental rea
sons (cf. Grucza 1986). I shall only repeat here that I think there is no such
thing as applied contrastive linguistics and, what is more, no such field can
ever be established. Contrastive linguistics does not belong at all in the field
of applied linguistics sensu stricto. It is, as a whole, a certain sub-field of
comparative linguistics though to say that its results may be "useful" for
other fields of scientific cognition is a different issue. Yet such a forecast
may be true of any kind of scientific cognition, which is one good argument
why contrastive linguistics cannot be included within the scope of applied
linguistics. Additionally, applied linguistics cannot be identified with any
applications of the knowledge produced by linguistics. Besides, such a belief
in its automatic applied relevance has not found any confirmation on the
plane of glottodidactic practice.
8. The Institute of Applied Linguistics in Warsaw

In the early 1970s the Institute of Applied Linguistics in Warsaw started
to lead the field of applied linguistics in Poland. It was established in 1972 at
the University of Warsaw. (The author of this chapter was involved in the
establishment of the Institute and served as its first director until 1998.) Like
the Department of Applied Linguistics created by Zabrocki in Poznań, the In
stitute in Warsaw from its conception started to incite and intensify reflection
in applied linguistics through public presentations of its curriculum, its con
ceptual assumptions, through national academic symposia organised almost
every year since its establishment, and finally, by publishing papers given at
these symposia. Initially, attention focussed mainly on the problems of ap
plied linguistics and glottodidactics, trying at the same time to determine in a
detailed manner the similarities and differences between them. Later various
basic issues concerning translation and interpretation were also examined. As
a result of these interests I came up with a conception, presented during the
fourth symposium, of translation studies as a relatively independent academic
domain.
From the beginning, the Institute dealt in a fundamental way with general
problems of interpersonal communication. It was the fruits of these efforts
which constituted the theoretical foundations for both the conception of
glottodidactics I was developing and for a new conception of translation
studies. The initial objects of study that are or should be dealt with by both
these domains are merely certain specific variants of the general model of
interpersonal communication, in particular the model of interpersonal
linguistic communication. I presented the problems in a little more detail in
my address to the Third Symposium of the Institute of Applied Linguistics in
1975 (cf. Grucza 1978) and we returned to these issues during the fifteenth
symposium, whose subject was Models of Interpersonal Communication
(Woźniakowski 1992).
Initially the Institute was composed of three departments: the Department
of the Theory of Linguistic Communication, the Department of General
Methodology of Foreign Language Teaching, and the Department of Metho
dology of Training Translators and Interpreters. As a consequence of the
above discussions I managed to transform the second and third into the De
partment of Glottodidactics and the Department of Translation Studies. Later
we started to gradually add new issues to our range of interests, especially is
sues concerning culture in its broad sense and cultural competence, and is
sues of grammaticography and lexicography on the other. Consequently two
new departments were created: the Department of Applied Cultural Studies
and the Department of Lexicography and Grammaticography. During the

twelfth, thirteenth and nineteenth symposia we focussed on issues of culture
(cf. Grucza 1989, 1992; Grucza & ChOmicz-Jung 1996), while the fourteenth
symposium was devoted to the issues concerning grammar (cf. Grucza 1992).
For a certain period we also dealt with automatic speech analysis, but we
were not able to introduce this line of studies permanently in the Institute.
The departments at the Institute were conceived as units which would act
'embryonically' in relation to the domains they represented, that is to say, it
was envisaged that they would become independent units once they were
conceptually mature and had the necessary human resources. Just as we
treated applied linguistics and glottodidactics as relatively independent do
mains, thus we also treated translation studies in a similar way from the out
set. I never considered either of these domains as part of applied linguistics
sensu stricto. Even at that time I used the name of "Institute of Applied Lin
guistics" as a kind of collective term, that is, one having a similar function to
that referred to by the name '(neo)philology' in Poland.
Yet even though neither glottodidactics nor translatorics nor the other
domains having their institutional representations in the Institute are treated
as relatively independent sciences now, because of the fact that AlLA still
qualifies them in such a way as if they were certain sub-domains of applied
linguistics, I shall go on to present the history of development at least of
some of these fields. In some cases I shall also attempt to describe their cur
rent status in our country both in personal and institutional terms.
In the 1970s I developed my conception of applied linguistics by linking
it more closely to the general theory of science, on the one hand, and by go
ing deeper into the logical reconstruction of the primary object of linguistics,
on the other hand. Here, I shall only add that one of the unusual fruits of the
activities of the Institute was the establishment of what is now called 'the
Polish school of applied linguistics'. At least, this was the opinion presented
by the organisers of the Institute's eighteenth symposium — Barbara Kielar,
Lidia Bartoszewicz, Jan Lewandowski, and others (cf. Kielar, Bartoszewicz
& Lewandowski 1994). To those interested in the history and achievements
of the Institute I might also recommend another volume containing materials
from symposium organised to celebrate the first decade of the Institute's
existence (cf. Grucza 1985).
9. The development and status of certain domains included in AILA

9.1 Introductory remarks
I would like to devote some attention not only to the domains which were
the 'pillars' of the Warsaw Institute (i.e., glottodidactics and translation stu
dies) but also all domains of applied research initiated in the interwar period
in the field of Polish studies in Poland, since all of them, sooner of later, were
resumed after the war and some of them reached a significant level of devel
opment.
It is regrettable that none of these domains were linked with applied lin
guistics in the Polish studies in Poland. In the second edition of the Ency
clopaedia of the Polish Language, published in 1999, a volume that aspired
to provide the reader with a complete 'knowledge about language in general
and about the Polish language in particular' only about a dozen lines are de
voted to 'applied linguistics'. This seems strange, because in another work
from the field of Polish studies published even before the first edition of the
Encyclopaedia in 1977, this term was discussed more extensively by Handke
& Rzetelska-Feleszko (1977:31-32).
9.2 Glottodidactics
It is undoubtedly the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan that should
be considered the birthplace of Polish glottodidactics, through the efforts of
Zabrocki. However, he did not call it 'glottodidactics' himself, usually using
the terms 'methodology' or 'didactics of foreign language teaching'. He ex
patiated on his views in two larger works (Zabrocki 1966, 1977).
The place where the word 'glottodidactics' was used for the first time as
the name of the academic domain in question is in the Institute of Applied
Linguistics in Warsaw though the field also stalled to be promoted at quite an
early stage in Poznan through the work of Waldemar Pfeiffer. As for the In
stitute of Applied Linguistics, it was not only the place where the use of the
word 'glottodidactics' was initiated, but it was also where an original con
ception of this domain was created — one much richer than that in Poznan.
By no means does this conception limit the scope of glottodidactics to re
search and/or the development of methods of teaching foreign languages. Ac
cording to this conception, glottodidactics as a domain is interested in a cer
tain category of communicative systems which I call glottodidactic systems.
Their main constituents are students on the one hand and teachers of lan
guages on the other — not only foreign language teachers, but also mother
tongue teachers. The primary task of glottodidactics is to reconstruct specific
features of teachers and students participating in this kind of communicative
system. I attempted to present a systematic analysis of language teachers in

an essay published as "Ansätze zu einer Theorie der Ausbildung von Fremd
sprachenlehrern" (Grucza 1993). Methods of teaching foreign languages are
only one of many subjects of research in glottodidactics. The same applies to
such elements of an overall glottodidactic system as (foreign) language
teaching materials, means used to intensify the learning process, etc.
The Department of Glottodidactics established within the Institute was
the first relatively independent academic unit in Poland to represent this do
main. The name I suggested, "The Inter-School Centre of Glottodidactics",
initially was not accepted by the Polish Minister of Higher Education. He
thought the name was "funny" because of the word 'glottodidactics'. Al
though I managed to create the Centre in 1975, I was forced to change its
name and finally it was established under the name of "The Inter-School
Centre of Methodology of Foreign Language Teaching". Its objective was to
deal with the teaching of foreign languages in Polish institutes of higher edu
cation.
However, the same minister agreed to include the term 'glottodidactics'
in the Department's publishing organ and the journal is still published under
the name of Glottodidactic Review, which was accepted at that time. This un
doubtedly made a major contribution to popularising the name itself and the
'Warsaw' conception of glottodidactics. In the first volume I published an
article entitled 'Glottodidactics: Its scope and problems' (Grucza 1978). The
efforts of the Warsaw centre to establish the domain of glottodidactics were
summarised by Maria Dakowska in her article 'Glottodidactics as a Science'
(cf. Dakowska 1994; see also Dakowska 1995 and her other works on this
subject listed there). Further information can be found in the works by Bar
bara Sadownik (1991, 1997) and Barbara Skowronek (1997).
The Poznan periodical Glottodidactica and studies at the Poznań centre
made a significant contribution not only to the further development of glotto
didactic thought, but also to the recognition of glottodidactics as an au
tonomous domain in Poland. The key contributor was Waldemar Pfeiffer
who, after 1970, became Zabrocki's main intellectual successor in Poznan.
By participating in a number of conferences in Warsaw, he can be credited
with building a bridge between the original Poznan conception and the ideas
in Warsaw. At the same time, he was developing his own glottodidactic
views and has articulated them in a certain coherent whole in his recent
monograph (cf. Pfeiffer 2001). It was thanks to him that, in 1987, the first in
dependent Department of Glottodidactics was created at Poznan (in 1998 its
name was changed to the "Department of Glottodidactics and Translation
Studies") and that glottodidactics began to exist as an independent pro

gramme of university studies. Polish glottodidactics owes much to Pfeiffer
and he has tirelessly promoted it at various international forums. For the past
few years he has continued these efforts at Viadrina University in Frankfurt-
on-Oder. Even though he did not use the word 'glottodidactics' in the title of
his last book, its first chapter is entitled 'Glottodidactics as a Science'.
It is beyond doubt that Pfeiffer is among those who, from the beginning,
regarded glottodidactics as the main field of their academic interest. The sec
ond scholar from Poznan who devoted his studies to glottodidactics was
Waldemar Marton. He contributed significantly to the popularisation of both
the term 'glottodidactics' and the 'Warsaw efforts' to provide it with the sta
tus of a (relatively) independent academic domain. His monograph Selected
Issues of Didactics of Foreign Languages in Schools published in 1979 be
came quite well-known (cf. Marton 1979). However, after he moved to Nor
way, his role in Polish applied linguistics became less significant than before.
In the meantime Wladyslaw Woźniewicz grew to be an influential represen
tative of glottodidactics in Poznań. He is a specialist in Russian studies and
the author of two important monographs in this area (cf. Wozniewicz 1987,
1991).
As far as Warsaw is concerned, we should add that there are several
scholars who have been dealing with issues of learning and teaching foreign
languages for a long time but who, nevertheless, are not formally connected
with the Institute of Applied Linguistics. Both Hanna Komorowska and Elż-
bieta Zawadzka, for example, have made remarkable contributions to the
development of Polish glottodidactics, even though only the latter uses the
term 'glottodidactics'. Both have actively participated in many conferences
organised by the Institute and many of their papers can be found in the mate
rials from these conferences. Here, I shall only mention a book published by
Komorowska entitled Methodology of Foreign Language Teaching (Komo
rowska 1999), which contains a list of her other major works in this area.
In connection with the Warsaw Institute, we should mention the glottodi
dactics of the Polish language, that is glottodidactics dealing with the teach
ing of Polish as a foreign language, which has been developing for some
time, both at the Institute in Warsaw and beyond. The University of Lodz has
traditionally been a centre for the teaching of Polish as a foreign language
and, in tandem with these activities it has published an series of the Acta Uni-
versitatis Lodziensis containing articles devoted to the subject. Considerable
efforts were also expended at many Polish Universities in publishing Polish
language textbooks for foreigners and, in this respect, the pioneering work of
Maria Grala at Poznan deserves to be mentioned (Grala 1974, 1978, 1981,

1982). A similar initiative at the Catholic University of Lublin resulted in the
publication of Polish language textbooks through the combined efforts of the
anglicist Brygida Rudzka and the polonist Zofia Goczolowa who later be
came associated with the University of Leuven in Belgium (Rudzka 1988;
Rudzka & Goczolowa 1988).
The Jagiellonian University in Cracow has been an important academic
centre where the methodological ideas of Zabrocki were dealt with fairly in
tensively. Aleksander S zulc, whom we have already mentioned, has been the
main promoter of these ideas here. In 1979 he published a book entitled Die
Fremdsprachendidaktik: Konzeptionen — Methoden — Theorien, which
achieved widespread recognition, not only in Poland, but also internationally
(Szulc 1979). His Dictionary of the Didactics of Foreign Languages (1994)
leads the reader to suspect that he has not broken away from the tradition of
treating this domain as a part of didactics rather than linguistics. Yet it may
also lead to quite a different assumption, that he still treats glottodidactics as
part of applied linguistics. Glottodidactics of Polish for foreigners has devel
oped favourably in Cracow at the The Polonia Institute at the Jagiellonian
University and a specific concept of glottodidactics, named 'educational lin
guistics' has been developed in Cracow by Teodozja Rittel (1993, 1994).
Polish specialists in Russian studies seem to stick to the term 'methodol
ogy', though some also refer to the discipline as 'linguodidactics'. In this re
spect it should be added that it is not true that all specialists in German, Rus
sian and French studies use the term "glottodidactics".
Generally speaking, Polish glottodidactics has a significant number of
'habilitated' university teachers. Many Polish universities now have profes
sors who have received their habilitation in this field and who treat it as their
major object of academic interest. It is impossible to quote all the names, so I
shall mention only some of them. The following are engaged primarily in
glottodidactics at the University of Warsaw: Elzbieta Zawadzka (1987),
Maria Dakowska (1987, 1995), Wladyslaw Figarski (2001); in Poznan: Bar
bara Skowronek (1997) and Kazimiera Myczko (1995); Janusz Arabski at the
University of Silesia (1985, 1996); Barbara Sadownik at the Maria Curie-
Sklodowska University in Lublin (1991, 1997); Marian Szczodrowski (2001)
and H. Stasiak (2000) both at Gdansk University. Elsewhere I have presented
the early achievements of Polish glottodidactics (cf. Grucza 1979) and Sad
ownik, among others, have attempted to recapitulate the present situation of
this discipline in Poland (cf. Sadownik 1998). I also refer the reader to some
earlier articles by Dakowska and Skowronek and to what was written about
Polish glottodidactics by Bausch & Krumm (1989).
9.3 Translation studies

Issues of translating non-literary texts emerged in this country on a large
scale in the 1960s, and were dealt with in linguistic terms. The earliest in
stances of a linguistic approach to translation were noted at the Formal Lin
guistics Section (Warsaw University), headed by Olgierd Wojtasiewicz. This
subject was taken up extensively by a special, non-academic higher school
founded in 1963 and named, quite inaccurately, "Wyższe Studium Języków
Obcych" (WSJO), i.e., the Higher School of Foreign Languages. In fact, its
statutory objective was not to teach certain foreign languages, but to train
translators and interpreters of non-literary texts. The team of the Formal Lin
guistics Section dealt mainly with theoretical aspects of translation, partly
those of machine translation. Wojtasiewicz wrote the first Polish university
handbook on the theory of translation (Wojtasiewicz 1957). Its second
edition was published by TEPiS in 1996. The Higher School of Modern
Languages designed solid curricula for training translators and interpreters,
yet these were not curricula of academic, scientifically based studies.
Throughout its relatively short existence the school had the status of a
professionally-oriented higher school training translators and interpreters.
The decision to close the school was made before 1970 and by 1975 it had
closed down altogether.
The task of reviving the training of translators and interpreters was taken
up after 1973 by the Institute in Warsaw. I used the word 'reviving' as the
then academic authorities had decided to close the Higher School of Foreign
Languages on the pretext of an alleged lack of job offers for translators and
interpreters on the labour market. Yet, soon after the closure of the School, it
turned out that there was a genuine demand for professionally educated trans
lators and interpreters of non-literary texts, in spite of Poland's limited inter
national contacts at that time,
The work aimed at devising the curricula at the Institute was accompa
nied by a theoretical study of translation as an interpersonal linguistic activ
ity, on the one hand, and by the training of translators/interpreters, on the
other hand. Several conferences were devoted to issues in translation,
initially linked with glottodidactic topics, and later focussing exclusively on
translation studies. The first such conference was held in 1976 (cf. Grucza
1981). I continued to refine the concept of translatorics (cf. Grucza 1990,
1993) and some of my colleagues contributed to its further development.
Barbara Z. Kielar published a monograph (1988), in which she demonstrated
that it was the translational chain (and not what I called the translatoric
chain) that was the object of translatoric research. At the next conference
devoted to translation studies in November 1982 I presented a more precisely
formulated concept of translatorics (Grucza 1986a). The next conference,
organised by the Institute in December 1983 focussed the training of
translators (Grucza 1986b).
During discussions at this conference and in articles which appeared
during that period (e. g., Grucza 1984), my aim was to lay the foundations for
translator training, or for a rationalisation of such training. These were also
the objectives of two other conferences organised by the Institute; the papers
from the first of these conferences, in 1990, were published as Przyczynki do
teorii i metodyki kształcenia nauczycieli języków obcych i tłumaczy w per-
spektywie wspólnej Europy [Contributions to a theory and methodology of
the training of foreign language teachers and translators in the prospect of a
Common Europe] (Grucza 1993), while the papers from the other conference
in 1996 were published as Podejscie kognitywne w lingwistyce, translatoryce
i glottodydaktyce [A cognitive approach in linguistics, translatorics and glot-
todidactics] (Grucza & Dakowska 1997).
Since 1990 the Institute of Applied Linguistics has been broadly engaged
in the development of translatorics to the point where the field has now
achieved the status of an autonomous academic discipline. It was here that
the first doctoral and 'habilitation' dissertation in translatorics were written
as was the first monograph in translatorics for the degree of a full professor:
Kielar's book, Tlumaczenia i koncepcje translatoryczne [Translation and
translatoric concepts] (Kielar 1988). This book was a first attempt to summa
rize the translatoric thought developed at the Institute, a subject which was
also dealt with later in a number of articles (cf. Grucza 1996, Zmudzki 1998).
Today translation studies is represented in many Polish universities and
the range of issues which are studied in this field has been growing rapidly.
Some researchers have been investigating linguistic aspects of literary trans
lation while others have focussed attention on interpretation. The first trend
has been discussed by Maria Krysztofiak (1996), the other by Jerzy Zmudzki,
(1995).
According to Jan Lewandowski, 'the last five years of the twentieth cen
tury, shortly after the establishment of the said centres, saw a tremendous in
crease in publications on translation studies [...]. In those five years, the
number of publications was the same as the number registered by Kielar in
her bibliography for the previous 25 years, so one can say that the pace of
development of Polish studies on translation and teaching translation was
five times as fast' (cf. Lewandowski 2001, Kielar 1996). Lewandowski has
described the earlier achievements of Polish translation studies (Lewan
dowski 1996), while Kielar has presented a more summarised version of
them (cf. Kielar 1996). Perhaps one of the most consistent publishing effort
in recent years in the field of literary translation studies in Poland has been an
extensive series of anthologies edited by Piotr Fast at the University of
Silesia between 1991 and 1997.
Increasing interest in issues in translation studies is undoubtedly one of
the very positive effects of the political changes which occurred in Poland in
1989. In any case, as a result of the opening of Polish frontiers, the need for
literary and non-literary translators and interpreters rose dramatically. How
ever, these facts had some negative consequences too. Soon they led to a per
ceivable lowering of the level of translation and interpreting in all fields ow
ing to insufficiently prepared individuals starting to work as translators and
interpreters. The professional environment of translators also started to feel
the negative effects of this phenomenon. It provoked anxiety in both the As
sociation of Polish Translators and Interpreters and the Polish Society of
Economic, Legal and Court Translators (Polish acronym TEPiS). Both
organisations became involved in publishing and organising conferences in
an effort to encourage translators to observe adequate professional standards.
The second organisation is particularly active in the field of disseminating
knowledge and raising the level of the translational competence of
translators. To these ends it publishes two periodicals — TEPIS Bulletin and
Lingua Legis — and a special series of monographs. At the same time, it
contributes to the formal constitution of the professions of translating and
interpreting in Poland.
10. Logopaedics and linguistic aphasiology

As far as Polish logopaedics is concerned, the work of Leon Kaczmarek
led to Lublin becoming arguably the main Polish centre for research in the
area. We should remember, however, that he started his work in Poznan in
co-operation with Zabrocki and that it was there that he wrote the first Polish
study after World War II about the development of speech in children (cf.
Kaczmarek 1953). He followed this up with further studies (notably Kacz
marek 1966) and his work was consolidated by that of another researcher,
Pawel Smoczynski (1955)
During his time in Poznan, Kaczmarek was for a period the head of the
Phonographic Section of the University, established on the initiative of
Zabrocki. The publishing organ of the Section was a periodical called Phono
graphic Bulletin first published in 1953. The Section conducted research in
various areas, including research on aphasia. In Lublin, Kaczmarek launched

the periodical Logopaedics: Issues of the Culture of the Spoken Word (1958)
and later founded the Polish Logopaedic Society (1962). In 1965 he pub
lished a Polish Logopaedic Bibliography together with his students Zdzislaw
Dobrzański and Józef Kania. While in Lublin, he also started linguistic re
search on aphasia and Kania and Stanislaw Grabias devoted particular atten
tion to this area. In 1990 Grabias took over the post of head of the Lublin
Section of Logopaedics from Kaczmarek and in 1991 he began publishing a
series of works under the common title 'Linguistic Communication and Its
Disorders'. Over a dozen original studies in this field have been published in
the series so far.
However, it was not only in Lublin that issues of logopaedics and aphasi-
ology were studied. In Warsaw the most important research was conducted
Maria Zarçbina and Maria Przetacznikowa, while in Cracow the main re
searchers were Halina Mierzejewska and, later, Mariuz Maruszewski (note,
in particular, Zarçbina 1973 and Mierzejewska 1971; Maruszewski 1966). A
summary of logopaedics written by Irena Styczek was published in 1970.
The history of Polish logopaedics between the end of World War II and 1980
was presented by Kaczmarek in 1980 in a volume edited by Janusz Rieger
and Mieczyslaw Szymczak.
11. Applied phonetics

Much of the research in phonetics in Poland is closely related to issues of
orthoepy or orthophony, as well as to logopaedics and aphasiology. Some re
searchers engaged in phonetic research mainly to support their work in or
thoepy, logopaedics or aphasiology. This was, for example, the case with
Tytus Benni, whom we have already mentioned, and the same can be said for
the work of Halina Koneczna (Cracow), Maria Dluska (Warsaw), Stanislaw
Skorupka (Warsaw) or, a little later, Bozena Wierzchowska (Warsaw, Poz
nan, Lublin). Wierzchowska acknowledges that many studies by these au
thors were devoted at the same time to finding new methods and/or develop
ing and testing the efficiency of new research instruments.
In the early post-war period, apart from the Section of Phonetics at the
University of Warsaw which was established during the interwar period and
reactivated after the war, a new centre, the Phonographic Archive, was
opened in Poznan in 1946 and transformed into the Phonographic Institute
five years later. Within this Institute, Wiktor Jassem, later a leading phoneti
cian in Poland, started his work and, with his efforts, the Institute became the
main Polish centre in this field.
Unfortunately, in the late 1970s, the Institute of Phonetics was closed and
attempts to create a Section of Phonetics at the Institute of Applied Linguis
tics in Warsaw also failed. Indeed the second half of the post-war period was
not favourable for the development of Polish phonetics and even the Poznan
centre of Polish phonetics has encountered serious difficulties in recent
decades. Nevertheless, phonetics still has quite a good representation at this
centre, particularly through the work of Leokadia Dukiewiczowa and Maria
Steffen, among others.
Unlike the other, older centres of Polish phonetics which work focussing
mainly on problems of orthoepy, orthophony, logopaedics, etc., the Poznan
centre, thanks to Jassem, included more technical questions in the scope of its
interests and started to study issues relating to automatic speech analysis and
synthesis.
It should be noted that almost all the Polish neophilologies devoted con
siderable attention to applied phonetics and didactic phonology in the post
war period, thereby continuing the efforts of Tytus Benni (1877-1935). At
the end of the 1960s contrastive aspects started to be included in these studies
and particular attention was devoted to the issue of interlingual interference.
It is impossible to list here all the Polish studies concerning this issue but
some of the most important are those by Szulc (1974), Jassem (1962),
Morciniec (1990), Morciniec & Prędota (1973, 1982); Prędota (1979), Guss
mann (1978), Krzeszowski (1968), and Kopczyński (1977).
12. Orthography and orthoepy (orthophony)

Immediately after the end of World War II, the discussion on Polish
spelling was reopened. Many still did not accept the orthography approved
and adopted in 1936 and insisted on simplifying it. The discussion was inter
rupted in 1948 by a regulation issued by the authorities, which obliged every
body to follow the rules put forward in 1936. Even though the acceptance of
this regulation was imposed by force, its results must be assessed as positive,
because from then on, as Zdzisław Stieber put it (1980:246), 'spelling has
been absolutely uniform throughout the whole country'. In principle it has
been so until today, because the amendments introduced in 1956 concerned
only a few details. Robert Rothstein has outlined the story of Polish orthogra
phy, and especially the discussion conducted in the years 1918-1936 (cf.
Rothstein 1977). A detailed account in Polish was written by Stanislaw
Jodiowski (1979).
A much more difficult issue was the standardisation of Polish pronuncia
tion, in other words, the practical implementation of the rules of Polish or-
thoepy developed by linguists. These rules were first presented in 1904 by

Jan Rozwadowski and the second project was submitted in 1915 by Tytus
Benni. The former used as his model the pronunciation of the Cracow intelli
gentsia, while the latter chose the pronunciation of the Warsaw intelligentsia.
After World War I, this problem was dealt with mainly by the Society of the
Friends of the Polish Language. Under its auspices, a new orthoepic com
promise was reached, based on mutual concessions. This was published in
1930 entitled Rules of Correct Pronunciation and the following years saw ef
forts to make them commonly known and accepted. These efforts were inter
rupted by the outbreak of World War II.
After the war ended, work on this issue resumed. As early as in 1947 two
authors — Witold Doroszewski and Bronisław Wieczorkiewicz — developed
and published Principles of Correct Pronunciation (Doroszewski & Wie
czorkiewicz 1947). Twenty years later, in 1977, the first Dictionary of Polish
Pronunciation was published, developed by a team at the Jagiellonian Uni
versity. All these efforts contributed greatly to standardising Polish pronun
ciation at a national level. In the late 1970s, Zdzislaw Stieber (1980:247-248)
gave the following evaluation of the state of affairs in this field in Poland:
The work of Polish linguists in determining correct pronunciation produced better
results than could have been expected. Today even linguists find it difficult to deter
mine, on the basis of pronunciation, what part of Poland his or her interlocutor
comes from. This applies, above all, to persons with higher education, though it is
also true that those with a secondary education, or even only an elementary edu
cation, use a relatively highly uniform pronunciation throughout the country.
13. Terminology — languages for special uses

The beginnings of terminological interests and particularly in technical
vocabulary in Polish linguistics go back to the first years of the interwar pe
riod when they were initiated by K. Stadtmüller (1922). In this text, the au
thor shows how terms can be created in accordance with the rules of word
formation in Polish. Apart from technical terminology, the nomenclature of
maritime terminology was a topic of considerable interest in this early period.
It also received much attention after World War II (cf. Grabowski & Wój-
cicki, 1969; Grabowska & Grabowska 1971; Brocki 1961, 1964, 1969). An
other area of interest concerned the different variants of military language
(cf. Marciniak 1987).
The first strictly linguistic post-war work devoted to terminology is an
article by Mieczyslaw Szymczak (1961). The same year also saw the publi
cation of the first major terminological study written by a non-linguist
(Mazur 1961). Since then, studies on various terminological issues — de

tailed and general, practical and theoretical — have more numerous (cf.
Zbierski 1964; Szymczak 1978).
From the beginning of the 1970s, greater attention was paid to the termi
nologies of various sciences. These interests started with an article by Teresa
Skubalanka (1969). The article was innovative in the way it went beyond
terminology in its narrow sense and to speak about certain specialist dis
courses. The author was among the first to clearly cover non-lexical aspects
of scientific discourse in the scope of her interests though, the issue had al
ready been touched on by Karel Hausenblas (1962). Gajda described Polish
achievements in the field of the language of science up to 1990 (cf. Gajda
1990a, 1990b).
Since the early 1980s, Polish neophilologies have also been showing
greater interest in specialist discourses. Their interest was connected, on the
one hand, with various issues in translation, and on the other, with various
glottodidactic concerns. One of the results of the first type of interest is a
monograph by Kielar (1977), entitled 'Language of the Law in the Aspect of
Translation'. As an example of a study from the second group we can men
tion the work of Wojnicki (1979) and further information on this topic can be
found in a collection of studies which I edited in 1991 (Grucza 1991). This
volume contains my study Terminology: Its object, status and significance',
in which I give an outline of my conception of terminology as a certain rela
tively independent field of academic interest not only for linguists. A little
earlier two other books presenting terminology as a whole were published
(Nowicki 1986, Gajda 1982).
In 1992 the Institute of Applied Linguistics organised a special confer
ence devoted to specialist discourses (cf. Grucza & Kozlowska 1994). The
studies included in this volume are devoted to both translatoric and glottodi
dactic aspects of various specialist discourses. Kielar's article (2000) de
serves special attention, since it is the first attempt in Poland to provide theo
retical foundations for both analytic reflections and practical remarks on this
subject. The author also dealt with various aspects of the translation of spe
cialist texts — including teaching this kind of translation — in her earlier
works (e.g., Kielar 1981).
In conclusion, one should add that in 2000 the first independent Chair of
Foreign Languages for Special Purposes was created at the Faculty of Ap
plied Linguistics and East-Slavonic Philologies at the University of Warsaw.
The Department is engaged both in teaching and research activities, and has
started a series of its own publications entitled Specialist Languages. The
first volume in the series is devoted to the metalanguage of linguistics (cf.

Lukszyn 2001).
14. Conclusion
In an account of the present length, it is impossible to fully do justice to
all the work which has been done in the field of applied linguistics in Poland.
Certain areas (such as lexicography) have been omitted as they are dealt with
more thoroughly in other contributions to the present volume (see Chapters 3
and 5). Other areas, such as the extensive efforts which have been expended
on standardising Polish for educational and sociolinguistic purposes, might
be better dealt with in other publications devoted more exclusively to those
respective disciplines. Moreover, the reader should not be led into thinking
that those subjects which this paper has attempted to deal with have been rep
resented in their full breadth. Ultimately, the author's ambition will have
been fulfilled if this work serves merely as a signpost of the diversity and
range of investigations in applied linguistics in this country.
REFERENCES
Arabski, Janusz. 1985. O przyswajaniu jezyka drugiego (obcego). Warszawa:
Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne.
Arabski, Janusz. 1997. Przyswajanie języka obcego i pamięć werbalna. Katowice:
Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1871. "Nekotorye obscie zamečania o jazykovedenii i
jazyke [Some general remarks about linguistics and language]". Žumal Mini-
sterstva Narodnogo Prosveščenija 153.279-316 (Feb. 1871). (Repr. in Dzielawy-
brane [Selected works] by J. Baudouin de Courtenay, vol.IV.35-64. Warszawa:
Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1990; English transl, in Baudouin de Cour
tenay 1972.49-80.)
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1889. "O zadaniach językoznawstwa [On the tasks of
linguistics]". Prace filologiczne (Warsaw) 3:1.92-115. (Repr. in Baudouin 1904:
24-49.)
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1902. Sravnitel' naja grammatika slavjanskix jazykov v
svjazi z drugimi indoevropejskimi jazykami. St. Petersburg: no publisher. (Ex
cerpts in English in A Baudouin de Courtenay Anthology ed. by Edward Stan-
kiewicz, 319-322. Bloomington & London: Indiana University Press, 1972.)
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1904. Szkice językoznawcze [Linguistic sketches]. Vol.
I. Warsaw: Piotr Laskauer. [Repr. as Dziela Wybrane, vol.1 (1974).]
Boduèn de Kurtenè, I. A. 1963. Izbrannye trudy po obščemujazykoznaniju [Selected
works in general linguistics]. Ed. by V[iktor] P. Grigor'ev & A[leksej] A. Leon-
t'ev. 2 vols. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk.
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1974, 1976, 1989, 1990, 1983. Dziela Wybrane
[Selected works], volumes I-II-III-IV-V-VI [in that order]. Warszawa: PWN.
Bausch, Karl-Richard, Herbert Christ & K.-H. Krumm. 1989. "Das Lehren und
Lernen von fremden Sprachen: Wissenschaftskonzepte im internationalen Ver
gleich", Handbuch Fremdsprachenunterricht ed. by K.-R. Bausch et al. Bern &
Tübingen: Francke.
Benni, Tytus. 1915. "Opis fonetyczny jçzyka polskiego". Encyklopedia Polska, vol.
II, section III, part I, 227-268. Kraków.
Bernhardi, August Friedrich. 1801, 1803. Sprachlehre. Vol. I: Reine Sprachlehre;
vol. II: Angewandte Sprachlehre. Berlin: Frölich.
Blicharski, Michal, ed. 1980. Semantyka w badaniach konfrontatywnych języka
rosyjskiego i polskiego. Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski.
Brocki, Zygmunt. 1961. Kot i kotwica. Historyek z zycia terminów morskich
zbiorek pierwszy. Gdynia: Wydawnictwo Morskie.
Brocki, Zygmunt. 1964. Morze na oku: Historyjek z zycia terminów morskich
zbiorek drugi. Gdynia: Wydawnictwo Morskie.
Brocki, Zygmunt. 1969. Morze pije rzekç. Historyjek z zycia terminów morskich
zbiorek trzeci. Gdansk: Wydawnictwo Morskie.
Buttler, Danuta, Halina Kurkowska & Halina Satkiewicz . 1969. Kultura języka pol
skiego: Zagadnienia poprawnosci gramatycznej. 2 vols. Warszawa: PWN.
Ciesielska-Borkowska, S. 1930. "Wartosc wychowawcza nauki języków nowozyt-
nych". Neofilolog 2.
Ciesla, Michal. 1965. "Edmunda Erdmana swoista koncepcja lingwistyki stoso-
wanej". Języki obce w szkole 2.94.
Ciesla, Michał. 1974. Dzieje nauki języków obcych w zarysie. Warszawa: PWN.
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1970. "Zusammenfassung der Ergebnisse". Probleme der kon
trastiven Grammatik ed. by Hugo Moser, 175-177. Düsseldorf: Schwann.
Cygan, Jan. 1965. "On the System of Negation in English and Polish". Language
Learning 15.17-28,
Czochralski, Jan. 1966. "Grundsätzliches zur Theorie der kontrastiven Grammatik",
Linguistics 24.17-28.
Czochralski, Jan. 1975. Verbalaspekt und Tempussystem im Deutschen und Pol
nischen: Eine konfrontative Darstellung. Warszawa: PWN.
Dakowska, Maria. 1987. Funkcje lingwistyki w modelach i procesach glottodydak-
tycznych. Warszawa: PWN.
Dakowska, Maria. 1994. "Glottodydaktyka jako nauka". Polska szkola lingwistyki
stosowanej ed. by B. Z. Kielar, L. Bartoszewicz & J. Lewandowski, 65-79. War
szawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
Dakowska, Maria. 1995, Models of Language Use and Language Learning in the
Theory of Language Didactics. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu
Warszawskiego.
Dluska, Maria. 1981[1950]. Fonetyka polska. 2nd ed. Krakow & Warszawa: PWN.
Doroszewski, Witold & Bronislaw Wieczorkiewicz. 1947. Zasady poprawnej
wymowy polskiej (ze slowniczkiem). Warszawa: Państwowy Zakład Wydawnictwo
Szkolnych.
Dukiewicz, Leokadia. 1978. Intonacja wypowiedzi polskich. Warszawa: Zaklad
Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich.
Engel, Ulrich, Danuta Rytel-Kuc et al. 2000. Deutsch-polnische kontrastive Gram

matik. 2 vols.Warszawa: PWN; Heidelberg: C. Winter
Figarski, Wladyslaw. 2001. "O korelacjach w procesie glottodydaktycznym".
Teoría i praktyka nauczania jçzyka rosyjskiego, literatury i kultwy Rosji u progu
XXI wieku. Kielce.
Fisiak, Jacek. 1973. 'The Polish-English Contrastive Project". Papers and Studies in
Contrastive Linguistics. Poznan: UAM; Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied
Linguistics.
Fisiak, Jacek, ed. 1984. Contrastive Linguistics: Prospects and Problems. The
Hague: Mouton.
Fisiak, Jacek, ed. 1990. Further Insights into Contrastive Analysis. Amsterdam &
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Fisiak, Jacek, ed. 1981. Contrastive Linguistics and the Language Teacher. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Fisiak, Jacek. 1982. "English-Polish Contrastive Linguistics in Poland: A brief sur
vey". Nordlyd: Troms0 University Working Papers on Languages and Linguistics
6.37-68.
Fisiak, Jacek, Maria Lipińska-Grzegorek & Tadeusz Zabrocki. 1978. An Intro
ductory English-Polish Contrastive Grammar. Warszawa: PWN. (2nd ed., 1987.)
Fries, Charles C. 1945. Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language. Ann
Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan.
Gajda, Stanislaw. 1982. Podstawy badań stylistycznych nad językiem naukowym.
Warszawa: PWN.
Gajda, Stanislaw. 1990a. Wprowadzenie do teorii terminu. Opole: WSP.
Gajda, Stanislaw. 1990b. Wspólczesna polszczyzna naukowa: Język czy ¿argon?.
Opole: Instytut Śląski Wydawniczy.
Gnutzmann, Claus, ed. 1990. Kontrastive Linguistik. Frankfurt/Main.
Gottlieb, Wojciech. 1932. "Germanistyka a wychowanie obywatelskie". Neofilolog
1.13-22.
Grabowska, Iwana & Malgorzata Grabowska. 1971. "Uwagi o 'żargonie' mary-
narzy". Językoznawca. Lublin.
Grabowski, Zygmunt & Józef Wójcicki. 1969. 1000 slow o morzu i okręcie. War
szawa: Wydawnictwo Ministerstwa Obrony Narodowej.
Grala, Maria. 1974. Język polski dla srednio-zaawansowanych [Polish for inter
mediate students]. Kraków: Jagellonian University, 1974 (English version); Poz
nan: Adam Mickiewicz University, 1975 (French version).
Grala, Maria & Wanda Przywarska. 1978. Z polskim. na co dzien: Intermediate
Polish for English speakers. Poznan: PWN.
Grala, Maria & Wanda Przywarska. 1981. W Polsce po polsku: Beginning Polish for
English Speakers. Poznan: PWN.
Grala, Maria. 1982. Say it in Polish: An intensive course for beginners. Warszawa:
Wiedza Powszechna.
Grucza, Franciszek. 1968. "Metasprachen, Kodematik, Fremdsprachenunterricht".
Glottodidactica 2.11-20.
Grucza, Franciszek. 1971. "Językoznawstwo stosowane a tzw. Tingwistyka kom-
puterowa'". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 29.47'-61.
Grucza, Franciszek. 1976. "Fehlerlinguistik, Lapsologie und kontrastive Forschun

gen". KwartalnikNeofilologiczny 23:3.237-247.
Grucza, Franciszek, ed. 1976a. Lingwistyka stosowana i glottodydaktyka. Warsza-
wa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
Grucza, Franciszek, ed. 1976b. Glottodydaktyka a lingwistyka. Warszawa: Wyda
wnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
Grucza, Franciszek. 1978. "Ogólne zagadnienia lapsologii". Zproblematyki blędow
obcojęzycznych ed. by F. Grucza, 9-59. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Peda-
gogiczne.
Grucza, Franciszek, ed. 1978. Teoria komunikacji językowej a glottodydaktyka.
Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
Grucza, Franciszek, ed. 1979. Polska myśl glottodydaktyczna 1945-1975. War
szawa: PWN.
Grucza, Franciszek, ed. 1981. Glottodydaktyka a trans latoryka. Warszawa: PWN.
Grucza, Franciszek. 1983, Zagadnienia metalingwistyki: Lingwistyka - jej przed-
miot, lingwistyka stosowana. Warszawa: PWN.
Grucza, Franciszek. 1984. "Translatorik und Translationsdidaktik: Versuch einer
formalen Bestimmung und Abgrenzung ihrer Gegenstände". Die Theorie des
Übersetzens und ihr Auf schlußwert für die Übersetzungs- und Dolmetschdidaktik
ed. by Wolfram Wilss & G. Thome, 28-36. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Grucza, Franciszek, ed. 1985. Lingwistyka, glottodydaktyka, translatoryka. War
szawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
Grucza, Franciszek, ed. 1986. Problemy translatoryki i dydaktyki translatorycznej.
Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
Grucza, Franciszek. 1986a. "Tlumaczenie, teoria tłumaczeń, translatoryka". Pro
blemy translatoryki i dydaktyki translatorycznej ed. by F. Grucza, 9-27. War
Grucza, Franciszek. 1986b. "Applied Contrastive Linguistics: A misconception?".
Language Acquisition and Multilingualism. Festschrift für Els Oksaar zum 60.
Geburtstag ed. by Brigitte Narr & H. Wittje, 235-249. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Grucza, Franciszek, ed. 1989. Bilingwizm, bikulturyzm - implikacje glottody-
daktyczne. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
Grucza, Franciszek. 1990. "Zum Forschungsgegenstand und -ziel der Übersetzungs
wissenschaft". Übersetzungswissenschaft: Ergebnisse und Perspektiven. Fest
schriftfür Wolfram Wilss zum 65 Geburtstag, ed. by Reiner Arntz & G. Thome, 9-
18. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Grucza, Franciszek, ed. 1991. Teoretyczne podstawy terminologii. Wrocław-War-
szawa - Kraków: Zakiad Narodowy im. Ossoliiiskich.
Grucza, Franciszek. 1991. "Terminología - j e j przedmiot, status i znaczenie".
Teoretyczne podstawy terminologii ed. by F. Grucza. Wroclaw-Warszawa-
Kraków: Zakiad Narodowy im. Ossoliińskich.
Grucza, Franciszek, ed. 1992. Język, kultura - kompetencja kulturowa. Warszawa:
Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
Grucza, Franciszek. 1993. "Ansätze zu einer Theorie der Ausbildung von Fremd
sprachenlehrern". Beiträge zur wissenschaftlichen Fundierung der Ausbildung von
Fremdsprachenlehrern ed. by F. Grucza, H.-J. Krumm & B. Grucza, 7-96. War-

Grucza, Franciszek, ed. 1993. Przyczynki do teorii i metodyki ksztalcenia nauczy-
cieli języków obcych i ttumaczy w perspektywie wspólnej Europy. Warszawa:
Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
Grucza, Franciszek. 1996. "Wyodrębnienie się, stan aktualny i perspektywy świata
translacji i translateryki", Tlumaczenie - rzemioslo i sztuka ed. by Jerzy Snopek,
10-45. Warszawa: Węgierski Instytut Kultury. (Repr. in Lingua Legis 1998:6.2-
12.)
Grucza, Franciszek & Zofia Kozlowska, eds. 1994. Języki specjalistyczne. War
szawa: Akapit PTP.
Grucza, Franciszek & Krystyna Chomicz-Jung, eds, 1996. Problemy komunikacji
interkulturowej: Jedna Europa - wielejęzyków i wiele kultur. Warszawa: Wyda-
wnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
Grucza, Franciszek & Maria Dakowska. eds. 1997. Podejscie kognitywne w ling-
wistyce, translatoryce i glottodydaktyce. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu
Warszawskiego.
Grucza, Franciszek, ed. 1998. Deutsch und Auslandsgermanistik in Mitteleuropa:
Geschichte - Stand-Ausblicke. Warszawa.
Gussmann, Edmund. 1978. Contrastive Polish-English: Consonantal Phonology,
Warszawa.: PWN.
Handke, Kwiryna & Ewa Rzetelska-Fleszko. 1977. Przewodnik po językoznawstwie
polskim. Wroclaw-Warszawa-Kraków-Gdańsk: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñ-
skich.
Haugen, Einar. 1951. "Directions in Modern Linguistics". Language 27.211-222.
Hausenblas, Karel. 1962. "Terminología a kompozycja tekstu". Poradnik Językowy
9/10 (204/205).400-408„
Heinz, Adam. 1978. Dzieje językoznawstwa w zarysie. Warszawa: PWN.
Ippoldt, Juliusz. 1925. Dydaktyka języka niemieckiego. Warszawa: Kziążnica Atlas.
Iwan, Krystyna. 1972. Nauczanie języków obcych nowozytnych w polsce w latach
1919-1939: Koncepcje organizacyjno-programowa [Teaching foreign modern
languages in Poland in the years 1919-1939: Organizational-programmatic con
ceptions]. Poznan: UAM.
Jakobson, Roman. 1958. "Morfologiceskie nabljudenija nad slavjankim skloneniem
[Morphological observations on Slavonic inflection]". American Contributions to
the Fourth International Congress of Slavists, 127-156. The Hague: Mouton.
Janicki, Karol. 1986. "Tertium comparationis in Contrastive Sociolinguistics". Lin
guistics across Historical and Geographical Boundaries: In honour of Jacek
Fisiak ed. by Dieter Kastovsky & Aleksander Szwedek, 1233-1246, Berlin-New
York-Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.
Jassem, Wiktor. 1962. Podrçcznik wymowy angielskiej. Warszawa: PWN.
Jodiowski, Stanislaw. 1979. Losy polskiej ortografii. Warszawa: PWN,
Jodlowski, Stanislaw & Witold Taszycki. 1946. Slownik ortograficzny i prawidla
pisowni polskiej. Toruń: T, Szczęsny.
Kaczmarek, Leon. 1953. Ksztaltowanie się mowy dziecka. Poznan: Nakladem
Poznańskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciól Nauk.
Kaczmarek, Leon. 1962. "O przedmiocie i zadaniach logopedii". Logopedia 2.3-7.

Kaczmarek, Leon. 1966. Nasze dziecko uczy się mowy. Lublin: Wydawnictwo
Lubelskie.
Kaczmarek, Leon. 1980. "O polskiej logopedii". Język polski i językoznawstwo
polskie w sześćdziesiçcioleciu niepodleglosci (1918-1978) ed. by J. Rieger & M.
Szymczak. Wroclaw: Zaklad narodowy im. Ossoliñskich.
Kaczmarek, Leon, Zdzisław Dobrzañski & Józef Kania. 1965. Polska bibliografía
logopedyczna. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Lubelskie.
Kalisz, Roman. 1986. "More on Pragmatic Equivalence", Linguistics across His
torical and Geographical Boundaries: In honour of Jacek Fisiak ed. by Dieter
Kastovsky & Aleksander Szwedek, 1247-1255. Berlin-New York-Amsterdam:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Kątny, Andrzej. 1989. "Bibliographie zum deutsch-polnischen Sprachvergleich".
Studien zur kontrastiven Linguistik und literarischen Übersetzung ed. by A.
Kcątny, 65-84. Frankfurt/Main.
Kielar, Barbara Z. 1977. Language of the Law in the Aspect of Translation. War-
szawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego..
Kielar, Barbara Z. 1981. "Nauczanie tłumaczenia w zakresie języka specjalistycz-
nego". Glottodydaktyka a translatoryka ed. by F. Grucza, 111-125. Warszawa:
Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
Kielar, Barbara Z. 1988. Tiumaczenia i koncepcje translatoryczne. Wrodaw: Zaklad
Kielar, Barbara Z. 1996. "Kierunki rozwoju translatoryki w okresie 1970-1995"
Lingua Legis 4.20-27.
Kielar, Barbara Z. 2000. "O tłumaczeniu tekstów specjalistycznych". Problemy
Komunikacji miçdzykulturowej ed. by B. Z. Kielar, T. P. Krzeszowski, J. Lukszyn
& T. Namowicz, 235-246. Warszawa: Grafpunkt.
Kielar, Barbara Z., Lidia Bartoszewicz & Jan Lewandowski, eds. 1994. Polska
szkola lingwistyki stosowanej. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszaw
skiego.
Kielar, Barbara Z., Tomasz P. Krzeszowski, Jurij Lukszyn & Tadeusz Namowicz,
eds. 2000. Problemy Komunikacji miçdzykulturowej'. Warszawa: Grafpunkt.
Kielski, Boleslaw. 1927. "Lektura 'wypisów' czy calosci utworów przy nauce języ-
ków nowozytnych w klasach wyzszych". Przeglqd Pedagogiczny 2.39-40. [Sum
mary of a paper given in the Modern Languages Section of the Warsaw T.N.S.W.
Circle.]
Kielski, Boleslaw. 1957-1960. Struktur a języków francuskiego i polskiego w świetle
analizy porównawczej. 2 vols. Łódź: Łódzkie Towarzystwo Naukowe.
Kleczkowski, Adam. 1935. "Die deutsch-polnischen Beziehungen in sprachlicher
und literarischer Hinsicht", Bulletin de l'Académie Polonaise des Sciences et
Lettres; Classe de philologie, vol. 86. Cracovie.
Kleczkowski, Adam. 1948. Germanistyka, anglistyka i skandynawistyka w Polsce.
Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności.
Kleczkowski, Adam. 1980. Nauczanie gramatyki języka obcego a interfer eneja.
Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne.
Kleczkowski, Adam. 1993. Podstawy metodyki nauczania języków ohcych.

Warszawa: EDE - Poland.
Kleczkowski, Adam. 1999. Metodyka nauczania języków obcych. Warszawa: Wy-
dawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne.
Koerner, E. F. K[onrad]. 1972. "Jan Baudouin de Courtenay: His place in the his
tory of linguistic science". Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue canadienne des
Slavistes 14:4.663-682.
Koneczna, Halina. 1914. Studium eksperymentalne glosek polskich. (= Prace Filo-
lologiczne, 16.) Warszawa.
Kopczyński, Andrzej. 1977. Polish and American English Consonantal Phonemes.
Warszawa: PWN.
Kozlowska, Zofia. 1985. "Badania przekladowe i badania konfrontatywne".
Lingwistyka, glottodydaktyka, translatoryka ed. by F. Grucza, 239-252. Warsza
wa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
Krysztofiak, Maria. 1996. Przeklad literacki we współczesnej transíatoryce. Poznań:
Wydawnictwa Naukowe UAM.
Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. 1967. 'Fundamental Principles of Structural Contrastive
Studies". Glottodidactica 2.33-39.
Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. 1968. An Outline of American English Phonetics. War
szawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. 1970. Teaching English to Polish Learners. Warszawa:
Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. 1971. "Equivalence, Congruence and Deep Structure".
Papers in Contrastive Linguistics ed. by Gerhard Nickel, 37-48. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. 1974a. "The So-alled Deep Structure and a Foreign Lan
guage Learner". Linguistic Insights in Applied linguistics ed. by S. Pit Corder &
Eddie Roulet, 77-87. Bruxelles: AIMAY; Paris: Didier.
Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. 1974b. Contrastive Generative Grammar: Theoretical
foundations. Lodz: Uniwersytet Łódzki. (Repr., Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 1979.)
Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. 1976. "On Some Linguistic Limitations of Classical Con
trastive Analyses". PSiCL 4.89-95.
Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. 1980. Gramatyka angielska dla Polakôw [English
grammar for Poles]. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. 1984. "Tertium comparationis". Contrastive Linguistics:
Prospects and problems ed. by Jacek Fisiak, 301-312. The Hague: Mouton.
Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. 1990. Contrasting Languages. The scope of contrastive
linguistics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kuczyñski, K. A. 1991. "Zygmunt Łempicki i polska germanistyka okresu mię-
dzywojennego", Z dziejow germanistyki historyczno-literackiej w Polsce ed. by K.
A. Kuczyński. Łódź: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
Kwiatkowski, Stefan. 1921. Dydaktyka i metodyka nauczania jçzyk ów nowożytnych.
Lwow: Kziążnica Polskiego Towarzystwa Nauczania Szkół Wyąszych; Warszawa.:
Lado, Robert. 1972. "Meine Perspektive der kontrastiven Linguistik". Reader zur
kontrastiven Linguistik ed. by Gerhard Nickel, 15-20. Frankfurt/M.: Athenäum.
Leder, Albert. 1922. Deutsche Grammatik: Etymologie, Orthographie und Syntax.

Lodz: Ludwik Fiszer.
Leder, Andrzej. 1922. Gramatyka niemiecka: Etymologja, ortografía i skladnia.
Lodz: Ludwik Fiszer.
Lewandowski, Jan. 1976, Bibliografía dydaktyki języków obcych 1971-1975. War-
szawa: PWN.
Lewandowski, Jan. 1979. "Bibliografía glottodydaktyki polskiej za rok 1976". Prze-
glqd glottodydaktyczny vol. 3.
Lewandowski, Jan. 1979. "Bibliografía glottodydaktyki polskiej za lata 1977-
1978". Przeglqd glottodydaktyczny vol. 4.
Lewandowski, Jan. 1980. "Bibliografía glottodydaktyki polskiej za rok 1979".
Przeglqd glottodydaktyczny vol. 5.
Lewandowski, Jan. 1984. "Bibliografía glottodydaktyki polskiej za rok 1980". Prze
glqd glottodydaktyczny vol. 6.
Lewandowski, Jan. 1996. "Bibliografía przekladoznawstwa polskiego za lata 1955-
1977" Lingua Legis 3.
Lewandowski, Jan. 2001. "Bibliografía przekladoznawstwa polskiego za lata 1996-
2000". Lingua Legis 9.
Lewandowski, Jan. 2001. "Bibliografía prac z zakresu nauczania języka polskiego
jako obcego za lata 1996-2000 (wybór)" Przeglqd glottodydaktyczny vol. 17.
Lipińska-Grzegorek, Maria. 1977. Some Problems of Contrastive Analysis: Sen
tences with nouns and verbs of sensual perception in English and Polish. Edmon
ton, Alberta: Linguistic Research, Inc.
Lukszyn, Jurij, ed. 2001. Języki specjalistyczne metajęzyk lingwistyki: Systemowy
stownik terminologii lingwistycznej. Warszawa.
Malachowska, Ewelina. 1973. "Jan Baudouin de Courtenay w zyciu prywatnym [Jan
Baudouin de Courtenay in private]". Przegląd Humanistyczny 5.92-104, 119-131.
Marciniak, Stanislaw. 1987. Język wojskowy.Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Ministerst-
wa Obrony Narodowej.
Marton, Waldemar. 1968. "Equivalence and Congruence in Transformational Con
trastive Studies". SAP 1.53-62.
Marton, Waldemar. 1979. Optymalizacja nauczania języków obcych w szkole.
Maruszewski, Mariusz. 1966. Afazja: Zagadnienia teorii i terapii. Warszawa: PAN.
Mazur, Marian. 1961. Terminología techniczna. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Nau-
kowo-Techniczne.
Miemietz, Bärbel. 1981 Kontrastive Linguistik Deutsch-Polnisch 1965-1980.
Gießen: Schmitz.
Mierzejewska, Halina. 1971. Zaburzenia polskiego systemu fonetycznego w nie-
których wypadkach afazji. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolińskich;
Warszawa: Wydawnictwo PAN.
Morciniec, Norbert. 1990. Das Lautsystem des Deutschen und Polnischen. Heidel
berg: C. Winter.
Morciniec, Norbert & S. Prędota. 1973. Fonetyka kontrastywna języka niemieckiego.
Warszawa: PWN.
Morciniec, Norbert & Stanislaw Prędota. 1982. Podręcznik wymowy niemieckiej.

Warszawa: PWN.
Moulton, William G. 1962. The Sounds of English and German: A systematic anal
ysis of the contrasts between the sound systems, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Myczko, Kazimiera. 1995. Die Entwicklung des Hörverstehens auf der Fortge
schrittenenstufe des Fremdsprachenunterrichts unter besonderer Berücksichti
gung des Germanistikstudiums. Poznań: Wydawnictwa Naukowe UAM.
Nakao, M. et ał., eds. 2000. Selected Papers from AILA'99, Tokyo: Plenary ad
dresses, keynote addresses, special lectures, special symposia, invited symposia of
the 12th World Congress of Applied Linguistics. Tokyo: Waseda University Press
Nowicki, Witold. 1986. Podstawy terminologii. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im.
Ossoliñskich.
Pfeiffer, Waldemar. 1979. Teoretyczne podstawy preparacji materiałów glotto-
dydaktycznych. Warszawa: PWN.
Pfeiffer, Waldemar, 2001. Nauka języków obcych. Od praktyki do praktyki. Poznan:
Wagros.
Piatek, Jan. 1929. "Czy nalezy prowadzić naukę dwóch języków obcych?". Języki
nowożytne, Księga pamiqtkowa I-ego Zjazdu Nauczycieli Języki Języków No-
wożytnych w Warszawie w dniach 2-4 luty 1929. Warszawa.
Płocińska, Barbara. 1982. "Bibliography of English-Polish Contrastive Studies in
Poland". Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 15.163-192.
Prędota, Stanislaw. 1979. Die polnisch-deutsche Interferenz im Bereich der Aus
sprache. Wroclaw.
Rieger, Janusz & Mieczyslaw Szymczak, eds. 1980. Językpolski i językoznawstwo
polskie w sześćdziesięcioleciu niepodleglości (1918-1978). Wroclaw.
Rittel, Teodozja. 1993. Podstawy lingwistyki edukacyjnej. Nabywanie i ksztalcenie
języka. Kraków: Wydawnictwa Naukowe WSP.
Rittel, Teodozja. 1994. Metodología lingwistyki edukacyjnej. Kraków: Wydawnict
wa Naukowe WSP.
Rothstein, Robert. 1977. Spelling and Society: The Polish orthographic controversy
of 1930's . (= Papers in Slavic Philology, 1.) Ann Arbor, Mich.
Rozwadowski, Jan M. 1904. "Szkic wymowy (fonety) polskiej", Materialy i Prace
Komisji Językowej AU. Kraków.
Rudzka, Brygida. 1988. WśróclPolaków: Polish for Foreign Students. Part 2. Lub
lin: Katolicki UniwersytetLubelski.
Rudzka, Brygida & Zofia Goczolowa. 1988. Wśród Polaków: Polish for Foreign
Students. Part 1. Lublin: Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski.
Sadownik, Barbara. 1991. Implikationen der Zweitsprachenerwerbsforschung für
die Glottodidaktik. Lublin: Wydawnictwa Uczelniane Uniwersytetu Maria Curie
Sklodowskiej.
Sadownik, Barbara. 1997. Glottodidaktische und psycholinguistische Aspekte des
Fremdsprachenerwebs. Lernerperspektive. Lublin: Wydawnictwa Uczelniane
Uniwersytetu M. Curie-Skłodowskiej.
Sadownik, Barbara. 1998. "Ansätze, Forschungsmethoden und Interdisziplinarität
der polnischen Glottodidaktik". Deutsch und Auslands germanistik in Mittel-
europa: Geschichte - Stand - Ausblicke ed. by F. Grucza et al., 432-445. Warsza-

wa.
Skowronek, Barbara. 1997. Methodologische Rekonstruktion glotto-didaktischer
Theorien. Poznań: Wydawnictwa Naukowe UAM.
Smoczyński, Pawel. 1955. Przyswajanie przez dziecko podstaw systemu języ-
kowego. Łódź: Zakład im. Ossolińskich. Łódźkie Towarzystwo Naukowe Wydział
I.
Stadtmüller, K. 1922. "Slowotwórstwo tecnniczne". Poradnik Językowy 33/39.49-58
Stanislawski, Jan. 1950-1951. Gramatyka angielska dla zaawansowanych: Szcze-
gólowa analiza rozbieżności zachodzących między gramatyką angielską ipolską.
2 vols. Warszawa: Książka i Wiedza.
Stankiewicz, Edward, ed. 1972. A Baudouin de Courtenay Anthology: The be
ginnings of structural linguistics. Ed. with an introduction. Bloomington & Lon
don: Indiana University Press.
Stasiak, H. 2000. Frühbeginn im Fremdsprachenunterricht: Potenziale und Pro
bleme. Flensburg.
Stieber, Zdzislaw. 1980. "Pisownia i poprawna wymowa w Polsce niepodleglej".
Rieger & Szymczak 1980.245-248.
Styczek, Irena. 1970. Zarys logopedii. Warszawa: PWN.
Szczodrowski, Marian. 2001. Steuerung fremdsprachlicher Kommunikation.
Gdansk: Uniwersytet Gdański.
Szulc, Aleksander. 1974. Praktyczna fonetyka i fonología języka niemieckiego. War
szawa: Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne.
Szulc, Aleksander. 1979. Die Fremdsprachendidaktik: Konzeptionen -Methoden -
Theorien. Warszawa: PWN.
Szulc, Aleksander. 1994. Slownik dydaktyki języków obcych, Warszawa: PWN,
Szulc, Aleksander. 1998. "Gestalten und Gestalter der polnischen Germanistik von
den Anfängen bis 1960". Deutsch und Auslandsgermanistik in Mitteleuropa: Ge
schichte - Stand - Ausblicke ed. by F. Grucza, 334-352. Warszawa.
Szwedek, Aleksander. 1974. "Some Aspects of Definiteness and Indefiniteness of
Nouns in Polish and English". PSiCL 2.203-211.
Szwedek, Aleksander. 1973. "A Note on the Relation Between the Articles in
English and Word Order in Polish (Part 1 and 2)". PSiCL 2.213-225.
Szwedek, Aleksander. 1976. Word Order, Sentence Stress and Reference in English
and Polish. Edmonton, Alberta: Linguistic Research, Inc.
Szymczak, Mieczyslaw. 1961. "Uwagi slowotwórcze o polskim wspólczesnym
slownictwie technicznym". Poradnik Językowy 1961.269-278.
Szymczak, Mieczyslaw. 1978. "Rola i miejsce terminologii w języku ogólnonaro-
dowym". Zagadnienia Naukoznawstwa 4.513-521.
Tarski, Alfred. 1933. "Pojęcie prawdy w językach nauk dedukcyjnych [The concept
of truth in language of deductive sciences]". Prace Towarzystwa Naukowego
Warszawskiego. Wydz. Ill: Nauk Matematyczno-Fizycznych, 3.
Trenklerówna, K. 1929. "Jeden czy dwa języki nowozytne w szkole średniej".
Języki nowożytne. Księga pamiątkowa I-ego Zjazdu Nauczycieli Języki Języków
Nowozytnych w Warszawie w dniach 2-4 luty 1929. Warszawa.
Urbańczyk, Stanislaw & Marian Kucala, eds. 1999. Encyklopedia języka polskiego.
3rd ed. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolinskich.
Wawrzyńczyk, Jan, ed. 1978. Polsko-rosyjskie językoznawstwo konfrontatywne:
Wybór materiałów. Łódź: Uniwersytet Łódzki.
Whorf, Benjamin Lee. 1941. "Languages and Logic". Technology Review (M.I.T.)
43.250-252, 6, 268, 272. (Reprinted in Language, Thought, and Reality ed. by
John B. Carroll, 233-245. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1956.)
Wojnicki, Stanislaw. 1979. "Cele specjalne w glottodydaktyce i ich wpływ na kry-
teria doboru materiału językowego". Przeglqd Glottodydaktyczny 4.43-56.
Wojtasiewicz, Olgierd. 1957. Wstęp do teorii tlumaczenia. Warszawa: Ossolineum.
Woźniakowski, Waldemar, ed. 1992. Modele komunikacji miçdzyludzkiej. Warsza
wa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
Woźniewicz, Wladysław. 1987. Kierowamie procesem glottodydaktycznym. War
szawa: PWN.
Woźniewicz, Wladyslaw. 1991. Metodyka lekcji języka rosyjskiego. Warszawa: Wy
dawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne.
Zabrocki, Ludwik. 1966. Językoznawcze podstawy metodyki nauczania języków
obcych. Warszawa: PWN.
Zabrocki, Ludwik. 1966. "The Institute of Applied Linguistics at the Adam Mic-
kiewicz University, Poznan". Glottodidactica 1.131-135.
Zabrocki, Ludwik. 1970. "Grundfragen der konfrontativen Grammatik". Probleme
der kontrastiven Grammatik, ed. by Hugo Moser, 31-51. Düsseldorf: Schwann.
(Repr. in Zabrocki 1980.254-270.)
Zabrocki, Ludwik. 1975. "Zur Theorie der konfrontativen Sprachwissenschaft"
Zabrocki, Ludwik. 1977. Grundlagen des Deutschunterrichts in fremdsprachlicher
Umgebung. Warszawa: PWN.
Zabrocki, Ludwik. 1980. U podstaw struktuy i rozw'oju języka [At the foundation of
language structure and development]. Warszawa & Poznań: Państwowe Wyda-
wnictwo Naukowe.
Zagajewski, Karol. 1927. Gramatyka języka niemieckiego. Lwów & Warszawa:
Kziążnica Atlas.
Zagajewski, Karol. 1931. "Czy i jak uczeń poznaje kulturę obcego narodu?". Neo-
filolog.
Zagajewski, Karol & Wojciech Gottlieb. 1939. Deutsche Arbeit, Podrçcznik jçzyka
niemieckiego. [No other details available.]
Zarębina, Maria. 1973. Rozbicie systemu językowego w afazji: Na materiale pol-
skim. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolinskich.
Zawadzka, Elzbieta. 1987. Percepcja audialna w kształceniu nauczycieli jçzyków
obcych. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Zbierski, Karol. 1964. Poradnik językowy dia technika. Warszawa
Ziemnowicz, Mieczyslaw. 1918. "Dydaktyka jçzyka niemieckiego w szkole sred-
niej". Dydaktyka przedmiotow w szkole sredniej 4/5: Języki nowożytne. Lwów.
Zmudzki, Jerzy. 1998. "Zum Stand der Translatorik in Polen". Deutsch und Aus
landsgermanistik in Mitteleuropa: Geschichte - Stand - Ausblicke ed. by Franci-
szek Grucza, 487-498. Warszawa.
Zmudzki, Jerzy. 1995. Konsekutivdolmetschen: Handlungen, Operationen, Strate

gien. Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS.
CHAPTER 3
LEXICOGRAPHY IN POLAND
EARLY BEGINNINGS — 1997*
TADEUSZ PIOTROWSKI
University of Wroclaw
1. Introductory observations
This chapter attempts to trace the development of the monolingual dictio
nary of the Polish language until the present time. Additionally, it will endeav
our to cover some of the more interesting or characteristic lexicographic publi
cations in Poland, including bi- and multilingual ones. The history of lexicog
raphy in Poland will be divided into the following periods: from the early be
ginnings until 1795 (2.1), 1795-1939 (2.2), and 1945-1997 (2.3). The 20th
century, in particular its later years, will be discussed in greater detail. There
are several reasons for this decision: first, it was in this century that the most
important dictionaries of Polish were published; second, the end of the 20th
century marks a turning point for lexicography, when it ceases to be a philol
ogical enterprise, being subsumed under computational linguistics; and third,
there have been far-reaching changes in dictionary publishing in Poland, which
have not been described elsewhere. Thus the focus will be on recent develop
ments, shown in the context of the lexicographic traditions in Poland.
The dates given above to subdivide the paper are related to political events;
indeed, in contrast to many other linguistic enterprises, lexicography is particu
larly sensitive to such events, as it can be situated at the interface of scholarship
(philologists and linguists), industry (publishers and printers), and society
(buyers and users). Dictionary making is highly labour-intensive and hence re
quires considerable monetary investments. As a result, lexicography is closely
related to complex economic forces, dependent in turn on political conditions.
These factors will be taken into account in this survey.
There exists no scholarly survey of the history of lexicography in Poland.
Publications attempting to cover its whole history are in general dated (e.g.,
Doroszewski 1954, influential but biased), and often cursory, aimed at non-
* This chapter first appeared as an article in Historioagraphia Linguistica 25:1/2.1-24 (1998).

The author thanks John Kearns, Zygmunt Saloni, and the editors for their help in preparing
the final text.
specialist readers (Urbañczyk 1991[1964], Kania & Tokarski 1984), or treat

only selected issues in detail (Piotrowski 1994). Two recent papers accessible
for the non-Polish reader are by Urbañczyk (1991; in German) and by Pio
trowski (1986; in English), Walczak (1991) discusses the Słownik wilenski
('Wilno Dictionary' from 1861) with regard to a wide background of methods
and approaches used in Polish lexicography. His book is also valuable for the
numerous bibliographic references. There are a number of studies of particular
dictionaries, lexicographers, or dictionary projects (cf. their bibliography until
1980 in Bukowcowa & Kucała 1981), and two dictionaries that have been de
scribed in great detail are those compiled by Linde in the early 19th century
(SJPLind) and the one edited by Witold Doroszewski in the mid-20th century
(SJPDor). There are no detailed studies of the largest dictionary of Polish,
edited by Kariowicz and others in the early 20th century (SW). The best bibli
ography that describes the majority of known dictionaries dealing with the
Polish language, both mono-, bi- and multilingual, published until the early
1960s, is that by Grzegorczyk (1967). A valuable annotated bibliography in
English was compiled by Stankiewicz (1984). Finally, a series of bibliogra
phies that cover the years 1945-1978 was published by Rymsza-Zalewska et
al. (1965-1981). There is no bibliography of recent dictionaries.
2. The development of lexicography in Poland

2.1 From the beginnings until 1795
The development of Polish lexicography is analogous to that in other Euro
pean countries and the first lexicographic works are glosses, glossaries, as
well as vocabularies, for the learning or teaching of Latin (cf. Plezia 1959),
which were compiled during the Middle Ages. One of the earliest, probably
from 1424, in Latin and Polish is Wokabularz trydencki ('Dictionary from
Trento') and it contains 600 entries.1 The earliest printed dictionary, from 1526
or 1528, listing Polish words, also with Latin and German, is that by Jan Mur-
meliusz (also Myrmeling, 1479-1527), a Dutch author: Dictionarius Murmelii
variarum rerum (from 1526 or 1528). It was based on a collection of proverbs,
and included around 2,600 Polish entries in the typical thematic arrangement; it
is not known who was the author of the Polish entries. From the same period,
several other similar dictionaries are known, similar in size, for example by a
certain Franciszek Mymer (Mymerus) from 1528, with Latin, German and
Polish, containing 2,300 entries.
1
The number of entries has to be treated with caution, as there are no standard counting
methods. The numbers in this paper were taken from the relevant descriptions, but there are
often discrepancies between them.
LEXICOGRAPHY IN POLAND 103
One of the largest Latin-Polish dictionaries, with 1,000 pages, compiled by

Jan Maczyński (c.l520-c.l587), Lexicon Latino-Polonicum (1564), included
20,500 entries. The macro structure was already alphabetical, but etymological
nesting was used as well, a feature that re-appears in later Polish dictionaries.
The dictionary was notable for its inclusion of colloquial vocabulary and for
the care taken to provide adequate equivalents. Unfortunately, published by a
non-Catholic, expensive and with a limited number of copies (500), it did not
exert any lasting influence. Polish, along with Hungarian, was also included in
the Basel edition of the famous dictionary by Ambrogio Calepino (c.1435-
1511) from 1590. It is not known who provided the Polish equivalents (it was
believed that it was Mączyński, either Piotr, or Jan himself), which, however,
were often badly printed and distorted beyond recognition. The Polish material
is very valuable, however, as the author did not feel constrained by linguistic
appropriateness.
The most important Renaissance dictionary is the three-volume dictionary,
published 1621-1632, by Grzegorz Knapski (c.1564-1639), a Jesuit, entitled
Thesaurus Polono-Latino-Graecus, The first volume, with over 1,500 pages,
was Polish-Latin-Greek, the second provided a Latin index to the first volume
(840 pages), and the third was a collection of idiomatic and proverbial phrases
(over 1,300 entries). By use of what were, by Polish standards, novel meth
ods, the publication was important for further development of Polish lexicog
raphy (this account follows Puzynina 1961). In its methodology the dictionary
was probably based on foreign sources from the preceding century, most no
tably on the bilingual dictionaries with Latin and French by Robert and Henri
Estienne (1539/1549, 1565, respectively). The dictionaiy provides also some
information on translation problems between Latin and Polish. Furthermore, it
includes a large amount of encyclopedic information. The number of the entries
is believed to be 40,000.
The macro structure is consistently alphabetical, and idioms as well as in
flectional forms and even individual senses are given separate entries. Within
the entries there are well-developed cross-references; the entries also regularly
include synonyms. Occasionally definitions could be found. The arrangement
of particular senses was from general to specialized. Knapski provided both
examples of usage and references to acknowledged literary authorities (43 in
number). Interestingly, he also included collocations, The dictionary uses
some 150 labels as well. Most of these features were new in Poland at the
time. In contrast to Mączyński (1564), Knapski made a selection of the words
to be included in the dictionary, omitting those considered to lie outside the
sphere of literary language (which he called dialectos maxime communis): bar'-
barisms (even those in widespread use), colloquialisms, vulgarisms and

marked dialectal forms. In his view language — and this includes its descrip
tion in a dictionary — should be governed by principles (norms), and in par
ticular be devoid of foreign influences. Knapski therefore included a number of
vernacular neologisms, to replace foreign words, which he coined on the basis
of Czech. The Knapski Thesaurus exerted enormous influence on successive
dictionaries, including those with Latvian and Lithuanian, up till the mid-nine
teenth century, and some of Knapski's methods can be found in even later dic
tionaries. It was also frequently reprinted (particularly the second volume), or
abbreviated (the first volume proved to be too expensive).
The material from the Knapski dictionary was extensively used and ex
panded in the trilingual (French, German and Polish) Nouveau Dictionnaire
François, Allemand et Polonais... in three volumes by Michał Abraham Troc
(Trotz; c. 1689-1769), whose third volume, with over 1,500 pages, Polish-
French-German, appeared in 1764. This dictionary shows the decline of Latin
as a medium of communication, and the growth of importance of French and
German. Troc was a university teacher of Polish in Leipzig, and there he pub
lished his work. To the words taken from Knapski he added technical and sci
entific terminology, numerous derivatives, foreign words — new or omitted
by Knapski, as well as slang. Troc was the first in Poland to group the mean
ings of words into one entry and to number them. He also used labels on a
large scale. Although the number of entries is not known, it is significantly
higher than that of Knapski's book (some pages have twice as many).
2.2 The years 1795-1939

Another interesting large dictionary, bilingual, with Polish and German,
was that by Jerzy Samuel Bandtkie (1768-1835) from 1806, with perhaps as
many as 100,000 entries. Many of them, however, were lexical derivatives
created by the lexicographer himself. Description of potential words in Polish,
which, though not encountered in texts, can be easily formed, constitutes a real
problem for a lexicographer, and this type of solution will be used again in
Słownik warszawski (SW). The Bandtkie dictionary was published in Wroc
law (German: Breslau, since the 14th century outside of Poland) in Lower Si
lesia, and in 1835 another important Polish-German dictionary appeared out
side the former territory of Poland in Eastern Prussia, in Królewiec (German:
Königsberg), compiled by Krzysztof Celestyn Mrongowiusz (Mrongovius;
1764-1855); the German-Polish volume came out in Gdańsk in 1820). The
dictionary contained some dialect words as well as colloquialisms.
The creator of the first monolingual dictionary of Polish, Samuel Bogumil

Linde (1771-1841), was of Swedish-German descent.2 The dictionary was
printed in six large-size volumes, and went through two editions (1807-1814,
1854-1860). This was a difficult time for Poland, which had lost its statehood
after being partitioned a third time by Austria, Russia, and Prussia in 1795. In
accordance with Enlightenment views it was believed that the loss of statehood
would be equivalent to a loss of national identity and national language. Linde
was given support, both intellectual and financial, to produce a dictionary that
would be in line with the ideas of Knapski, but also with those of the Enlight
enment: an authoritative dictionary that would set patterns for the speakers of
Polish, showing how individual words should be properly used, thus helping
to envigorate the language. Though Linde was deeply influenced by Knapski
(at first he had only wanted to produce a supplement to his dictionary), he re
jected these ideals and, supported by his aristocratic benefactors, produced a
dictionary in the vein of Mączyński or Troc: a non-prescriptive dictionary
whose aim was to include the Polish language in its totality — Polish was to be
enshrined in this work, and in years to come the prospective user of Polish
would have an opportunity to see how it was used in its multiform functions
earlier. Linde was also influenced by Bandtkie, despite a strong critical attitude
towards his work.
The dictionary is very interesting not only in that it contains Polish material
but in that it can also be used as a translation dictionary, for it has German
equivalents for the meanings, as well as numerous Slavic equivalents (about
250,000 in number). It has 60,000 entries, and it is the only general Polish
dictionary that includes also 2,000 proper names, as well as prefixes. It covers
the Polish vocabulary from the 16th century until the beginning of the 19th.
Similar to Mączyński in the macrostructure adopted, Linde used alphabetical
arrangement with etymologically related words nested in one large entry,
However, the etymologies given by Linde were backward even for his times:
he still believed that Hebrew was the original language. The structure of the
entry in Linde's work was as follows: the entry word in capital letters, spelling
valiants, grammatical information, Slavic equivalents, Polish definition, Ger
man equivalents, senses (with citations), and derivatives. Multiword lexical
units, idioms and proverbs, are inside the entries, and often have Slavic equi
valents as well. Like the earlier dictionaries, Linde's work is essentially ahis-
torical (even though in Poland it is often called a historical dictionary): neither
the senses nor the citation forms are arranged in chronological order. The
arrangement of the senses is logical, from primary and concrete meanings, to
2
On Linde's biography and achievement, see now Adamska-Salaciak (2001).
derivative, figurative and technical ones. The senses are usually set off by a
graphic sign, or numbered.
The selection of material is truly unauthoritarian: the word list includes di
alect words, colloquial and vulgar vocabulary. Like Knapski, Linde also in
cluded neologisms, usually words that he coined himself. There are about
5,000 such words, formed on the basis of other Slavic languages, most often
Russian (while Knapski used Czech). The neologisms were to fill in the gaps
in the Polish language (though often they are names of abstruse objects), and,
more importantly, to make Polish more like other Slavic languages. Linde in
fact believed that, with time, Polish could be adopted as the most important of
the Slavic languages (or dialects in his view) and used as a Slavic lingua fran
ca. What is interesting is that at the end of his life he entertained similar views
with regard to Russian. Actually, there were other Polish scholars who held
similar views concerning the importance of the Polish language, for example
the famous grammarian, Onufry Kopczyński (1735-1817), who thought that
Polish is the closest to the nature of human speech. It can be supposed that this
was a sort of compensation for the loss of independence and the likely effects
of this on national identity.
Linde also used a large number of citations, some several hundred thou
sand, from about 400 authors. This was a remarkable feat, as Linde worked on
his own on the dictionary. The citations span three hundred years, but the fo
cus was on those writers who were active during what was considered the
Golden Age of Polish literature, i.e., 1550-1630, the age of the Renaissance,
for example on works of Jan Kochanowski, the foremost Polish poet in that
period. The choice of the sources of citations was thus subtly didactic. What is
very interesting about the citations is that Linde often ameliorated them: he
modernized the spellings and inflection, made them more clearly understood by
abbreviating them and by emphasizing the main idea in the citation, even
though that often resulted in their distortion.
Linde won great esteem, as SJPLind was the first scholarly dictionary of
one Slavic language while also being the first comparative dictionary of the
Slavic languages. During the 19th century most dictionaries published in
Poland were derived from SJPLind, and some of them even used Linde's old
spellings. Linde was also followed by other lexicographers in Slavic-speaking
countries, especially Josef Jungmann (1773-1847) in Bohemia, who modelled
entries in his dictionary on SJPLind but also included words borrowed from
Polish to revive the Czech language, which was falling into disuse at the time.
If we were to summarize some of the chief features of the dictionaries in
Poland up until the early 19th century, then perhaps one of the most typical
Statue of Samuel Bogumil Linde (1771-1841)

in front of the City Museum of his birthplace, Torun
features was the unauthoritarian approach to selection of entries in dictionaries:

the lexicographers generally chose to follow Mączyńiski rather than Knapski.
Another feature was the ahistorical approach to linguistic data. These two fea
tures are also true of Polish dictionaries published until 1945 and again after
1989.
Linde's dictionary was published in Warsaw. Another significant dictio
nary was compiled and printed in Vilnius (Wilno) in Lithuania, which in the
19th century was a significant centre of Polish culture, connected with the most
important Romantic poets in Poland; therefore the dictionary is called Slownik
wileński (SJPWil). Its chief editor was Aleksander Zdanowicz (1808-1868),
and it was published in two volumes in 1861. SJPWil has a large number of
entries (some 110,000), but it was meant to be a desk dictionary. The entries
are arranged strictly alphabetically, and numerous labels are used; their list is
given at the beginning of the dictionary, a method that had not been used be
fore. The word list includes nearly all the items found in SJPLind — excluded
were some of those labelled dated — and in Mrongowiusz (1835). Nearly
2,000 words were labelled as dialectal, and the dictionary included a number of
items from the eastern territories of Poland and from Lithuania (where Polish
was also commonly spoken at the time), as well as colloquial words and many
scientific and technical terms. Thus, on the one hand, the dictionary derived
from the Romantic interest in folk speech, while, on the other, the editors were
clearly aware of the importance of technical terminology. The entries have a
very clear structure, with all the senses numbered. The dictionary also includes
numerous examples, either based on those in SJPLind, or written by the edi
tors themselves. Noteworthy is the inclusion of numerous collocates and the
regulai' use of Latin names to identify plants and animals. In fact, SJPWil was
probably the model for the format of most other shorter dictionaries in Poland,
and in recent research it appears as one of the more important Polish dictio
naries.
The largest general dictionary of Polish was, and still is, Sîownik jçzyka
polskiego edited by Jan Karłowicz (1836-1903), Adam Kryński (1844-1932),
and Wladysław Niedzwiedzki (1849-1930).3 The spiritus movens of the dic
tionary was Kariowicz. Thoroughly educated in Germany, France and Russia,
Kariowicz knew well the trends in lexicography of his time. He knew the Ro
mantic ideas of the national historical dictionary, and in his detailed plan for a
great dictionary of Polish was aware of the historical principle (Kariowicz
1876). The dictionary that was finally published under his editorship was,
however, as ahistorical as the earlier dictionaries in approach, though not in the
3
Published in Warsaw, it is most often called Sîownik warszawski.
Title-page of Volume I (1807) of Linde's monolingual Polish dictionary
scope of the material. Conceptually it is similar to SJPWil in that it attempts to

bring together all words of Polish in one dictionary, and that practical needs of
a general user were taken into account.
The eight-volume dictionary, published between 1900 and 1927, is the lar
gest dictionary in Poland, with perhaps as many as 280,000 entries. In gen
eral, it encompasses all the items found in SJPLind, but supplements that ma
terial, also including Polish words from the medieval sources (in selection),
which were not used by Linde; the editors did not shy from including low
speech, colloquial and obscene words. Dialect vocabulary is also copiously
represented, as SW absorbed words from Kariowicz's other dictionary of

Polish dialects (Kariowicz 1900-1911). The dictionary was unauthoritarian,
including all words and their forms, even those considered ungrammatical, that
the editors found. In accordance with the practical nature of the dictionary the
user was advised on disputed points of usage by means of typographic sym
bols, which served to indicate a word to be avoided, e.g., a dialect word, ar
chaism, etc. A controversial point was inclusion of words unattested in the
sources, resulting from very productive word-formation processes (gerunds or
prefixai verbs).
The microstructure is typical of Polish lexicography: the headword is fol
lowed by variants, and the senses are arranged from concrete (and basic) to
metaphoric or marked (technical etc.) ones. The first sense usually also shows
numerous collocates and idioms. Some senses are also described by means of
syntactic frames. The citations, as might be expected in a popular dictionary,
are shown in a simplified manner: there is no exact localization given, only the
author's name. At the end of the entry suffixal derivatives are provided. The
entries also have numerous synonyms. Definitions are very simple, and quite
often there is no definition proper, especially in adjectival entries, only a string
of synonyms to show the meaning of the word in question. In this way the
dictionary was supposed to enrich the vocabulary of the user as well.
SW is uneven in quality. It also uncritically relied on SJPLind and thus in
herited its shortcomings. Yet it is still extremely valuable, because it records
most of the words used in the 19th century, and it is commonly used in studies
of the literature of that period. Though derived from Romantic ideas, concep
tually it belongs to the so-called Positivist movement in Poland, which strived
to preserve Polish culture against Russification and Germanization by wide
spread education and stimulation of national consciousness. Like SJPLind,
SW was to show the richness of the Polish language, but at the same time it
aimed at helping the user in employing the language to the maximum effect.
During that period, other valuable lexicographic enterprises produced in the
same spirit were large encyclopedias and encyclopedic dictionaries, some of
which are still unsurpassed in quality and size. SW was also positivistic in the
philosophical sense of the word, which derives from a kind of empiricism in
its striving at completeness of the available data and strict separation between
observation and evaluation.
Kariowicz was also the author of a dictionary of Polish dialects, Slownik
gwar polskich, which attempts to bring together the material known from ear
lier publications and cover all Polish dialects (Kariowicz 1900-1911). His dic
tionary was the first in the Slavic countries to group words from all dialects of
a single language, and it is still the most comprehensive dialect dictionary in

Poland.
It was in the 19th century also that the first dictionaries were published
which proved extremely influential in the 20th century. These were dictionaries
of spelling and so-called dictionaries of foreign words. Both types of dictio
nary were perhaps modelled on the influential German Rechtschreibung (1880)
by Konrad Duden (1829-1911), which appeals to have been followed by An-
toni Jerzykowski (1821-1889) in his 1887 Siownik ortograficzny z dodatkiem
niepolskich wyrazów i wyrazerí. In Poland, a spelling dictionary is usually
treated as a sort of grammatical dictionary, as it shows not only the proper or
thography but also inflectional endings of words, while a dictionary of foreign
words continues the Renaissance tradition of 'hard word' lexicons, i.e.,
including usually foreign derived or learned words, and it explains in fact only
those borrowed words which can be incomprehensible to the average educated
user. That such dictionaries belong to an older tradition can be also seen in
their method: they do not offer any information on the use of a word, for
example illustrative material. On the other hand, in Poland dictionaries of
foreign words are the only type of general dictionary that provide detailed
etymologies. They also supplement general dictionaries with valuable data on
relatively rare items. There were many editions of these dictionaries, such as
for example, Siownik wyrazów obcych M. Arcta from 1885 which was repub
lished until 1950.4
In 1918 Poland regained her independence. The dictionaries published in
the period between the two world wars in Poland did not swerve from the di
rection established by the great 19th century publications in their unauthoritar-
ian attitude and attention to lexical detail. The only novel feature of that period
was the use of illustrations in the otherwise inferior dictionary M. Arcta siow
nik ilustrowany języka polskiego ['Arct's illustrated dictionary of Polish']
(1916-1925),5 a feature that cannot be found in any other monolingual Polish
dictionary. There were also plans to produce a supplement to SW, and about
60,000 new items were collected. The material was, however, destroyed in
Warsaw during the Second World War. New dictionaries of foreign words
appeared during that period. The largest ever such dictionary, still useful for
older words, was Trzaski, Everta i Michalskiego encyklopedyczny siownik
4
It is difficult to establish in what extent the publisher Michał Arct (1840-1916), or his
sons, was/were indeed the authors of the dictionaries bearing their family name. In the first
edition of the above-mentioned dictionary, the publisher was assisted by Henryk Wernic
(1828-1905) and a certain J. Glinski, not identical with Jozef Glinski (1817-1866).
5
Arct was assisted by Henryk Galle (1872-1948) in this project.
wyrazów obcych (Lam 1939). 1927 saw the publication of the first dictionary
of Polish etymology, Słownik etymologiczny jçzyka polskiego, by Aleksander
Brückner (1856-1939), a professor of Slavic philology at the University of
Berlin. It has been frequently reprinted as it is the only complete etymological
dictionary of Polish, being also the first dictionary of etymology to be pub
lished for any Slavic language. It was also in that period that work started on
the first period dictionary of Polish, the dictionary of Old Polish.
23 The years 1945-1997

From the point of view of the development of lexicography, the period
1945-1997 can be divided into three shorter ones: the years 1945 to 1970,
1970 to 1989, and 1989 to the 1997. This periodization again coincides to a
large degree with political events: in 1945 Poland found itself in the sphere of
influence of the USSR, which resulted in the abolishment of the majority of
political, cultural and economic structures and the start of new ones, often im
ported from the USSR, or modelled on those found there, and ill-adjusted to
Polish traditions. In 1989 Poland in turn ceased to be a satellite nation and won
complete independence, after which there was a re-emergence of structures and
institutions typical of capitalist democracy, and, in general, Poland opened up
to the world.
It was in the period 1945-1970 that the most important monolingual and
bilingual dictionaries, which form the foundations for the modem lexicography
of Polish, were published. There were several reasons for this blossoming of
lexicography. One of them was the wish of the Communist authorities to pro
duce tools useful in ideological education, and dictionaries and encyclopedias
were treated as the most important of these tools. Related to this was the State
support that lexicography received. As, however, profit analysis or feasibility
studies were not used, it was possible to produce many dictionaries which, in
tenus of cost effectiveness, could not be otherwise published without this sup
port because, expensive to produce, they could be accessed only by a highly
select audience. It has also to be said that the majority of lexicographers were
trained and matured in the preceding period, and thus this investment in human
resources bore fruit in the years 1945-1970. On the whole, the needs of the
general public were disregarded in that period, and dictionaries were produced
because of the ideological requirements or because of research interests of lexi
cographers and linguists; indeed it is remarkable that there were very few dic
tionary makers who were not trained linguists, in particular when compared
with earlier periods. One of the non-linguistic lexicographers, Władysíaw
Kopaliñski (b.l907), author of numerous linguistic and encyclopedic dictio-
naries, won popular acclaim perhaps because of his non-technical style of

presentation and wide erudition.
The most important general dictionary published in that period was
Słownik języka polskiego (SJPDor) edited by Witold Doroszewski (1899—
1976). Methodologically it is the best general Polish monolingual dictionary,
and it has exerted — and still does — an enormous influence on other dictiona
ries, both monolingual and bilingual, which are usually derived from SJPDor
or from one of its abbreviated versions. Work on it started in the early 1950s,
and the first volume appeared in 1958. SJPDor has ten volumes and one vol
ume with the supplement, which was published immediately after the tenth
volume in 1969. SJPDor has about 125,000 entries and was based on some
6,500,000 slips with citations from 3,200 publications. It covers the period
from the mid-18th to mid-20th centuries, though the items from the 18th cen
tury are included very selectively.
In its methodology SJPDor is the first modern general documentation dic
tionary (though the editors could use the documentation period dictionaries,
which started to appear in 1953, as their models), and the citations are appro
priately referred to the sources. The most important shortcoming of the docu
mentation is that the editors did not use the first editions of the sources, and
spellings were modernized. The most important innovative feature was the
grammatical description. For the first time in Poland an attempt was made to
include information that would allow the user to produce adequately all the in
flectional forms of a given word. The first volume includes tables with stems
and inflectional suffixes, and all the entries are referred, by means of a system
of codes, to the tables. Unfortunately, this system has its disadvantages: for
example it is not economic with 58.3% of the examined nouns not declining in
accordance with the system embodied in the tables (Gruszczyński 1989:87).
Also function words were described far more exhaustively than in previous
dictionaries.
The grammatical description in the dictionary, on the other hand, does not
show valiant inflections, but only those that are believed (or were, in the 1950s
and 1960s) to be standard. This approach stems from the general approach of
the editors, and in particular of Doroszewski, who chose to follow Knapski in
their work, and produced a 'normative' dictionary, whose primary aim was not
to document the use of lexical items but to shape the language (and the be
haviour of the users) by including only those items that the editors felt to be
appropriate. This model of lexicographic work was used in all general-purpose
dictionaries from 1945 until 1992. This all-pervasive normativeness of Polish
dictionaries, which was at odds with the traditions in Poland, was perhaps also
modelled on that in Soviet lexicography, which was strictly authoritarian. The

appropriateness of a word could be either linguistic, i.e., only standard forms
and meanings were included, or political: the editors excluded items felt not to
be politically correct. Many of the precepts of the editors coincided with the at
tempts at linguistic engineering typical of communists, and some of the entries
on key words of communist propaganda are in fact propaganda pieces. Reli
gious vocabulary (Christian, Hebrew, etc.) too was covered, albeit very selec
tively. Interestingly, many theoretical tenets of Doroszewski did not actually
agree with their practical use in the dictionary, which also employs methods
typical of earlier dictionaries, which Doroszewski condemned, in particular the
methods of defining the entries. Because of the great speed of compilation the
editors quite often used the descriptions found in earlier dictionaries, in particu
lar in SW (Karlowicz et al. 1900-1927).
Unfortunately SJPDor does not provide adequate information on Polish
used in the 19th and 20th centuries. In fact it could not do so because of the
theoretical commitment of the editor, who applied an approach justified in a
small and practical dictionary to a large documentation dictionary, one that is
primarily used by specialists. As a result, this makes the dictionary unreliable
as a source on the modern Polish lexicon. The microstructure was typically
ahistorical: the senses, numbered, were arranged from general and concrete
(which, according to Doroszewski, were closest to reality) to figurative and
technical. The citations are usually (but not always) arranged in inversely
chronological order. Though SJPDor did not show synonyms on a regular
basis, it showed a great number of fixed phrases and collocations. The material
from SJPDor and SW was used in a two-volume dictionary of fixed phrases
(Skorupka 1967-1968), which also includes frequent typical collocations.
Stanislaw Skorupka (1906-1988) edited also a standard dictionary of syno
nyms in Polish (Skorupka 1957)
It was at that time that the first volumes of the historical period dictionaries
were published: the dictionary of Old Polish (Urbanczyk 1953-1996), on
which work had been begun at the start of the 20th century, and a dictionary of
Polish in the 16th century (Mayenowa & Peplowski 1966-1995), begun in
1949. The former uses material from Polish medieval manuscripts, predomi
nantly those published. The entries are headed by their modern-spelling names,
and have two main parts: grammatical, with variant spellings, and semantic,
with definitions and Polish and Latin synonyms, after which citations follow.
The latter dictionary is the most ambitious dictionary produced in Poland; it is
not strictly a historical dictionary but actually a synchronic dictionary of one
period. Initially the editors attempted to include all words found in texts from
the century and collected 8,000,000 citation slips. This undertaking proved to
be unfeasible: the 35 most frequent words have more than 15,000 citation slips
each, and one large-size volume of the dictionary includes about 1,150 entries
(Karpluk 1993:345-346); therefore the attempted completeness has been aban
doned and the dictionary now uses a very broad reading programme. The entry
includes variants, definitions as well as synonyms to particular senses, and
shows recurrent word combinations, classified semantically and syntactically,
with copious citations. The dictionary is the first in Poland to show the fre
quency of words and their senses in texts. It is interesting, however, that even
those two scholarly dictionaries are not based on the historical principle: the
senses are not arranged chronologically, and the dates of citations are not
supplied very consistently. The vocabulary of later periods is not described in
these dictionaries, and the general all-purpose dictionaries have to be used. To
some degree this lack is made up for in the dictionaries of important writers:
the largest is that of the language of Adam Mickiewicz, the foremost Polish
Romantic writer (Górski & Hrabec 1962-1983) in eleven volumes, which lists
all the words and all their contexts, with semantic description, from Polish-lan
guage texts by Mickiewicz. Another ambitious undertaking in the period was
the detailed multi-volume dictionary of Polish etymology (unfortunately unfin
ished; publication began in 1952) by Franciszek Sławski (b. 1916).
The period 1970-1989 was relatively barren for general lexicography, and
during those twenty years the foremost publisher of monolingual dictionaries
in Poland, PWN, prepared only three new dictionaries. These were: a three-
volume abridgement of SJPDor, Siownik jçzyka polskiego (SJP PWN: Szym-
czak 1978-1981), a highly popular dictionary of foreign words Słownik wyra-
zow obcych (SWO PWN: Tokarski 1971), and a dictionary of spelling Orto-
graficzny słownik jçzyka polskiego (Szymczak 1975). These three dictionaries
were reprinted many times, and they are probably the best known modern
monolingual dictionaries in Poland. Unfortunately SJP PWN further exac
erbated the shortcomings of SJPDor, and the editors for example excluded
from it even those politically sensitive items that were included in the bigger
dictionary. The Tokarski dictionary of foreign words could be used as a sup
plement to SJPDor, as it added data from earlier dictionaries of this type, not
included in SJPDor, and included some recent words as well Another influen
tial dictionary of foreign words, Siownik wyrazów obcych by Kopaliński,
with less technical definitions, has been competing favourably with the SWO
PWN since 1967.
For specialist dictionaries, on the other hand, the period under review was
very rich, as there appeared important dialect dictionaries, first of all the first
volumes of Slownik: gwar polskich (Karas & Reichan 1977-1996), which will
include dialect vocabulary from the 19th and 20th centuries. At the statt of the
publication the editors had 3,000,000 citation slips documenting over 100,000
entries. Two monumental multi-volume dialect dictionaries (encyclopedic in
scope) were prepared by Bernard Sychta (1907-1982): of Kashubian (which
in Poland is traditionally considered a dialect of Polish), published during
1967-1976, and of the speech of Kociewie (Sychta 1980-1985). Also there
were numerous smaller dialect dictionaries of particular regions or villages.
In the next and most recent period, 1989-1997, there were profound
changes in the structure of the publishing industry generally: a rapid decline of
many established publishing houses, in particular those bringing out scholarly
dictionaries (Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich in Wroclaw), and the emer
gence of new ones, most often focused predominantly on profit, with little re
gard for quality. As a result, there was a sudden growth in the number of new-
titles, which were usually only derivative, based on material in previous tradi
tional dictionaries. This is unfortunately true also of the multi-volume general
dictionary edited by Zgólkowa (1994- ). In the period two facts were most re
markable: one was the steady growth in technological sophistication and a
widespread use of computers in the preparation of dictionaries, as well as the
emergence of electronic dictionaries; the other was a widening of the range of
vocabulary included in dictionaries for the standard user.
As to the former, in a period of barely several years electronic spellers have
developed from curiosities to fully useful tools (cf. Piotrowski 1997); Polish is
heavily inflected, and programatically and linguistically such spellers have to
be quite sophisticated, as they have to be based on a morphological analysis.
The development of electronic tools culminated in the production of the first
serious monolingual electronic dictionary, Komputerowy slownik języka pol-
skiego, based on two publications of PWN: SJP PWN and SWO PWN. As an
application it competes favourably with the best products of this type. The dic
tionary also uses morphological analysis, al-though not quite successfully. In
1994 there also appeared a CD-ROM with the full text of SJPDor in a graphic
(TIF) format.
As regards the entry of new areas of vocabulary into dictionaries, this re
lates first of all to marked lexical items: slang, colloquial and obscene words.
The first standard dictionary for the general user after 1945 that included such
words was the supplement to SJP PWN from 1992. After its publication the
major gaps in this area were quickly filled, and the most important of these
dictionaries is now the dictionary of colloquial Polish (Anusiewicz & Skaw-
iński 1996), with the material based on extensive collections of citations (also
from speech), and the dictionary of obscenities by Grochowski (1995), with

the examples largely invented by the editor. There are also dictionaries of slang
of various social groups. Thus the unauthoritarian traditions of Polish
lexicography are in evidence again after a period of some 40 years.
There are also changes in the methodology of description, which can be
characterised as a move towards greater user-friendliness and towards descrip
tion of pragmatic features. These are best shown in the interesting new one-
volume dictionary by Dunaj (1996), which uses a simpler and more effective
defining style than found in the earlier dictionaries of Polish. It also attempts to
cover new vocabulary in Polish. Unfortunately, this dictionary is based on
traditional dictionary slips, as are the publications of PWN, Indeed, this is the
most important shortcoming of dictionaries produced at present in Poland, and
because of this the description of general vocabulary is inadequate as it is based
on slip collections, mostly not recent. Regrettably, there is no large-scale cor
pus of Polish that could be used by the linguists and lexicographers; what is
worse, there seems to be little interest in corpora in the linguistic community in
Poland. The changes in methodology have not affected the traditional types of
dictionary, of foreign words and of spelling, which remain steadfastly anti
quated, reminiscent of dictionaries from the 17th century. There appeared in
novative dictionaries of synonyms (Dąbrówka, Geller & Turczyn 1993) and
antonyms (Dąbrówka & Geller 1995).
3. Outlook
The future of lexicography in Poland appeal's to be bound to technological
development, as elsewhere in Europe. There are deep changes both in the form
and use of dictionaries, whose medium becomes abstract, intangible in form,
and the efficiency of the use of dictionaries will no longer depend on a special
type of literacy — knowledge of lexicographic and linguistic conventions —
but rather on computer literacy: on a more general skill to use computer appli
cations and to conduct complex searches across databases. This process is also
related to the fact that dictionaries in general are no longer treated with the tra
ditional veneration and are approached as a commodity by the sellers, and
simply as tools by the users.
SJPDor will, for some time in the future, continue to be the most important
Polish dictionary, as there are no large corpora of Polish, nor tools to analyse
them, nor skilled staff, required to produce a new large documentation dictio
nary of modern Polish. In Poland preparation and publication of scholarly dic
tionaries will perhaps be even more difficult than in other countries, not only
because commercialism dominates, and there is no adequate system of financial
support for the arts, but also because there are fewer and fewer highly qualified
people willing to undertake the painstaking work on a historical or specialist

dictionary. Unfortunately, the specialist lexicographers seem not to have their
successors, and several valuable dictionaries most probably will not be fin
ished. It has also to be said that commercialism has its good features. It is
thanks to competition that monolingual dictionaries are being revised at a brisk
pace, and that the user now has a wider choice of various general dictionaries,
even though they are in fact based on the same material from SJPDor. Thus it
seems certain that general dictionaries will flourish. Unfortunately, the schol
arly community, or the mass media, does not help the users avoid — through
critical reviews — those publications that are devoid of any value. All this,
however, is related to complex cultural transformations taking place in Poland
at the moment, in which the traditional highly literary culture is becoming
rapidly obsolete.
REFERENCES
A. Dictionaries
Anusiewicz, Janusz & Jacek Skawiński. 1996. Siownik polszczyzny potocznej
[Dictionary of colloquial Polish]. Warszawa: PWN.6
Bandtkie, Jerzy Samuel. 1806. Słownik dokiadny języka polskiego i niemieckiego
[...] [Complete dictionary of Polish and Gemían]. 2 vols. Breslau [Wroclaw]:
Wilhelm Gottlieb Korn.
Brückner, Aleksander. 1927. Síownik etymologiczny jçzyka polskiego [Etym
ological dictionary of the Polish language]. Krakow: Krakowska Spółka Wy-
dawnicza. [Since 1957 published in Warszawa by Wiedza Powszechna. Nu
merous impressions.]
Calepino, Ambrogio (Calepinus). 1590. Dictionarium undecim linguarum [...].
Basilae: per Sebastianum Henricpetri.
Dąbrówka, Andrzej & Ewa Geller. 1995. Słownik antonimów [Dictionary of
Antonyms]. Warszawa: MCR.
Dąbrówka, Andrzej, Ewa Geller & Ryszard Turczyn. 1993. Słownik synonimów
[Dictionary of synonyms]. Warszawa: MCR.
Doroszewski, Witold, ed.-in-chief. 1958-1969. Siownik jçzyka polskiego [Dictio
nary of Polish]. 11 vols. Warszawa: PIW7/PWN. (Repr., Warszawa: PWN, 1997;
also available in CD-ROM format.) [Vol. XI is a supplement.]
Duden, Konrad. 1880. Duden. (Vollständiges) orthographisches Wörterbuch der
deutschen Sprache. Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institut.
Dunaj, Bogusiaw, ed.-in-chief. 1996. Siownik jçzyka polskiego [Dictionary of
Polish]. Warszawa: Wilga.
6
PWN is the regular siglum for Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, which since 1991 has
been called Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
7
PIW is the regular siglum for Panstwowy Instytut Wydawniczy.
Estienne, Henri. 1565. De la conformité du langage françois avec le grec. No

place: no publisher given.
Estienne, Robert. 1539/1549. Dictionnaire franc ois-latin. Paris: R. Estienne.
Górski, Konrad & Stanislaw Hrabec, eds.-in-chief. 1962-1983. Sîownik języka
Adama Mickiewicza [Dictionary of Adam Mickiewicz's language]. 11 vols.
Wroclaw: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.8
Grochowski, Maciej. 1995. Sîownik polskich przekleństw i wulgaryzmów [Dic
tionary of Polish swearwords and obscenities]. Warszawa: PWN.
Jerzykowski, Antoni. 1885. Sîownik ortograficzny z dodatkiem niepolskich
wyrazów i wyrazeń [Spelling dictionary with non-Polish words and expres
sions]. Poznan: Nakladem Autora i Fr. Chociezyñskiego.
Jungmann, Josef. 1835-1839. Slovník cesko-némecky [Czech-German dic
tionary]. 5 vols. Praha: R. W. Spinsky.
Karaś, Mieczysław & Jerzy Reichan, eds. 1977-1996, Slownik gwar polskich
[Dictionary of Polish dialects]. 5 vols. (A-Dcera). Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy
im. Ossolińskich. (From Fasc. 10 (1992) onwards published by Instytut Języka
Polskiego, PAN, Krakow.)
Karlowicz, Jan. 1900-1911. Sîownik gwar polskich [Dictionary of Polish dia
lects]. 9 vols. Kraków: Akademia Umiejçtnosci. (Repr., Warszawa: Wyda-
wnictwa Artystyczne i Filmowe, 1974.)
Karlowicz, Jan, Adam Kryński & Władyslaw Niedźwiedzki, eds. 1900-1927.
Sîownik języka polskiego [Dictionary of Polish]. Warszawa: Nakladem Prenu-
meratorów i Kasy Mianowskiego [by the Subscribers and the Mianowski
Foundation]. (Repr., Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 1952-1953.)
Knapski, Grzegorz (Gregorius Cnapius). 1621-1632. Thesaurus Polono-Latino-
Graecus [...] 3 vols. Cracoviae: F. Caesario.
Komputerowy slownik jçzyka polskiego [Computer dictionary of Polish]. 1996.
Warszawa: PWN.
Kopaliński, Wladyslaw. 1967. Sîownik wyrazów obcych [Dictionary of foreign
words]. Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna. (Numerous further enlarged editions.)
Lam, Stanislaw, ed. 1939. Trzaski, Everta i Michalskiego encyklopedyczny sîownik
wyrazów obcych [Encyclopedic dictionary of foreign words]. Warszawa:
Trzaska, Evert & Michalski.
Linde, Samuel Bogumil. 1807-1814. Sîownik języka polskiego [Dictionary of
Polish]. Vols.I-VI. Warszawa: Author. (2nd ed., Lwow: Zaklad Narodowy im.
Ossoliñskich, 1854-1860; repr., Warszawa: PIW, 1951; Warszawa: Gutenberg
Print, 1994.)
M. Arcta sîownik ilustrowany jçzyka polskiego [Arct's illustrated dictionary of
Polish]. 3 vols. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo M. Arcta, 1916. (2nd ed, 1925; 3rd
ed., 2 vols., 1929-1930.)
Mayenowa, Maria Renata & Franciszek Peplowski, eds.-in-chief, 1966-1995.
Sîownik polszczyzny XVI wieku [Dictionary of Polish in the 16th century.]. 13
vols. (A-Phy). Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich, [From 1995
onward published by Instytut Badań Literackich, PAN, Warszawa.]
8
The full name of Ossolineum is Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, Wydawnictwo.
Mączyński, Jan (Ioannes Maczińsky). 1564. Lexicon Latino-Polonicum ex opti-

mis Latinae linguae scriptoribus concinnatum [...]. Regiomonti Borussiae [=
Königsberg]: Ioannes Daubmannus. (Repr., Köln & Wien: Böhlau, 1973.)
Mrongowiusz (Mrongovius), Krzysztof Celestyn. 1835. Sîownik P olsko-niemiecki
[...] Ausführliches polnisch-deutsches Wörterbuch. Koenigsberg: Xięgarz
Nikolovius.
Murmeliusz, Jan (Murmelius). 1526. Dictionarius Murmeln variarum rerum, tum
pueris, tum adultis utilissimus, cum Germanica atque Polonica interpreta-
tione[...]. Cracoviae: Vietor.
Mymer, Franciszek (Mymerus). 1528. Diccionarius trium linguarum: Latinae,
Teutonicae et Polonicae [...]. Cracoviae: Vietor.
SJPDor = Doroszewski 1958-1969
SJPLind = Linde 1807-1814
SJP PWN = Szymczak 1978-1981
SJPWil = Zdanowicz 1861
Skorupka, Stanislaw, ed. 1957. Siownik wyrazów bliskoznacznych [Dictionary of
synonymous words]. Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna. [Numerous further im
pressions.]
Skorupka, Stanislaw. 1967-1968. Siownik frazeologiczny języka polskiego [Dic
tionary of Polish idioms and fixed phrases]. Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna.
[Numerous further impressions.]
Slawski, Franciszek. 1952- . Sîownik etymologiczny języka polskiego [Etym
ological dictionary of Polish]. 5 vols. (A-Lzywy). Krak6w: Towarzystwo
Miłośników Języka Polskiego.
Siowniczek wyrazów obcych [...] [Dictionary of foreign words]. 1885. Warszawa:
Wydawnictwo M. Arcta. (4th ed. Sîownik wyrazów obcych M. Arcta, 1904; 19th
ed., 1947.)
SW= Karłowicz, Kryński & Niedzwiedzki 1900-1927
SWO PWN = Tokarski 1971
Sychta, Bernard. 1967-1976. Sîownik gwar kaszubskich na tle kultury ludowej
[Dictionary of Kashubian dialects on the background of folk culture]. 7 vols.
Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich.
----------. 1980-1985. Słownictwo kociewskie na tle kultury ludowej [Dictionary
of the Kociewie lexicon on the background of folk culture]. 3 vols. Wrocław:
Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich.
Szymczak, Mieczyslaw, ed. 1975. Ortograficzny siownik jçzyka polskiego [...]
[Spelling dictionary of Polish]. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
[Numerous further impressions until 1996; name of the publisher from 1991:
Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.]
Szymczak, Mieczyslaw, ed. 1978-1981. Siownik jçzyka polskiego [Dictionary of
Polish]. 3 vols. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. [Numerous
further impressions, Supplement, 1992; name of the publisher from 1991:
Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.]
Tokarski, Jan, ed. 1971. Siownik wyrazów obcych [Dictionary of foreign words].
Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. (2nd ed. prepared by Elzbieta
Sobol, 1995.) [Publisher's name from 1991: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.]
Trotz (Troc), Michał Abraham. 1744-1747. Nouveau dictionnaire françois,

allemand et polonais [...]. Vol.I-II, Nowy dykcyonarz, to jest mownik polsko-
francuski-niemiecki [...]: Vol.III (1764). Leipzig: Jean Frederic Gleditsch. (2nd
ed., prepared by Stanislaw Nałęz-Moszczeński, 1779; 3rd ed., 1822-1824; 4th
ed., Breslau [Wroclaw]: G. T. Korn, 1832.)
Urbańczyk, Stanislaw, ed.-in-chief. 1953-1996. Siownik staropolski [Dictionary
of Old Polish]. 11 vols. (A-Zagwnnie). Wroclaw: Zakład Narodowy im. Osso
liñskich. [From Fasc.64 (1991) onward published by Instytut Jçzyka Polskiego
PAN, Krakow.)
Zdanowicz, Aleksander, ed.-in-chief. 1861. Słownik jçzyka polskiego [...] [Dic
tionary of Polish]. Wilno: Maurycy Orgelbrand. (Repr. Warszawa: Wydaw-
nictwa Artystyczne i Filmowe, 1986).
Zgólkowa, Halina, ed.-in-chief. 1994- . Praktyczny siownik wspóíczesnej pol-
szczyzny [Practical dictionary of contemporary Polish]. Poznan: Wydawnictwo
Kurpisz. [10 vols. (A-D) published thus far.]
B. Secondary literature
Adamska-Salaciak, Arleta. 2001. "Linde's Dictionary: A landmark in Polish
lexicography". Historiographia Linguistica 28:1/2.65-84.
Bukowcowa, Zofia & Marian Kucala, comps. 1981. Bibliografía podrçczna
gramatyki historycznej i historii jçzyka polskiego. Part II: Slownictwo. Kontakty
językowe. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich.
Doroszewski, Witold. 1954. Z zagadnien leksykografii polskiej. Warszawa: Państ-
wowy Instytut Wydawniczy.
Gruszczyński, Wiodzimierz. 1989. Fleksja rzeczowników pospolitych we wspó
czesnej polszczyznie pisanej. Na materiale 'Słownika jçzyka polskiego' PAN pod
redakcjq W. Doroszewskiego. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich.
Grzegorczyk, Piotr, comp. 1967. Index lexicorum Poloniae: Bibliografía słow-
ników polskich. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Hartmann, Reinhard R. K., ed. 1986. The History of Lexicography. Amsterdam &
Hausmann, Franz-Josef, Oskar Reichmann, Herbert E. Wiegand & Ladislav
Zgusta, eds. 1989-1991. Wörterbücher. Dictionaries. Dictionnaires: Interna
tionales Handbuch der Lexikographie. International Encyclopedia of Lexico
graphy. 3 vols. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Kania, Stanislaw & Jan Tokarski. 1984. Zarys leksykologii i leksykografii polskiej.
Karlowicz, Jan. 1876. "Przyczynki do projektu wielkiego słownika jęz, pols
kiego". Rozprawy i Sprawozdania Wydziaiu Filologicznego Akademii Umie-
jçtnosci 4.14-94.
Karpluk, Maria. 1993. "Pracownia Siownika Polszczyzny XIV wieku IBL PAN w
Krakowie (1.XI.49-31.VIII.93)". Język Polski 83:4/5.345-346.
Plezia, Marian. 1959. "Dzieje leksykografii laciñsko-polskiej w Polsce". Siownik
iacihsko-polski ed. by M. Plezia, Vol.1, 5-39. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydaw
nictwo Naukowe.
Piotrowski, Tadeusz. 1986. 'The Development of the General Monolingual Dic

tionary in Poland". Hartmann 1986.185-195,
Piotrowski, Tadeusz. 1994. Z zagadnien leksykografii. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo
Naukowe PWN.
Piotrowski, Tadeusz. 1997. "Elektroniczny polonista: Przegląd narzędzi korek-
torskich". Chip: Magazyn komputerowy 2.86-92.
Puzynina, Jadwiga. 1961. 'Thesaurus' Grzegorza Knapiusza. Wroclaw: Zakład
Rymsza-Zalewska, Danuta et al., comps. 1965-1981. Bibliografía síowników wy-
danych w Niemieckiej Republice Niemieckiej, Rumuńskiej Republice Ludowej,
[...] Polskiej Rzeczpospolitej Ludowej [...] w latach 1945-1961. 9 vols. War
szawa: Wydawnictwa Naukowo-Techniczne. [Covers the years 1945-1978.]
Stankiewicz, Edward, 1984. Grammars and Dictionaries of the Slavic Languages
from the Middle Ages up to 1850. Berlin-New York-Amsterdam: Mouton,
Urbanczyk, Stanislaw. 1991 [1964]. Słowniki, ich rodzaje i uzyteczność. 3rd ed.
Krakow: Towarzystwo Miłosników Języka Polskiego.
Urbañczyk, Stanisław. 1991/'Polnische Lexikographie". Hausmann et al. 1989—
1991, vol.II, 2268-2274.
Walczak, Bogdan. 1991. Słownik wileñski na tle dziejów polskiej leksykografii.
Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza.
CHAPTER 4
DIALECTOLOGY IN POLAND, 1873-1997*
STANISLAW GOGOLEWSKI
University of Lodz 123
0. Defining the subject matter

Dialect, as a regionally delimited system of communication used by an
ethnic group, is older than a national language, which is established only after
state-founding structures have been developed. The Polish literary language
was shaped between the 14th and 16th centuries. Speakers of Polish were
aware of its dialectal variations for several centuries (cf. Zwoliński 1952:375
et passim), but it was as late as the 19th century that more or less scientific at
tempts to deal with this issue began to appear.
1. The early stage of Polish dialectology

Conventionally, the year 1873 has been taken as the date marking the be
ginning of Polish dialectology, with the publication of the first study of a
Polish dialect written by Lucjan Malinowski (1839-1898), Beiträge zur slavi-
schen Dialektologie: I. Über die oppelnsche Mundart in Oberschlesien: 1.Laut-
und Formenlehre. Some fifty years after Malinowski's death, his student,
Kazimierz Nitsch (1874-1958) wrote:
The most brilliant was his dissertation entitled broadly Beiträge [...], of which, un
fortunately, only the first paper on phonetics was published. Nevertheless, it
provided grounds for a series of studies and critical analyses on dialectology. (Nitsch
1960: 166)
It is no accident that both the date and the place of the publication of the
monograph are connected with the Junggrammatiker School whose meticulous
research also included the speech of common people. According to their posi-
tivistic doctrine the greatest emphasis in any research was to be placed on the
discovery of linguistic facts and the penetrating study of data. More often than
not minute detail was regarded as more important than the whole, an element
was more significant than the system, analyses were valued more than synthe-
This chapter first appeared as a contribution to Historiographia Linguistica 25:1/2.115-140

(1998). The original English translation was prepared by Ariadna Drozdowicz.
ses, and every fact, however modest it might have been, was worth examin
ing.
It was believed that there were no problems of greater or lesser importance
in science, as there were no better, or worse ways of speaking — the speech of
peasants was in no respect worse than that of gentlemen, and since the latter
had been studied for a long time, various dialects spoken by villagers now be
came a source of new observations. Scientific, in linguistic investigation, was
only what was historically justified, and every phone or morpheme had to be
accurately placed in the chain of evolutionary transformations from the proto-
language onwards.
19th-century Poland was not an independent state, and the possibilities of
using the Polish language in offices and schools varied across the sectors of
partitioned Poland. Silesia, Wielkopolska (Great Poland), Pomerania, Warmia
and Mazuria had been annexed by Prussia, and active measures were taken to
Germanise the Polish people. Thus the use of the mother tongue for the major
ity of Poles living there meant speaking their regional dialect. Similarly, an
anti-Polish policy was imposed in the regions of Mazovia, the north-eastern
borderland and central and northern Małopolska (Little Poland, the Russian
sector of partitioned Poland), where, particularly after the suppression of the
January Uprising in 1863, the pressure of compulsory Russification increased.
It was only in the lands annexed by Austria (Southern Malopolska and the
south-eastern borderland) that after the 1860s, Polish began to be less discrim
inated against and was accorded the status of a language of instruction in pri
mary and secondary education. After 1870, Polish was introduced as language
of instruction at the Jagiellonian University, and several years later the same
process occurred at the University of Lvov.
It was in Galician Krakow where one of the first Polish dialectologists,
Lucjan Malinowski was working. Previously he had studied in Prague and
Jena where he met August Schleicher (1821-1868), one of the most eminent
experts in Indo-European studies. There followed a period in Leipzig, where
he came into contact with the Slavist and Indo-Europeanist, August Leskien
(1840-1916), one of the chief founders of the Neogrammarian School. In
fluenced by these two scholars, Malinowski went to Silesia in order to under
take research there. In 1877 he was appointed Chair of Slavonic Philology at
the Jagiellonian University and was secretary of the Languages Committee and
the Philological Faculty at the Academy of Learning. He organised the first lin
guistic seminar in Poland, participants of which conducted their own research
during the following decades. Among them were Roman Zawilinski (1855-
1932), the author of a (1880) study of the dialect spoken in the region of Pod-
DIALECTOLOGY IN POLAND, 1873-1997 125
karpacie (sub-Carpathians, Outer Western Carpathians), Gwara brzezinska w

starostwie ropczyckim [The Brzezina dialect in the district of Ropczyce], Jan
Bystron (1860-1902), the author of O mowie polskiej w dorzeczu Stonawki i
Łucyny w Księstwie Cieszyńskim (On the Polish language in the estuary of the
Stonawka and Lucyna rivers in the Duchy of Cieszyn [1887]), and several oth
ers of the first generation of Malinowski's students.
Malinowski's youngest pupil was Kazimierz Nitsch, who turned out to be
his most outstanding student. His achievements surpassed those of his teacher,
and it was he who is commonly recognised as the founder of Polish dialectol
ogy. He was the author (Nitsch 1915) of the first scientific synthesis in the
field: Dialekty języka polskiego [Dialects of the Polish language]. As a man of
enormous assiduity, Nitsch travelled on foot, as well as by bicycle, all over the
territory in which Polish was spoken, reaching as far as the borderlands of all
three sectors of partitioned Poland.
Nitsch completed his Polish and Slavonic education at the Jagiellonian
University, where he was taught not only by Lucjan Malinowski, but also by
Jan Baudouin de Courtenay (1845-1929), an Indo-Europeanist and Slavist,
and creator of the foundations of historical grammar of the Polish language.
Being an eminent and versatile scholar, Baudouin de Courtenay also took an
interest in dialectology, particularly in the dialects of Slavonic minorities scat
tered all over ethnically non-Slavonic territories. In discussing the beginnings
of Polish dialectology, one must not forget his important study of 1897 on
'"Kasubskij jazyk', 'kasubskij narod' i 'kasubskij vopros'" ['Kashubian lan
guage', 'Kashubian nation' and the 'Kashubian issue']. In it Baudouin claimed
that some typical characteristics and particular tendencies of the Polish lan
guage, were, in the Kashubian territory, far more recognisable than in Polish
itself. It was this 'magnification' of linguistic traits which led him to assert that
in many respects Kashubian was 'plus polonais que le polonais même' (Bau
douin de Courtenay 1897:92).
Kazimierz Nitsch earned his doctorate in 1898 and then worked for several
years as a grammar school teacher. On receiving his D.Lit. degree in 1911, he
became an associate professor (professor extraordinarius), and in 1920, a full
professor (professor ordinarius) at the Jagiellonian University. He maintained
constant contact with this university during the following years, except the pe
riod from 1917 to 1920, which he spent as a profesor at the University of
Lvov.
Contrary to his predecessors, whose research, as a matter of principle, was
confined to monographic descriptions of one dialect used by inhabitants of one
village, or a small area, Nitsch devoted considerable efforts to the portrayal of
the entirety of the Polish dialects. In order to achieve his goal, he relied on his
own field work, in which he used a questionnaire which enabled a comparison
of the profuse varieties of Polish dialects within one methodological approach.
Exploiting his extensive knowledge of the history of Poland and the Polish
language, Nitsch investigated conditions underlying centuries-long relations
between separate regions, and sought to discover the course of the formation
of borderlines between them. He began his field work with the examination of
the Polish dialects spoken in the Kingdom of Prussia, which was where the
so-called 'hakata' operated, 1 its plan being to remove Polish from schools,
courts of law, and offices. Nitsch started his work in Pomerania, Mazuria, and
Silesia in his 1907 paper "Dialekty polskie Prus Zachodnich" (Polish dialects
of Western Prussia), published in the same year as "Dialekty polskie Prus
Wschodnich" [Polish dialects of Eastern Prussia], and followed in 1909 by
"Dialekty polskie Śląska" [Polish dialects of Silesia].
In 1911, the first popular synthesis on dialectal variations of Polish, Mowa
ludu polskiego [The speech of the Polish people], was published in Cracow
(Nitsch 1911). The work includes a survey of problems connected with dialec
tal variations of Polish, a definition of folk speech, a review of the methods
and results of research, a description of phonetic features, foundations of mor
phology, and notes on folk vocabulary and etymology. The study clearly
specifies the relationship between dialects and the 'cultural dialect'. The author
claims that 'refreshing the common language with dialectal elements combines
the idea of democracy with the idea of beauty' (Nitsch 1911:160).
The year 1915 saw the first publication of Nitsch's wider compendium
Dialekty jçzyka polskiego [Dialects of the Polish language]. In the preface the
author writes that the book is a survey of phenomena relating to folk speech.
The analysis of the most prominent dialects and geographical groups, with particular
regard to the most distinct one, Kashubian, has been carried out on phonetic, mor
phological, and to a certain degree, lexicographic bases. At the same time, they have
been arranged both genetically and historically, with the borders shifting due to the
development of the whole nation and language. The relation of the dialects to the
standard form has also been referred to. (Nitsch 1957:8-9)
To define the Polish language territorially, the author concentrates mainly
on the ethnographically indigenous part of the country. His discussion of ex
ternal borders, which separated Polish from Gemían, Czech, Slovak, Ukraini
an, White Russian, and Lithuanian, also includes borderland, both transitional
1
As the Deutscher Ostmarkenverein, a German nationalistic organization, founded in Poznan
in 1894, was popularly called among Poles after the names of its three founders: Hannemann,
Kennemann, and Tiedemann.
and mixed, dialects. He makes a clear distinction between two major branches:
Polish in the strict sense of the word (continental), and Kashubian (Pomera
nian-Polish). He also includes in his discussion the dying dialects of Slovin-
cians and Kabateks to the north and west of the homogenous Kashubian ter
ritory.
The above-mentioned internal division is a result of a different development
of the Kashubian dialect in relation to continental dialects, but
[...] undeniable similarities are also visible: on the one hand, the clear absence of a
boundary between Kashubian and the Great Poland-Krajna dialect, and on the other
hand, the presence of a number of later phenomena embracing both the Kashubian re
gion and the whole of northern Poland. (Nitsch 1957:74)
In his characterisation of the genuinely Polish dialects, Nitsch presents
vowels in sequence, taking into consideration the Old Polish vowel quantity
and a later distinction between contracted and bright vowels, as well as nasal
vowels with regard to their oral articulation and the strength of nasal reso
nance. Consonants are arranged according to the place of articulation: hard and
palatal labial consonants, front tongue consonants — with the fricatives and af
fricates so important for Polish dialectology: sibilants [s, z, c, 3], fricatives
(alveolar) and whisper-sounds back tongue consonants,
and consonantal groups. The chapter on inflection offers, among other things,
a detailed discussion of conjugation. Characteristic features of separate classes
of praesentis màpraeteriti themes are also mentioned. Less attention is devoted
to declension, as its dialectal variations are less regular. Similarly, only a cur
sory description is given of the vocabulary, since
[...] although the number and meanings of words all over Poland are no less uniform
than the sound and inflectional systems, major misunderstandings might arise during
an interaction/encounter of speakers of two different dialects. (Nitsch 1915:72)
The features of the Kashubian dialects are organised in a slightly different
order, depending on the degree of their differences and similarities in relation
to the continental territory. Exclusively Kashubian features are discussed first,
such as, for example, the different development of the earlier tort group, or
relatively new features, like kaszubienie — the hard articulation of the formerly
palatal t', d'], the introduction of a medial [ë] in place of older short
high : cicho "softly", [ls] lis "fox", rzucić "throw".
Secondary properties are presented separately, for example, the abundance
of vowel nuances, the loss of the difference between [1] and in Slovincian
and Bylak dialects, the tendency to replace [vo] with or
Among the morphological features the author distinguishes between iso
lated archaisms (for example, the old inflection of the auxiliary jestem
"I am"), neologisms and forms created under a foreign influence, for example,
the German-patterned perfecturn with its auxiliary words [bc] być "be",
[m ec] mieć "have": [ten ten męźczyzna szed "this man was
gone", [ å måm ten budink postavoni] postawi em "I have built this house".
The second part of Kazimierz Nitsch's synthesis surveys and groups the
dialects. It describes the relations between the Kashubian region and indige
nous Poland as follows:
The northern Kashubian region - the central Kashubian region - Zaborze - Bory -
Krajna - Great Poland, all exhibit a continuous series of language types gradually
and smoothly evolving one into another over a long period of time [...]. Later, when
the northern type, and perhaps more accurately the north-east-Polish (Mazovian) type
was being formed, the Kashubian region came under its influence, which was why
the newer northern features came to dominate the old western ones to a certain extent.
(Nitsch 1957:86)
The author proceeds to discuss the grouping of purely Polish dialects. The
most important dialectal isophones, which are taken as a basis for the dialect
division are, firstly, the mazurzenie isophone, and, secondly, the voicing-
devoicing opposition. Mazurzenie is a pronunciation of the series of spirants
and affricates (alveolar) as sibilants [s, z, c, 3]: szyja [syja] "neck",
możesz [mozes] "you can", czekać [cekać] "wait", j e ż d ż ę [jez3e] "I ride,
travel". The voicing-devoicing boundary is more important, and as no other,
divides Poland into two parts and
[...] never in its whole course is it isolated, but is always accompanied by one of the
more important isophones, and very often two or three of them; consequently, one
deals with undoubtedly different dialects on its both sides, (Nitsch 1957:89)
The former consists in the voicing of the ultima of the preceding word be-
fore vowels or sonorants, for example, brad matki, brzeg równy, kodˇalbo
pies. In the devoicing articulation, the ultima of the preceding word becomes
voiceless, e.g., bratjnatki, brzekˇówny, kotˇalbo pies.
The boundary of mazurzenie runs from north-east to south-west, and of
voicing from north-west to south-east. The boundary lines intersect and divide
Poland into four large areas: (1) Wielkopolska (absence of mazurzenie, pres-
ence of voicing), (2) non-Kashubian Pomerania, the Chelmno-Dobrzyn re
gion, Warmia (absence of mazurzenie, presence of devoicing), (3) Silesia,
Malopolska (Little Poland), and the region of Sieradz and Łęczyca (presence of
mazurzenie, except for the south of Silesia, presence of voicing), (4) Mazovia
(presence of both mazurzenie and devoicing). This situation roughly reflects
historical facts. This basic division of the Polish continental dialects allows one
to clearly distinguish four major territories — Wielkopolska, Silesia, Ma opol-
ska, and Mazovia, as well as transitional areas connected with them by a num
ber of important features.
A significant element making the description of the Polish dialects com
plete, is Nitsch's Wybór polskich tekstów gwarowych (A selection of Polish
dialectal texts), published in 1929. In the preface to the first edition we read:
Undertaking the task of compiling the first selection of Polish dialectal texts, I re
alised that it would neither be complete nor uniform. My aim was simply to provide
what can be provided in the present state of affairs/under the present circumstances.
(Nitsch 1926:15)
In addition to the texts collected by the author himself, the selection con
tains reprints from thirty-eight other scholars' works (beginning with Mali-
nowski's notes from 1869) as well as new texts. A map of all the places in
which notes were taken is also included.
Besides the above-mentioned studies which deal with all Polish dialects,
Nitsch left several dozen monographs on different dialectal areas, which are
included in his Wybór pism polonistycznych [A selection of Polish studies] of
1958.
Since the beginnings of Polish dialectology, one of the most important is
sues has been the Kashubian dialect and the question of its distinction from all
other dialects. A firm stand on this issue was taken by Stefan Ramult (1859–
1913), the author of the highly influential Sîownik języka pomorskiego, czyli
kaszubskiego [Dictionary of the Pomeranian language, that is Kashubian] of
1893, The title itself explicitly indicates that Kashubian is not a regional variant
of Polish, This opinion, in view of the specific geopolitical situation of Poland,
created a great controversy. Ramult was scolded for his lack of patriotism, and
his enabling the Prussian authorities to conduct an anti-Polish campaign di
rected against the integration of Kashubs; even insinuations about high treason
were made.
The greatest contribution to a scientific examination of Pomeranian was
made by a German scholar, Friedlich Lorentz (1870-1937). He presented the
Slovincian dialects in full detail in Slovinzische Grammatik (1903), Slovinzi-
sche Texte (1905), and Slovinzisches Wörterbuch (2 vols., 1908, 1912). His
achievements are even greater in view of the fact that he managed to record and
analyse the speech of the dying ethnic group of Slovincians in the last moment
before Germanisation, when the dialect was used exclusively by old people.
He, too, put a tremendous effort in writing down and fully describing Kashu
bian. Lorentz labelled it pomoranische Sprache and regarded it as a system in
dependent, not only of Polish, but also of the Slovincian dialects. In 1924, he
published Teksty pomorskie (kaszubskie), a wide selection of Pomeranian
(Kashubian) texts, and wrote a detailed Gramatyka pomorska (1927-1937).

Lorentz's work, in retrospect, can be regarded as the most precise analysis of
such a vast dialectal territory in Europe. In consonance with neogrammarian
principles he gave a diachronic description of all the elements of the dialects
since pre-Polish times; he was familiar with the absolute quality of all the
sounds, but as Nitsch remarked:
[...] he overestimated the phones taken separately, consequently sometimes failing to
notice their basis: phonemes. This is why in his presentation, the Slovincian dialect
appears to be unusually distinct, while in reality, in many (though not all) cases, one
deals with the primarily Polish basis, but in a somewhat different realisation. (Nitsch
1960:240)
2. The period between the world wars

When, in 1918, the Republic of Poland was formed, it included the major
ity of ethnically Polish territories (excluding some areas in which the dialects of
Silesia, Warmia, and Mazuria were spoken; they remained within the German
territory), but also vast areas with ethnically foreign dialects, in particular,
those of the eastern borderland — Lithuanian, White Russian, Ukrainian.
Nitsch's and Lorentz's in ter-war publications have already been men
tioned. The latter, despite German nationality, lived in the Kashubian region to
the end of his life; he also learnt Polish.
The years 1918-1939 did not bring any new synthesis in the description of
the Polish dialects. Nitsch's work remained the absolute authority on the sub
ject. Now individual scholars focused their interest on separate regions of the
country, and the language of Poles living abroad. The dialect of Wielkopolska
(Great Poland) was described, for instance, by Adam Tomaszewski (1895—
1945). In addition to monographic studies, he also published, in 1934, a more
general analysis Mowa ludu wielkopolskiego [The speech of the people of
Great Poland]. In Silesia, Feliks Steuer produced an analysis of Dialekt sul-
kowski [The Sulków dialect] in 1934 and Narzecze baborowskie [The Babo-
rów dialect] several years later (Steuer 1937). In 1939 Stanislaw Bak: pub
lished Teksty gwarowe z polskiego Śląska [Dialectal texts of Polish Silesia].
His theoretical works were published only after the Second World War.
The dialects of Mazovia were also the subject of, for instance, Halina Świ-
derska's "Dialekt Księstwa Lowickiego" [The dialect of the Duchy of Łowicz]
of 1929, and Henryk Friedrich's Studio, nad nosowością w gwarach Mazow-
sza [Studies on nasality in the Mazovian dialects] of 1937. The dialects of
central Poland, which is where the influences of the four continental dialects
overlap, were studied by Zdzislaw Stieber (1903-1980) in his 1933 study Izo-
glosy gwarowe na obszarze downych województw Łęczyckiego i Sieradzkiego
DIALECTOLOGY IN POLAND, 1873–1997 131
[Dialectal isoglosses in the former Łęczyca and Sieradz provinces]. One of

Stieber's greatest achievements from the time when Poland was a multi-ethnic
country was Sposoby powstawania s owiańskich gwar przejściowych [The
rise of the Slavonic transitional dialects] of 1938, devoted mostly to the Polish-
Russian borderlands, where people driven by various motives adopted, con
sciously or unconsciously, features of a foreign language. The Byelorussified
Polish dialects and the Polonised East Slavic dialects may, in the light of syn-
chronic studies, turn out to have been almost identical, and conclusions as to
the ethnic affiliations of the speakers should be drawn on the basis of research
on the history of colonisation of a given area. Problems of the Polish border-
land dialects were also examined by Mieczys aw Ma scki (1903–1946) who
published, among other works, a popular study Język polski na po udnie od
Karpat [The Polish language in the area south of the Carpathians] published in
1938), which dealt with the Malopolska dialects in Slovakia.
3. The period after the Second World War

After the Yalta conference in 1945, the Polish borders changed. A huge
part of the eastern territory of Poland was annexed by the Soviet Union, and
almost 1.2 million Poles were removed from this area. In the west, the former
German area inhabited before the war by Germans and remnants of Polish
groups, was annexed by Poland. Those who were not displaced to Germany in
view of their conscious national identity, but had largely preserved the Polish
dialects of Silesia, Warmia or Mazuria, remained, and four million displaced
Germans were replaced by Polish settlers especially from the east. All this cre
ated conditions for the development of new mixed dialects.
The situation of all Polish dialects changed owing to the conditions of gen
eral development of civilisation, migration of people, and unrestricted access to
primary education. The process of dialectal disintegration, which had begun in
the previous decades, now accelerated. At new and old universities, which re
opened after the war, Polish linguists started to evince more and more intensive
interest in what happened to the remaining dialects.
In the first years after the war, dozens of monographs were written (many
of them based on the data collected earlier). Quite important was research of the
dialects of the Regained Territories (Silesia, Warmia, and Mazuria). Even those
only minimally acquainted with the situation emerging in the regions, where
the Polish elements still subsisted, knew very well that the dialects were bound
to die out soon — some of the inhabitants would be assimilated with the new
comers from other regions, while others would become conscious of being
Geman at heart, and would leave as a result of poor policy planning of local as
well as higher administrative authorities.
In Silesia, Stanislaw Bąk was still active. In 1956 he published a treatise
Gwary ludowe na Dolnym Śląsku [The folk dialects of Lower Silesia], and,
eight years later Zróznicowanie narzecza śląskiego [The diversity of the Siles-
ian dialect] (Bąk 1964).
Karol Dejna (b. 1911) studied Polsko-laskie pogranicze językowe na terenie
Polski [The Polish-Lach linguistic borderland in Poland], the origin of the di
alects of this area and their current situation (Dejna 1951-1953). In the north
eastern area, a group of scholars from Warsaw (Anna Basara, Jan Basara,
Janina Wójtowicz, and Helena Zduńska) carried out studies in phonetics, and
in 1959 Studia fonetyczne z Warmii i Mazur [Phonetic studies of Warmia and
Mazuria] was published.
Work on a new dialectological synthesis was initiated. In 1953, Stanislaw
Urbanczyk (b.1909) published his Zarys dialektologii polskiej [An outline of
Polish dialectology]; an enlarged edition appeared in 1962. This college text
book was based on earlier research, and to a considerable degree, on Nitsch's
work. The organisation of the book resembles Dialekty jçzyka polskiego
(Nitsch 1957). In the chapter on dialect grouping, the author applied an inter
esting didactic format — description of each dialect is preceded by short texts
in the given dialect, which serve as a basis for a survey of the most important
features of the designated areas. Also new in the work were the chapters on
word-formation and syntax. Word formation had not been described earlier,
'therefore, out of necessity, we limited ourselves to a number of informal re
marks' (Urbanczyk 1962:32). The general conclusion of these deliberations
was as follows: 'certain formants are used with particular intensity in some
regions, while in other regions they are unproductive, though known' (Urban
czyk, p.41). In the chapter on syntax the author draws attention to the relations
between the ways of sentence formation in dialects and in everyday Polish —
for example, the predominance of parataxis over hypotaxis. He deals with the
indicators of cohesion, different in dialectal syntax, and also with different
functions of some prepositions, problems of concord, different linguistic prag
matics, and different ranges of word order freedom.
Another interesting attempt at a synthetic description of the Polish dialects
was undertaken by Zdzislaw Stieber in Zarys dialektologii języków zachod-
nioslowianskich [An outline of dialectology of West Slavonic languages],
published in 1956. The Polish language is discussed in the chapter "Grupa
lechicka i jej wewnętrzne rozczlonkowanie" [The Lechitic group and its internal
division]. The discussion focuses on, among other things, the major features
Map 1: Schematic distribution of Polish dialects.

1 (marked by slant lines): Pre-Piast tribal communities: a) the Pomorzanie; b) the
Mazowszanie; c) the Polanie; d) the Wislanie; e) the Ślęzanie. 2 (marked by broken lines): Range
and schematic borderlines of dialects: a) Kashubian, b) Mazovian, c) Great Polish, d) Little
Polish, e) Silesian. External to them: new dialects or dialect mixtures of various origins.
3 (marked by dotted lines): More important cultural centres: a) Kashubia-Bory, b) Mazovia,
c) Great Poland, d) Little Poland, e) Silesia (after Dejna [1973:86], Map XVI;
with permission of the author)
of the west Lechitic region (Polabian) and the east Lechitic region (Polish, or
more precisely, south Polish), as well as the central Lechitic nucleus (Pomera
nian and north Polish). Pomeranian is treated here as a kind of 'large transi
tional zone in which the farther to the west, the fewer genuinely Polish fea
tures, and the more typically Polabian features were found' (Stieber 1956:24).
Such treatment readdresses the perennial problem of whether Pomeranian
(together with Kashubian) is affiliated more closely with West Polabian, or
whether it is an integral part of the Polish dialectal territory.
A completely new dialectological synthesis in Polish linguistics was of
fered by Karol Dejna's (1973) study Dialekty polskie [Polish dialects], which
was based on the current state of knowledge (cf. Map 1). The study introduces
a clear distinction between two related, though different, fields: dialectography
and dialectology. The former is 'a descriptive and data-based compilation of
knowledge of phonetic, grammatical, and lexicographic features of individual
dialects' (Dejna 1973:12). The latter, on the other hand, is a study of dialects
as language types distinguishable by a complex of dialectal features, which in
clude not just 'any dialectal feature, but only those diachronically considered
innovations which have generated, or are in the process of, or are capable of
generating a certain language type' (p. 14).
According to this methodological assumption, the notion of a linguistic in
novation as one of the basic features giving rise to separate dialects (and lan
guages, since a dialect can, under favourable circumstances, become a lan
guage, and a group of dialects can become a linguistic family), can be viewed
as linking comparative grammar with dialectology of individual languages and
their families.
In the introduction the author writes that he intends to consider
[...] Polish dialects against the background of the process and results of differentia
tion of the languages spoken in ethnically Slavonic territory, in order to outline the
relations of kinship between them, and the course of their separation from other
dialectal groups. Further discussion will focus on the most important linguistic
processes which brought about the creation/formation of dialectal groups, whose
properties laid the foundations for standard Polish. The intention to draw a synthetic
outline of Polish dialects understood as sets of innovations which developed in
separate human communities and did not manage to spread over the whole territory
[...], explains the limitations of our argument/reasoning. (Dejna 1973:9)
The subsequent chapters of the book discuss Indo-European dialectal fea
tures, Balto-Slavonic innovations, the formation and differentiation of Proto-
Slavonic languages, and, finally, innovations of the Lechitic group. This com
parative-historical introduction is followed by a description of the Polish
dialectal features exhibited by the East and Central Lechitic groups, united,
from the second half of the 10th century, within the political borders of the
Piast state.
The description of the Polish dialects includes an analysis of a hundred di
alectal features (innovations), altogether 67 of which are phonetic properties,
for example, the effect of metathesis, mazurzenie, the development of old short
and long vowels, and the pronunciation of earlier palatal labial consonants. The
remaining 33 features are connected with inflection and word-formation. The
features under discussion are illustrated with 69 maps of selected innovations.
The last chapter of the book, "Dialekty polskie", presents a list of dialectal
features of each group, taking into consideration geographical regions, analo
gies and differences among separate dialects or dialectal groups.
Naturally, also after the war, specific monographic studies were carried out
in various areas of the country. Published papers, books, or articles appealing
in various linguistic periodicals, are too numerous to be itemised at length. An
extensive bibliography of dialectological works was published in Przewodnik
po językoznawstwie polskim [A guide to Polish linguistics] by Kwiryna Hand-
ke & Ewa Rzetelska-Feleszko (1977).
4. Remarks on methodology
Since Lucjan Malinowski's research, it was the neogrammarian method
which has been used most widely up to the present. As Witold Doroszewski
(1899-1976) maintains:
[...] a characteristic feature of the Neogrammarian doctrine was to conceive of phon
etic language data as consisting of isolated segments-sounds, which are, on the one
hand, subject to physiological regularities; on the other, however, they are regarded
as psychologically real constituents of word structure. (Doroszewski 1962:449)
The most eminent representative of the Polish dialectological tradition,
Kazimierz Nitsch, despite a relatively critical attitude towards Neo-grammari-
ans, adhered to their method in the preparation of his textbook, as well as in
most of his monographic studies. This methodology was employed by Polish
dialectology at least up to the 1950s.
A breakthrough in linguistic thought came with structuralism and the post
humous publication of Ferdinand de Saussure's Cours de linguistique générale
in 1916. This caused linguists to break with the canonical tenet of obligatory
historicism, and direct their attention to language as a structure, a system of
abstract elements functioning within a given synchronic frame. One must not
forget that the definition of language as a system of conventional elements of
limited social range also holds true of the national (standard) language, as well
as of any dialect. All are cases of an autonomous structure with its own idio
syncratic network of oppositions and interrelations.
The first Polish dialectological study to employ the principles of structural
analysis was Dejna's extensive treatise Polsko-laskie pogranicze językowe na
terenie Polski [The Polish-Lach linguistic borderland in Poland] published
1951-1953. In this opus the reader is certain to find a complete, functional de
scription of current phonological structures of the examined dialects, with re
gard to vocalic and consonantal phonemes.
A programmatic structural approach was proposed by Mieczyslaw Karas
(1924-1977) in his 1965 monograph Polskie dialekty Orawy [Polish dialects
of Orawa], in which the author stipulates that the study 'will consciously leave
out of account any processes which had taken place in those dialects, either as
a result of their independent internal development, or under the influence of
external factors' (Karas 1965 I, p.24).
An interesting attempt to produce a phonological synthesis of the Polish
dialects was undertaken by Edward Stankiewicz (b.1920), a one-time student
of Roman Jakobson, in his article 'The Phonemic Patterns of the Polish Di
alects: A study in structural dialectology" (1956). In the following years, many
other dialectal analyses were published, based, at least partially, upon the
principles of structuralism.
A different methodological approach in dialectological research was
adopted by Witold Doroszewski. Having first shown his critical attitude to
wards the Neogrammarian legacy as early as before the war (neither did he join
the structuralist camp), Doroszewski formulated his own theory of interpreta
tion of dialectal facts from the point of view of statistics.
Disregard for quantitative factors excludes the possibility of understanding the evolu
tionary processes taking place throughout the history of a language; equally impossi
ble is an adequate account of what appears in our sight, if we direct our attention to a
given stage in the history of a language and attempt to give a statistical analysis of
facts symptomatic of that given period. (Doroszewski 1962:456).
The same principle was adopted by Doroszewski even in geolinguistic
cartography. In the article quoted above, he gives an example of a statistical
table showing the frequency of occurrence of various oral and nasal vowels
corresponding to the standard Polish vowel [ę] in specific positions. The au
thor argues that this facilitates a comparison of data from different places of the
area under examination, as well as a collation with other dialects and the gen
eral standard. He postulates the necessity to collect the greatest possible
amount of dialectal data from the greatest possible number of texts; he also
suggests the use of a questionnaire designed in a way that would ensure a ca-
sual style of interviews with informants, but would also allow the recording of
every crucial systemic fact.
Dialectal phenomena were analysed in their static aspect, without excluding
the possibility of their evolutionary interpretation. Field research conducted by
dialectologists was to record all observed dialectal elements in order to preserve
them for future scholarship, in spite of advancing integration of the Polish lan
guage. Doroszewski's method of laborious and comprehensive statistical anal
yses was rarely used in scholarly practice. Some examples are: Doroszewski's
Studiafonetyczne z kilku wsi mazowieckich [Phonetic studies of selected Ma-
zovian villages] of 1955, Anna Basara's Studia nad wokalizmem w gwarach
Mazowsza (samogloski ustne) [Studies of vocalism in Mazovian dialects (oral
vowels)], and Zduńska's Studia nadfonetykq gwar mazowieckich: Konsonan-
tyzm [Studies in the phonetics of the Mazovian dialects: Consonantism], both
dating from 1965.
5. Dialectology and other branches of linguistics

Dictionaries define the term 'dialect' as
[...] a variety of the standard language which is used in a particular area by rural in
habitants, primarily distinguishable by its idiosyncratic, phonetic and lexicographic,
features. (Polański 1993:110)
Such a general interpretation of the term tempts one to treat a dialect as
something inferior to the standard language, as a phenomenon of secondary
nature. A danger of an ahistorical approach to this issue is imminent here. It is
well known that it is the standard national form of a language that is a sec
ondary phenomenon, and dialects were undoubtedly primary.
At this point a very important task of dialectology emerges — the definition
of a historical relation between individual dialects and the standard language. In
many European civilisations the rise of the general national language was con
nected with a particular region, most often with the centre of government (for
example, Paris in France, or Moscow in Russia before the court was moved to
St. Petersburg). Less frequently, other factors were at work — for example,
Florence's literary strength in early Renaissance Italy, Martin Luther's reli
gious and publicistic activities in Germany in the area of the High German di
alect.
In this respect, the situation of the Polish language presents itself less
clearly, The Polish state was being formed in two regions — first in Wielko-
polska, and later, as early as in Casimir the Restorer's times (1016-1058), the
centre of the royal government moved to Cracow in Malopolska. Hence the
long-lasting dispute over the cradle of the Polish language or the dialectal ori
gin of the literary (standard) language.
5.1 The dialectal origin of the Polish literary language

Whilst the traditional dialectology of the late 19th century dealt mainly with
the contemporary state of the Polish dialects, taking into consideration basic
historical phenomena, the new approach — historical dialectology developing
most intensively in the 1930s, primarily on the initiative of Nitsch and Witold
Taszycki (1898-1979) — was to establish the chronology and territorial range
of dialectal phenomena on the basis of the oldest written records. Although
some of those phenomena are still present in many dialects today, their range,
as well as their place in language systems in various periods may vary quite
significantly. Hence the fundamental dilemma, over what is more important in
the history of dialectal phenomena: results of a philological analysis of pre
served texts, or examination of dialects that have died out only relatively re
cently.
Amongst adherents to the first approach was Taszycki, who endorsed the
hypothesis that the roots of literary Polish are to be traced to Malopolska (Little
Poland). This conviction was also shared by Aleksander Brückner (1856—
1939), Tadeusz Milewski (1906-1966), and Stanislaw Szober. The theory of
the Wielkopolska (Great Poland) origin of Polish was favoured by Kazimierz
Nitsch, as well as Tadeusz Lehr-Sp awinski (1891–1965) Jan Los (1860-
1928), Stanislaw Urbańczyk, and Mikolaj Rudnicki (1881–1978).
The principal argument for the Wielkopolska hypothesis rests on the ques
tion of mazurzenie. It is worth noting that both in general national Polish and
the Wielkopolska dialect, mazurzenie does not occur. What strongly supports
this hypothesis is the fact that at the time when the Polish state was being
formed, Wielkopolska, with Gniezno as the first capital of the country, played
the dominant role. The immediate conclusion was that it was from there that the
language of the ruler and his court radiated on the closer and farther neigh
bourhood as a model of correct Polish. This standard was learned by mission
aries and representatives of administration, and spoken when they did not use
Latin.
The advocates of the Wielkopolska (Great Poland) hypothesis claimed that
mazurzenie is a very old phenomenon, perhaps connected with a foreign sub
strate, for instance, Finnish or Celtic, and it developed only in some regions,
mainly in Mazovia and Malopolska.
The proponents of the Malopolska hypothesis countered that, although the
first capital of Poland, Gniezno, was, indeed, situated in Wielkopolska, and
Poland was baptised there in 966, already in the 11th century, when the Polish
state was consolidating and new centres of culture were emerging, the royal
court moved to Cracow (Malopolska) with its enormously influential schools
and missionary centres. The key argument in favour of the Malopolska hy
pothesis was a linguistic one: mazurzenie was a phenomenon considerably
younger than had been surmised; it may have originated in Mazovia as late as
the end of the Middle Ages, and even later (perhaps in the 16th century) it ap
peared in Malopolska, where the earlier variety of Polish without mazurzenie
had already become a permanent element of the linguistic norm.
Another crucial argument voiced by the scholars turned out to be the issue
of nasal vowels. The followers of the Wielkopolska hypothesis pointed out
that in this region, the rules of pronunciation of historical nasals resemble the
standard Polish pronunciation — the vocalic nasal resonance is preserved in
front of spirants, whereas, before stops and affricates, an independent nasal
consonant is formed. In Malopolska the problem was of a different nature —
the nasal pronunciation disappeared altogether in all positions in a large area of
the region,
The reasoning did not seem convincing to the defenders of the Malopolska
hypothesis, who claimed that the pronunciation of nasals in individual dialects
can be relatively unstable, and therefore it is difficult to clearly ascertain what
their articulation was in the past. Old Polish and Middle Polish records were
characterised by inconsistencies of scribes and printers in both regions — the
oral articulation of phones, as well as their nasal resonance were marked, not
so much on the basis of observation of actual pronunciation, as according to
various waves and caprices of changing printers' customs. In view of the
above, the value of the argument of the true pronunciation of nasals is next to
none.
In the course of time, the written form of Polish began to be influenced by
other regions, besides Wielkopolska and Cracow, for example, since the 17th
century, by Mazovia, with the new capital of Poland, Warsaw. After the suc
cessive unions with Lithuania, the Polish language of the eastern borderland
also played a prominent role, formed on the East-Slavonic substrate influenced
by Belorussian and Ukrainian. One should also remember that, towards the
end of the Middle Ages and throughout the whole 16th century, Czech, which
is similar to Polish (but with a longer literary tradition by some hundred years),
was treated as a specific arbiter in matters relating to the written Polish lan
guage. Although it could not have affected the pronunciation of nasals, it may
have contributed to the avoidance of the phenomena absent in Czech, for ex
ample, mazurzenie,
In view of the serious difficulties making impossible a definitive and un

equivocal solution of the dispute over the dialectal origins of standard Polish, a
majority of linguists assumed that, at the present state of knowledge, it is nec
essary to adopt a compromise: the process under discussion was definitely in
fluenced by both the Wielkopolska and Malopolska dialects, and in modern
times it has been affected by other dialects, especially Mazovian.
5.2 Dialectology and linguistic geography

There is a close connection between dialectology and linguistic geography,
that is, a branch of linguistics that examines and cartographically presents the
territorial distribution of linguistic phenomena. Linguistic maps depict various
strata of phonetic (isophones) and grammatical (among others, isomorphs)
structure, and they illustrate lexical and phraseological dialectal variations.
Such maps prove invaluable for all approaches to dialectology, both syn
chronic and historical. Since they have been mentioned earlier during the dis
cussion of different compendia and monographs, we will focus here on dialec
tal atlases.
The first, Atlas językowy polskiego Podkarpacia (A linguistic atlas of the
Polish sub-Carpathians) by Mieczys aw Ma ecki (1903–1946) and Kazimierz
Nitsch, was published in Cracow in 1934, and at that time, it was the only at
las of a large region of Slavonic dialects. Already, in the inter-war period these
two scholars prepared a publication covering the whole Polish territory Ma y
atlas gwar polskich [A small atlas of Polish dialects], but it was published only
after the war and Malecki's death. The caitographic synthesis of knowledge of
the Polish dialects consists of twelve large-format volumes and was published
in Wroclaw between the years 1957-1970. The 13th volume contains indices,
a list of sources and a recapitulating article, which discusses the assumptions
on which the atlas has been based, and justification of its structure. The net
work of points was based on data from a hundred villages fairly regularly dis
tributed over the surveyed area. Where possible, current records are compared
with the earlier data. Kazimierz Nitsch edited the first two volumes. In 1959,
Mieczyslaw Karas was nominated head of Pracownia Dialektologiczna Insty-
tutu Językoznawstwa PAN [Dialectological Department of the Institute of Lin
guistics, Polish Academy of Sciences] and he edited the remaining volumes of
the atlas.
In the years 1962–1968, six volumes of Karol Dejna's Atlas gwarowy
województwa kieleckiego [Dialectal atlas of the Kielce province] were pub
lished. The work was meticulously prepared, and it offers an interesting ac
count of dialectal variations of northern Malopolska and neighbouring areas.
DIALECTOLOGY IN POLAND, 1873-–997 141
The author administered questionnaires, particularly to the oldest inhabitants of

the region in order to record those features which were disappearing fastest.
Zenon Sobierajski's Atlas polskich gwar spiskich na terenie Polski i
Czechoslowacji [The atlas of the Polish dialects of Spisz spoken in Poland and
Czechoslovakia] began to appeal' in Poznań in 1966. It focuses on the Polish
dialects spoken on the Polish-Slovak borderland, which are particularly inter
esting because of numerous linguistic interferences, both Polish-Slovak and
Polish inerdialectal, as Spisz borders with interesting sub-Carpathian and
Nowy Sącz dialects.
A completely new cartographic elaboration of the already well- described
Kashubian region was offered in Atlas językowy kaszubszczyzny i dialektów
sqsiednich [A linguistic atlas of Kashubian and neighbouring dialects], whose
publishing began in Wroclaw in 1964. The first editor was Zdzis aw Stieber,
but in 1970 Hanna Popowska-Taborska took over the responsibility. The
entire atlas consists of 16 volumes, each containing 50 maps and monographic
analyses. The distinct character of Kashubian required special measures — in
dividual issues are described monographically within descriptions of words
and grammatical phenomena, with extensive comparative references in relation
to Polish, as well as general Slavic background. Of the neighbouring areas, the
maps include the dialects of Kociewie, Bory Tucholskie, and Krajna, The ma
jority of the cartographic and monographic analyses are devoted to lexical
problems and word-formation; a considerable number of the analyses are de
voted to inflection and phonetics.
In the years 1971-1992 Halina Horodyjska-Gadkowska and Alina Strzy-
zewska-Zaremba published Atlas gwar mazowieckich [An atlas of the Mazo-
vian dialects], which was initiated much earlier by Witold Doroszewski. The
work contains phonetic, morphological, and lexical maps covering Mazovia
and adjacent northern parts of the country.
Atlas języka i kultury ludowej Wielkopolski [An atlas of the language and
folk culture of Wielkopolska] edited by Zenon Sobierajski and Józef Burszta
(vols I-IV) was published by Ossolineum in Wroclaw in 1979-1989.
New cartographic study of all Polish dialects has recently been initiated in
Lodz, where Karol Dejna is preparing Atlas gwar polskich [An atlas of Polish
dialects], based on a much denser network of points — every twenty kilome
tres — than in Maty atlas gwar polskich (1957-1970). In 1987 the author had
already published a questionnaire — a notebook to the atlas — which con
tained almost 2 000 questions. Following the guidelines of Atlas gwar pols
kich, S awomir Gala prepared and published (1994) a two-volume monograph
Maiopolsko-slqsko-wielkopolskie pogranicze językowe [Ma opolska-Silesia-
Wielkopolska linguistic borderland). The first volume contains two hundred

maps, the second commentaries and an index.
5.3 Dialectology and lexicography

The only fairly complete dialectal dictionary remains the six-volume
S ownik gwar polskich [Dictionary of Polish Dialects] of 1900-1911 by Jan
Karlowicz (1836-1903), based on data from before 1890 taken from collec
tions of texts, tales and folk songs. At present, the assumptions on which the
dictionary was based have become archaic, and they can be criticised first of all
for the absence of precise geolinguistic locations, imperfection of linguistic-
historical perspective, and the author's inadequate knowledge of Polish dialects
in general. Criteria of word selection have not been clearly defined, the oldest
written records have been ignored, and too many entries have been included
which we would now consider non-dialectal. Nevertheless, despite frequently
expressed reservations, we must remember that no other complete and exten
sive publication of this sort is yet available in Polish dialectology.
A number of lexicographic analyses appeared both in the inter-war period
and after the war, but all confined themselves mainly to one dialect or, at best
one region. Besides the dictionaries of Kashubian mentioned above, the vo
cabulary of those regions was also presented (their monographs have been dis
cussed earlier in the present paper). Apart from that, the following lexicons
were published: Marcin Kuca a's Porównawczy s. ownik trzech wsi ma. opols-
kich [A comparative dictionary of three villages in Ma opolska] of 1957, and
Mieczys aw Szymczak's (1927–1985) eight-volume S ownik gwary Doma-
niewka wpowiecie ęczyckim [Dictionary of Domaniewka dialect in the District
of Łęczyca] published 1962-1973.
Work on the new Słownik gwar polskich [Dictionary of Polish dialects] is
still in progress. Its experimental fascicle was published in 1964. The initiator
of the project was Kazimierz Nitsch, and the data collected by himself as early
as before the First World War, have become the basis of the dictionary. In
1953 Pracownia Atlasu i Słownika Gwar Polskich PAN (Department of Atlas
and Dictionary of Polish Dialect, Polish Academy of Sciences) was set up in
Cracow, headed by Nitsch, and then, from 1958, by Mieczyslaw Karas. After
his death in 1977 Jerzy Reichan took over, The files contain approximately
three million index cards attesting the existence of a hundred thousand entries.
The files are arranged alphabetically and access to them is facilitated by a uni
form system of formal and semantic cross-references.
The year 1994 saw the first fascicle of the fifth volume (czarny - czupi-
rad, o) published by Instytut Języka Polskiego PAN [Institute of the Polish
Language, Polish Academy of Sciences] in Cracow.
The chronological range of the dictionary extends over the 19th and 20th
centuries, and geographically relates to all Polish dialects, including those spo
ken outside Poland's territory. Mieczysław Karaś wrote that
[...] a characteristic feature of Słownik gwar polskich [Dictionary of Polish dialects]
is its distinctive character, which means that it does not contain all words appealing
in Polish dialects, but only that layer of folk vocabulary which is typical of dialects.
(Karas 1979:xiv)
The authors of the dictionary emphasise that they treat the concept of dif
ferentiation very broadly, taking into consideration not only lexical distinc
tions, but also semantic differences (when a dialectal word has a different
meaning than a word of a similar phonetic form in literary Polish), as well as
different semantic scopes in particular dialects. The dictionary also records di
alectal phraseological constructions different from those in standard Polish,
word-formation and inflectional idiosyncrasies, all words related to folklore,
and also those encountered in standard Polish.
Prospects of Polish dialectology should now be perceived from the point of
view of the present state of dialectal variations, which are being obliterated
with the development of civilisation. Fading territorial differences are, to a
considerable extent, being replaced by all kinds of professional and social idi
olects occurring over the whole territory of the country, regardless of the tradi
tional dialectal divisions, though they may overlap.
In such conditions, the role of the contemporary dialectologist must consist
in registering disappearing features of the folk speech, its vocabulary and
phraseology, as well as making exact phonographic and film recordings. The
dialectologist must broaden his research methodology, including sociolinguis-
tic factors which take into consideration social stratification in all possible as
pects, and relations between the influence of extralinguistic phenomena and
processes of disappearance of the dialects at their various levels. It is essential
to carry out further diachronic linguistic research, to analyse newly discovered
old texts, and to systematically revise materials left to us by past scholars.
REFERENCES
Basara, Anna. 1965. Studia nad wokalizmem w gwar ach Mazowsza (samo głos ki
ustne) [Studies on the vocalism in Masovian dialects (oral vowels)]. Wrocław:
Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.
Basara, Anna, Jan Basara, Janina Wójtowicz & Helena Zduńska. 1959. Studia
fonetyczne z Warmii i Mazur [Phonetic studies from Warmia and Mazurian
regions]. Wrocław; Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan Niecislaw. 1897. 'Kašubskij jazyk', 'kašubskij na-
rod' i 'kašubskij vopros' [The 'Kashubian language', the 'Kashubian people',
and the 'Kashubian question']. St. Petersburg: Tipografija V. S. Valaseva i K.

Fontanka.
Bąk, Stanislaw. 1939. Teksty gwarowe z polskiego Śląska [Dialect texts from the
Lower Silesia]. Kraków. Polska Akademia Umiejętności.
Bąk, Stanislaw. 1956. Gwary ludowe na Dolnym Śląsku [Folk/rural dialects in
Lower Silesia]. Poznan: Poznańskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk.
Bąk, Stanislaw. 1964. "Zróznicowanie narzecza śląskiego [Differentiation of the
Silesian dialect]". Prace i Materialy Etnograficzne 23.401-523.
Bystroń, Jan. 1887. O mowie polskiej w dorzeczu Stonawki i Łucyny w Księstwie
Cieszyńskim [About the Polish tongue in the basin of the rivers Stonawka and
Lucyna in the Cieszyn Duchy] Krakow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności.
Dejna, Karol. 1951-1953. Polsko-laskie pogranicze językowe na terenie Polski. 2
vols. Łódź: Łódzkie Towarzystwo Naukowe.
Dejna, Karol. 1962-1968. Atlas gwarowy województwa kieleckiego [A dialect
atlas of the Kielce voivodship]. 6 vols. Łódź: Łódzkie Towarzystwo Naukowe.
Dejna, Karol. 1973. Dialekty polskie. Wroclaw: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińs-
kich.
Dejna, Karol. 1985. Kwestionariusz do badań gwarowych zróznicowań Polski [A
questionnaire for studies of dialectal differentiations in Poland]. Lodz: Uni-
wersytet Łódzki.
Dejna, Karol. 1988. "Załozenia organizacji badań przygotowawczych do opra-
cowania Atlasu gwar polskich [Principles of organization of preparatory studies
for the Atlas of Polish dialects]". Sprawozdania z Czynności i Posiedzeń Nau-
kowych ŁTN 49:7.8-23. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
Doroszewski, Witold. 1955. Studia fonetyczne z kilku wsi mazowieckich [Phonetic
studies of several Mazovian villages]. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narod. im. Ossolińskich.
Dejna, Karol. 1962. Studia i szkice językoznawcze. Warszawa: Państwowe Wyda
wnictwo Naukowe.
Encyklopedia Polska. Akademia Umiejętności (EPAU). 1915. Vol.III: Język pol
ski i jego historia. Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności.
Friedrich, Henryk. 1937. Studia nad nosowością w gwarach Mazowsza [Studies
of nasality of Mazovian dialects]. Warszawa: Drukarnia Bankowa.
Gala, Slawomir. 1994. Malopolsko-slqsko-wielkopolskie pogranicze językowe
[Little Poland-Silesia-Great Poland linguistic borderland]. Lodz: Wydawnictwo
Uniwersytetu Lódzkiego.
Handke, Kwiryna & Ewa Rzetelska-Feleszko. 1977. Przewodnik po języko-
znawstwie polskim [A guide to Polish linguistics]. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy
im. Ossoliñskich.
Horodyjska-Gadkowska, Halina & Alina Strzyzewska-Zaremba. 1971-1992.
Atlas gwar mazowieckich [An atlas of Mazovian dialects]. Wroclaw: Zaklad
Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.
Karaś, Mieczysław. 1965. Polskie dialekty Orawy. Vol.1: Fonología, i fonetyka.
Kraków: Uniwersytet Jagielloński.
Karaś, Mieczysław. 1979. "Wstęp [Introduction]". Słownik gwar polskich [A
dictionary of Polish dialects], vii-xxi. Wroclaw: Zakład Narodowy im. Osso
liñskich.
Karlowicz, Jan. 1900-1911. Slownik gwar polskich [A dictionary of Polish dia

lects]. Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności.
Kucała, Marian. 1957. Porównawczy slownik trzech wsi małopolskich [A com
parative dictionary of three Little Poland villages]. Wrocław: Zaklad Narodowy
im. Ossolińskich.
Lorentz, Friedrich. 1903. Slovinzische Grammatik. St. Petersburg: Buchdruckerei
der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wisenschaften / Izd. Vtorogo Otdelenijs
Imperatorskoj Akademeii Nauk.
Lorentz, Friedrich. 1905. Slovinzische Texte. St. Petersburg: Buchdruckerei [etc.]
Lorentz, Friedrich. 1908–1912. Slovinzisches Wörterbuch. 2 vols. St. Petersburg:
Buchdruckerei der Kaiserl. Akad. der Wisenschaften / Izd. Otdelenija Russ.
Jazyka i Slovesnosti Imp. Akademii Nauk.
Lorentz, Friedrich. 1924. Teksty pomorskie (kaszubskie). (= Polska Akademia
Umiejętności 4:3.600-836.) Kraków.
Lorentz, Friedrich. 1927–1937. Gramatyka pomorska. Poznań: Instytut Za-
chodnio-Słowiański. (Polish ed., 3 vols., Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Osso
lińskich, 1958–1962.).
Malinowski, Lucjan. 1873. Beiträge zur slavischen Dialektologie. I. Über die
oppeinsehe Mundart in Oberschlesischen 1. Laut und Formenlehre. Doctoral
dissertation, Universität Leipzig. (Printed, Leipzig: Bär & Hermann, 1873.).
Małecki, Mieczysław. 1938. Język polski na poludnie od Karpat. Kraków: Ge-
bethner & Wolff.
Małecki, Mieczysław & Kazimierz Nitsch. 1934. Atlas językowy polskiego
Podkarpacia. Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności.
Małecki, Mieczysław & Kazimierz Nitsch. 1957–1970. Maly atlas gwar polskich.
Vols.I-XIII. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, Polska Akademia
Nauk.
Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1907. "Dialekty polskie Prus Zachodnich". Materialy i
Prace Komisji Językowej PAU. 1-2:101-248, 305-395. Kraków: Polska
Akademia Umiejętności. (Repr. in Nitsch 1958 III, 47-251.)
Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1907. "Dialekty polskie Prus Wschodnich". Materialy i
Prace Komisji Językowej PAU 3.397-487. (Repr. in Nitsch 1958 III, 252-321.)
Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1909. "Dialekty polskie Śląska". Materialy i Prace Komisji
Językowej PAU 4.85-356. (Repr. in Nitsch 1958 IV, 7-115.) '
Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1911. Mowa ludu polskiego. Krakow: Leon Frommer.
Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1926. Wybór polskich tekstów gwarowyeh. Lwów: K. S. Jaku-
bowski. (2nd ed., revised by the author, Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo
Naukowe, 1960.)
Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1957. Dialekty języka polskiego. Wroclaw: Ossolineum. (Orig
inally in Encyklopedia Polska. Akademia Umiejętności III, 238-343. Kraków:
Polska Akademia Umiejçtności, 1915.)
Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1958. Wybór pism polonistycznych. 4 vols. Wroclaw: Zakład
Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. [Vol. IV: Pisma dialektologiczne.]
Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1960. Ze wspomnień językoznawcy. Warszawa: Państwowe
Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Polański, Kazimierz, ed. 1993. Encyklopedia językoznawstwa ogólnego. Wroclaw:

Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.
Ramułt, Stefan. 1893. Slownik języka pomorskiego, czyli kaszubskiego. Kraków:
Polska Akademia Umiejętnoci.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale, Lausanne & Paris:
Payot. (3rd and last corrected ed., 1931.)
Slownik gwar polskich. 1964-1994. Vols.I-V. Kraków: Instytut Jçzyka Pol
skiego PAN.
Sobierajski, Zenon. 1966-1977. Atlas polskich gwar spiskich na terenie Polski i
Czechosłowacji. Poznań: Poznańskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk.
Sobierajski, Zenon & Józef Burszta. 1979-1989. Atlas języka i kultury ludowej
Wielkopolski. Wroclaw: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.
Stankiewicz, Edward. 1956. 'The Phonemic Patterns of the Polish Dialects: A
study in structural dialectology". For Roman Jakobson: On the occasion of
his sixtieth birthday ed. by Morris Halle, Horace G. Lunt et al., 518-530. The
Hague: Mouton.
Steuer, Feliks. 1934. Dialekt sulkowski. Kraków: Polska Akademia Umięjtności.
Steuer, Feliks. 1937. Narzecze babor owskie. Kraków: Polska Akademia Umie
jętności.
Stieber, Zdzisław. 1933. Izoglosy gwar owe na obszarze downy ch wojewódzw
Łczyckiego i Sieradzkiego. Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności.
Stieber, Zdzislaw. 1938. Sposoby powstawania slowiańskich gwar przejściowych.
Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności.
Stieber, Zdzislaw. 1956. Zarys dialektologii języków zacho dnio slowiańskich. War-
szawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Stieber, Zdzisław & Hanna Popowska-Taborska, eds. 1964-1978 Atlas językowy
kaszubszczyzny i dialektów sąsiednich. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Osso
lińskich.
Sychta, Bernard. 1967-1973. Slownik gwar kaszubskich na tie kultury ludowej. 6
vols. Wroclaw: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. (Supplement, 1976).
Szymczak, Mieczyslaw. 1962-1973. Słownik gwary Domaniewka w powiecie
ł ęczyckim. Wroclaw: Zakiad Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.
Świderska, Halina. 1929. "Dialekt KsięstwaŁomaszewski,Adam. 1934. Mowa

Poznański.
Urbańczyk, Stanislaw. 1953, Zarys dialektologii polskiej. Warszawa: Państwowe
Wydawnictwo Naukowe. (2nd revised ed., 1962.)
Zawiliński, Roman. 1880, Gwar a brzezińska w starostwie ropczyckim. (= Roz-
prawy i Sprawozdania z Posiedzeń Wydzialu Filologicznego Akademii Umie
jętnosci 8.180-234.) Kraków.
Zduńska, Helena. 1965. Studia nad fonetyką gwar mazowieckich: Konso-
nantyzm. Wrocław: Ossolineum.
Zwoliński, Przemyslaw. 1952. "Wypowiedzi gramatyków XVI i XVII wieku o
dialektyzmach w ówczesnej polszczyźnie". Pamiętnik Literacki 43.395-407.
CHAPTER 5
ONOMASTICS IN POLAND
FROM 19TH-CENTURY BEGINNINGS TO THE PRESENT*
S AWOMIRGALA
University of
1. The subject matter

The term 'onomastics' as used in Polish linguistics is derived from the
Greek [onomastikos] "relating to a name" and refers to both a
given lexical set comprised of proper nouns, as well as to the research disci
pline which investigates the given set.
In other words, in the former sense, onomastica means "nomina propria",
i.e., proper nouns which, according to Polish orthographic convention, are
spelt with a capital letter at the onset of a lexeme.
In the latter sense, onomastics is a branch of linguistics implementing in
vestigative procedures appropriate to linguistics and resulting from the charac
ter and function of this particular category of sign. Polish onomastics as a sub
ject deals mainly with (proto-)Slavonic, Indo-European, and the native Polish
cultural heritage, while as a research discipline, it is methodologically tied up
with world onomastics (cf. the Belgian periodical catering to this field Onoma).
Thus, onomastic research analyses a given lexical set broadly understood,
the genesis, linguistic function, and relationship to appellative language signs.
The scope of research is related to the (quantitative) stock of identified ono
mastic classes and their onomastic-linguistic function.
2. The scope of onomastic research

The central problem of onomastics is to establish linguistic determinants of
nomen proprium in relation to nomen appellativum. The difference emerges on
the semantic plane. That is, in the process of communication, a proper noun
designates, distinguishes individual entities from other entities, whereas a
common word denotes, i.e., names. Entities are to be understood here as both
physical objects and persons. A proper noun does not refer to an individual
entity by evoking its characteristics, but by means of arbitrary convention.
* This chapter first appeared as an article in Historiographia Lingüistica 25:1/2.87-114

(1998). It was translated into English by Przemysíaw Źywiczyński, revised by John Kearns.
Hence, it is empty of conceptual content and does not possess connotation in

the logical sense of the word (Polański 1995, s.v. 'proper noun'). It should
also be distinguished from definite descriptions which refer to individual enti
ties, are used in the referential function and are characteristically connotative.
In contrast, the lexical meaning of a common word is realised by evoking a
universal concept or conceptual content as an exponent of a class of referents.
It follows that common words have connotation.
Considering this nature of proper nouns on the semantic level, we can say
that functionally they are speech signs carrying encyclopedic information about
individual entities in the process of communication (in the sense of Saussure's
'parole')
From the genetic, etymological point of view, nomina propria are sec
ondary in relation to common words. This secondary character of proper
nouns in the historical sense, i.e., their dependence on, or relationship with,
genetically primary common words on the one hand, and the certain autonomy,
coming from the different function in the process of communication on the
other hand, raises the question about the boundary between the scopes of
common and distinct points, that is in fact, the question of the definition of an
onomastic grammar in relation to the repertoire of grammatical mechanisms
pertaining to appellative linguistic signs (in the sense of Saussure's 'langue').
The transfer of appellatives into the onomastic category, that is, the act in
which a common word acquires the status of a proper noun, results in sub
stantivisation. In consequence, the problems of an onomastic grammar are
mainly confined to the category of the noun. An onomastic grammar will be
defined here as a set of mechanisms and norms which govern the use of proper
nouns in the system of the Polish language. A certain limited and distinct char
acter of a proper noun is determined by its nature, its function in the process of
communication, as well as its place and role in the social cultural, historical and
dialectical context. In the area of inflection, for instance, besides the assign
ment of the morphological structure of proper nouns to the paradigms of com
mon nouns, we observe certain deviations which include: (i) a tendency to
eliminate plural forms — which is to be accounted for by the individual charac
ter of an onomastic referent; (ii) limitation in anthroponyms to use the feminine
gender, compare Mrs Rudy, etc.; and (iii) neutralisation of the relationship
between a declension type and the natural gender of classes of common nouns,
since for cultural and judicial reasons, anthroponyms refer to individuals of
masculine gender, cf. ap. (appellative) jałmuzna "alms", nm. (name) Jałmuźna
"(Mr) Alms", ap. źyła "vein", nm. Źyła "(Mr) Vein", ap. źądio "sting", nm.
Źądło "(Mr) Sting". It probably explains why proper nouns as transferred from
ONOMASTICS IN POLAND 149
the class of inanimate masculine common nouns assume the form of Gen. Sg.
in Ace. Sg., cf. "I see ...": nm. Ace. Sg. Pasa "(Mr) Belt", ap. Ace. Sg. pas
"belt", np. Ace. Sg. Wąsa "(Mr) Moustache", ap. Ace. Sg. wąs "moustache",
nm. Ace. Sg. Zęba "(Mr) Tooth", ap. Ace. Sg. ząb "tooth". The reference of a
proper noun to an individual masculine referent is motivated in Nominative
plural by the endings characteristic of nouns of the personal-masculine cate
gory.
In contrast to their appellative counterparts, proper nouns may undergo a
thematic levelling within a particular paradigm, cf. nm. Gołąb "(Mr Pidgeon)",
Gen. Gołąba "(Mr) Pidgeon's": ap. gołąb "pidgeon", Gen. gołębia "(of) pid
geon"; nm. Karp "(Mr) Carp", Gen. Karpa "(Mr) Carp's" : ap. karp "carp",
Gen. karpia "(of) carp", etc.
Such a transfer of a proper noun to a paradigm different from its primary
one occurs as a result of neutralisation of the categorial function of a derivative
morpheme, cf. Frycię, Bartoszczę which left the neutral paradigm cielę "calf,
Gen. cielęcia "(of) calf', kurezę "chicken", Gen. kurczęcia "(of) chicken", and
which, in consequence of the denasalized realisation of final -ę, have been as
signed to the paradigm of neutral (gender) adjectives typified by ładne "pretty",
Gen. ładnego "(of) pretty", compare Frycie, Gen. Fryciego.
In the field of word-formation understood as a repertoire of formal proce
dures and a set of mies determining derivational processes as a consequence of
which word-formative elements of language perform two functions: individual-
lexical and categorial-grammatical, there is a difference (between nomina pro
pria and appellatives) in the range of their categorising function. The variety
and multitude of functions performed by formants of nominal appellative
derivatives (cf. nomina actio nis, nomina acti, nomina instrumenti, etc.) is not
matched by onomastic derivatives where a particular set of formants occurs in
one function of formation of an onomastic category, e.g., oikonyms, or an-
throponyms. In consequence of such a singular categorial function, subcate
gories emerge, for example, patronyms, matronyms, toponyms in anthro-
ponyms, or ancestral, possessive, and patronymic names in place-names.
The productivity of onomastic types may be analysed from the linguistic
and paralinguistic perspective: linguistic — considering the connectibility of a
formant with the derivational bases, both appellative and onomastic, and par
alinguistic — regarding social and cultural demand for a particular kind of
name (onomastic category or sub-category). The criterion of onomastic pro
ductivity, understood as the capability of a particular formant to participate in
the generation of new structures, is the number of created derivatives, and not
the potential character of the formant to create a given onomastic sub-category.
Syntactically, proper nouns perform the function characteristic of common

nouns, their primary task being to express the Subject.
An important issue arising from the genesis and functions of proper nouns
is their systematics, It is based on the relation between the name of a particular
class and its base of a specific lexico-etymological class. Semantically moti
vated systematics applied to historical (Taszycki 1924, 1946b) and contempo
rary material, so-called sets in statu nascendi (Gala 1987, Gołębiowska 1971),
distinguishes between proper nouns equivalent to the base and those derived
from the base. With historical, but petrified, data in which motivation is diffi
cult or even impossible to determine, and an attempt to reveal it is done through
a reconstruction of a possible name-formation process, the systematics distin
guishes between primary and secondary names (Rospond 1964b, 1967). The
notion of primary or secondary character is solely confined to the derivative
structure of nomen proprium.
More comprehensive systematics operating within the framework of
classes seeks to delineate name-(surname-)formative models and give both
synchronic and diachronic accounts of linguistic-onomastic material from
which names (surnames) are ultimately derived (Borek 1978). The systematics
embracing data delimited by the 19th-20th century period, adopting the crite
rion of closeness or openness of a given onomastic class, distinguishes names
with base-coequal and base-derived forms. Lexical closeness refers to a set of
proper nouns which was established in the past and is unchangeable (e.g., first
names), whereas morphological closeness refers to a repertoire, established in
the past and unchangeable, of derivational formants appropriate to a particular
onomastic class — cf. the derivational formants of oikonyms (Karaś 1970b,
1972). A proposal of a classification based on the lexico-etymological crite
rion, more extensively taking into account the socio-linguistic aspect (Bubak
1986), or seeking to identify derivational mechanisms and processes of proper
(personal) names, defines names as lexical entities analysed on the lexical plane
(i.e., the plane of transfer), or on the morphological plane as derivatives (Gala
1982).
Word-formative processes of proper names are accomplished on two lev
els: the appellative-onomastic level with a common word as the base of nomen
proprium, and the onomastic level when a name is derived from another name.
Both lexical sets, appellative and onomastic, influence each other (Smoczyński
1962, Michalewski 1972, Szymczak 1980). Both from the onomastic and ap
pellative points of view, this is a very important issue of relations between the
two lexical sub-sets, between their respective lexical characteristics within the
lexical system of the Polish language. It follows that, given the genetically
primary character of nomen appellativum and secondary character of nomen

proprium, both lexemes and morphemes may move from one set to another,
adopting the appropriate functions of the set they move into. In consequence of
this bidirectional interaction, the concepts of primariness and secondariness
look like results of those processes. This is why from the onomastic point of
view, primary will be those proper nouns which as lexical items (e.g., patro
nymic structures), were established on onomastic grounds, that is they are the
result of derivation on the onomastic or onomastic-appellative plane, and thus,
they increased the number of names which do not have corresponding items in
the appellative set. On the other hand, names transferred from the lexical set of
appellatives will be lexically secondary. Morphologically secondary will be
onomastic derivatives formed on both derivational planes by means of for
mants which initially, typically occurred in appellative structures, but subse
quently acquired the new function of onomastic formants within the onomastic
domain. Finally, morphologically primary are those onomastic derivatives
which contain derivational morphemes established within the onomastic set and
are alien to the appellative word-formation. They may appear in appellatives
later. In such cases, they take on the character of secondary morphemes on ap
pellative grounds. The notions of primariness and secondariness presented in
Gala (1994) transcend not only the genetic perspective which contrasts nomen
proprium as a speech sign with the primary nomen appellativum as a language
sign, but also goes beyond Rospond's proposal relating those concepts to the
morphological plane, mainly of derivational origin.
3. Onomastics as an ancillary discipline

Proper nouns created under the influence of concrete cultural conditions are
recorded in historical sources located territorially and chronologically. More
over, they are also carners of features of dialects of the area in which they were
established, and as such, they constitute invaluable material for dialectology
(Zaręba 1968) and historical linguistics (Taszycki 1963). This can be illustrated
by, for example, Witold Taszycki's works, which, on the basis of toponomas-
tic data, determine the southern boundaries of ra changing into re, and ya into je
(Taszycki 1934), as well as by Karol Dejna's monumental Dialekty polskie
( 2 1993 [1973]) in which the author employs historical and contemporary ono
mastic material to establish the boundaries of dialectical innovations, for ex
ample, of the devoicing of v, v following voiceless consonants (Dejna 2 1993
[1973], map 3) or replacement of - 'ev with - 'ov (ibid., map 45). In his univer
sity handbook Atlas polskich inowacji dialektalnych [An atlas of dialectal in
novations], Dejna again resorts to onomastics in order to describe areas where
Proto-Slavonic continuants tort (> tart) (Dejna 2 1994[1981], map 3) did not
Map 2: The loss of voicing of v v following voiceless consonants

(after Dejna 1994[1981], Map 10)
Loss of voicing of v v after voiceless consonants:
Schematic areas of Old Polish change of w  v f  f:
Bogufal, Falimir, Faiek.
Place names with preserved Old Polish: ƒ  f  v  w:
Faliszewice, Fałków,Falęta.
Contemporary place names without the changes of w into f:
Chwaliszew, Chwałkowo.
undergo metathesis, or areas which preserved palatalisation in the d n root, on

the map presenting depalatalisation of consonants before 'ar from T (Dejna,
ibid., map 5).
Phonetic and morphological features of proper nouns were also used as ar
guments in the discussion about the origin of Polish literary language, and one
can mention Witold Taszycki's (1956) "Geneza polskiego języka literackiego
w świetle faktów historycznojęzykowych [The origin of the Polish literary lan
guage in the light of historical linguistic facts]", Stanislaw Rospond's (1956)
"Problem genezy polskiego języka literackiego [Problems of the origin of the
Polish literary language]", Stanislaw Urbańczyk's (1956) "Glos w dyskusji o
pochodzeniu polskiego języka literackiego [A note on the origin of the Polish
literary language]", and Tadeusz Milewski's (1956) "Nowe prace o pochodze
niu polskiego języka literackiego [New works on the origin of the Polish liter
ary language]". Onomastic materials are deemed to be of particular utility in et
ymological studies, studies of the history of the lexicon (Slawski 1974), and of
the chronology of loan-words (Karaś 1974). Moreover, it serves as an ancil
lary discipline within history, especially the history of settlement (Rymut
1968). Onomastics facts and arguments have also been used in the difficult de
bate about the Slavs' descent and place of origin (Rozwadowski 1906, Lehr-
Spławinski 1946, Moszynski 1957). They were also used by lawyers, ethnog
raphers, archaeologists, and sociologists.
4. The history of onomastic research

Interest in onomastics as a set of proper nouns has a relatively long history
and was initially incited by nonlinguistic curiosity about a concrete name and
its individual object, place or person. It is difficult to determine the terminus a
quo of such studies.
Organised research in onomastics falls on the 20th century, mainly in the
period following World War II. Taking into account research problems, organ
isation of research, and education of academic staff and research groups, three
stages in the development of onomastics can be distinguished: 1) from the be
ginning of the 20th century to 1939, particularly in the period of Independence
(1918-1939), 2) the post-war years till about 1970, and 3) from 1970 to the
present.
4.1 The late 19th and early 20th century beginnings

Scientific investigation of the onomastic set was initiated in the second half
of the 19th century by Jan Karłowicz (1836-1903), a linguist, author of dic
tionaries (Karłowicz 1888b, 1894-1905, 1900-1911; Karlowicz, Krynski &
Niedzwiedzki 1900-1927), and editor of the periodical Wisîa to which Polish
culture is so indebted. Among other pioneers, one should also mention Jan
Baudouin de Courtenay's (1845-1929) work of 1870 and the contributions of
Kazimierz Moszynski (1887-1959), Aleksander Brückner (1856-1939), and
Jan Rozwadowski (1867-1935). Major achievements of the above mentioned
researchers did not, however, appear until the next century. Of particular inter
est here are works written by historians: Chrobacja: Rozbiór starozytności sło-
wianskich [Chrobatia: The disintegration of Old Slavic] of 1873 by Tadeusz
Wojciechowski (1838-1919), who identified five groups of names, and on
this basis, described types of settlement, Rycerstwo polskie wieków średnich
[Polish knighthood of the Middle Ages] by Franciszek Piekosinski (1844-
1906) of 1896, and Franciszek Bujak's (1875-1953) 1905 Studia nad osad-
nictwem Maiopolski [Studies on settlement in Little Poland].
The first years of the 20th century are marked by Jan Los (1860-1928) and
Zygmunt Gloger's (1845-1910) start of exploratory work for the future ono-
mastic lexicon of Old Polish (Taszycki 1965-1987 I, pp.v-vi). This pioneering
enterprise was partially completed only after World War II with the publication
of Taszycki's Słownik staropolskich nazw osobowych [A dictionary of Old
Polish personal names]. Another significant research project was Rozwad
owski's study of river names between the Volga and Oder which served as a
basis for critical remarks about the homeland of the Indo-Europeans (Roz
wadowski 1913) and of the Slavs (Rozwadowski 1906, 1948 [1922]).
Those main trends in research — toponymy and hydronymy — exerted a
significant influence on onomastics of the first half of our century. They were
complemented by anthroponomastic research, carried out on a larger scale only
after 1918. Apart from Jan Hanusz's (1858-1887) marginal contributions on
surnames of Polish Armenians (Hanusz 1886), Jan Karlowicz's on Lithuanian
surnames (1888a, b), and Lucjan Malinowski's (1839-1898) work of 1893 on
surname transformation, anthroponymy is represented by Witold Taszycki's
(1898-1979) work of 1925 on genetic and semantic classes of Polish sur
names, on the origin of the oldest Polish personal names, and a series of re
marks devoted to concrete individual personal names, entitled Ze studiów nad
polskim imiennictwem osobowym [Selected studies on Polish personal
names]. Jan Otrębski's (1935) dissertation O najdawniejszych polskich imio-
nach osobowych [On the oldest Polish personal names] provides a valuable
supplement to Taszycki's research. The anthroponymic research was continued
by Jan Stanislaw Bystroń (1892-1964), who published Nazwiska polskie
[Polish surnames] and Księgaimion w Polsce uzywanych [A book of names
used in Poland] in 1936 and 1938, respectively. The scope of anthroponymic
research was broadened to include the class of abusive names and nicknames
by Stanislaw Kozierowski (1874-1949) of 1938 and 1948 in his copious

Nazwiska, przezwiska, przydomki, imiona polskie niektótych typów słowo-
twórczych [Surnames, abusive names, nicknames, and names in some deri
vational types].
4.2 The post-World War II period to 1970

In the post-war period, the development of onomastics is characterised by
1) continuation of earlier research problems; 2) extension of research to new
onomastic classes and issues, with simultaneous analysis of data; 3) setting up
of a publishing series and the periodical Onomastica; 4) organization of scien
tific associations, onomastic committees; 5) organization of research institutes,
and 6) education of staff and research groups.
Work on hydronymy is continued. In 1948 Mikolaj Rudnicki (1881-1978)
published a monograph on the Oder and its tributaries (Rudnicki 1948b). The
same year saw the posthumous publication of Rozwadowski's (1948[1922])
"Studia nad nazwami wód slowianskich [Studies on Slavic river-names]", a
voluminous, important and, one could say, fundamental work on Slavic hy
dronymy. The name of the Nysa river received a lot of attention, summed up
and thoroughly examined in Jan Safarewicz's (1904-1992) 1950 review.
Names of other rivers were also examined (Rudnicki 1955), as well as those of
lakes (Mlodziejowski 1946) and fishing-grounds (Zwolinski 1954). The publi
cations of particular significance include Hydronimia Wisły [Hydronymy of
the Vistula] edited by Przemysław Zwoliński (1965), and Janusz Rieger's
(1969) study of names in the San river basin.
Research on toponymy developed with particular intensity. Besides the
collection of data, fundamental problems of the systematics of names were
tackled. Witold Taszycki (1946b), adopting different assumptions to those of
Franz Miklosich (1927), proposed a new taxonomy which was based on the
semantic criterion and in consequence he distinguished: A. place names which
had always been place names; B. place names which originally were names of
people, and only later became place names; C. ambiguous names; D. obliter
ated names. Within A. and B. he distinguishes four specific sub-groups (A:
topographic, cultural, possessive, diminutive; B: ethnic, patronymic, menial,
and ancestral). Toponimic data collected in this period are systematised accord
ing to Taszycki's postulates. His assumptions gave rise to a number of mono
graphic works which discuss selected types of names, for example, patro
nymic names of Mazovia (Taszycki 1951), Polish and Slavonic names of the
type Podgóra "Under-hill", Zalas "Behind-forest" (Karas 1955), or names
with the formant -izna ¡I -yzna such as Mroczkowizna, Klimontowszczyzna
(Safarewiczowa 1956). Maria Karpluk (1955) analysed the lexical-derivative
type in her Polskie nazwy miejscowe od imion kobiecych (Polish place names
derived from feminine names) where she offered interesting observations about
the active role of such bases in the formation of oikonyms; names derived from
those bases appeal* from the Middle Ages onwards with increased productivity
during the 19th century. Historical evidence was also used in attempts to de
scribe geographical variation/differentiation of specific derivational types (Man-
czak 1955, Śmiech 1956).
The 1950s were a period of debate about the names of Poland's oldest
provinces, It was provoked by Henryk Ułaszyn's (1874-1956) 1950 publica
tion discussing the meaning of the names Wielkopolska "Great Poland" and
Maiopolska "Little Poland", Both linguist-onomasticians and historians partici
pated in the debate. In the light of presented arguments and chronological facts
— the name Polonia Major (Wielkopolska) appeared in 1250, while Polonia
Minor in 1350 — it seems convincing that the latter was construed to provide a
contrast to the former. In addition, we have Stefan Hrabec's (1912-1972)
1955 dissertation about the name Mazovia .
The problem of the relation between official and folk names, so far unno
ticed, became a new area of reasearch. Folk forms seem closer to the historical
formations preserved in documents, and thus are more motivated. Piotr Galas
(1949) attested this on material from the Bochnia district. The local folk names
from the Głupczyce and Racibórz area and their official forms which show
German and Czech influence, were explored by Karol Dejna (1955). The
names of farmlands, pastures, roads, and village sections, collected by the
same author, were analyzed from a formal point of view in his study on
regional names of Silesia, Terenowe nazwy ślqskie (Dejna 1956).
Also quite voluminous is literature on the toponomastics of the Regained
Territories owing to the need of restituting on those areas the old names oblit
erated in the process of Germanisation, or forming new names in line with
onomastic norms. The literature concerned with this issue discusses the direc
tions, ways of re-Polonisation, and informs about their results. We can men
tion here Tadeusz Milewski's (1906-1966) 1952 Nazwy miejscowe Ziem
Odzyskanych [Place names of the Regained Territories] where he gives an ac
count of the principles and a linguistic assessment of the re-Polonisation. Out
of the rich literature on the subject, we can also mention contributions on the
etymology of the names: Śląsk (Taszycki 1946a, c; Rospond 1955), Szczecin
(Rospond 1947a, Urbanczyk 1948, 1950; Nitsch 1950, Stieber 1951), Po-
morze, Prusy (Kielczewska 1955, Nitsch 1954a), Mazury (Nitsch 1948b), and
place names from Pomorze Gdanskie (Nitsch 1954b),
There is also considerable interest in the names of the mountain regions,

particularly of the Sudeten mountains (Taszycki 1949), another target of the re-
Polonisation policy.
Expansion of the scope of historical material by petrified data with no mo
tivated connections with the bases, inspired onomasticians to seek new princi
ples of taxonomy whose main criterion would be the structure of nomen pro
prium. In 1957, Stanislaw Rospond (1906-1982) put forward such a pro
posal, which, with only slight modifications, has been used up till now.
Rospond's and Taszycki's classifications to a large extent determine research
procedures and influence the comparability of data. The following years
brought more monographs on toponymic types: Henryk Borek's (1968) on
toponymic names with the formant -bn-, Rospond's (1969) on the type with
the suffix -bsk-, on patronymic names in Silesia (Rospond 1964a), and Hubert
Górnowicz's (1968) on ancestral names of Great Poland, Little Poland and
Masovia. Futhermore, monographic studies on place names of selected areas
of Poland were written, with Southern Poland receiving considerable attention
— the old Sandomierz voivodeship (Kaminska 1964-1965), the northern part
of the old Cracow voivodeship (Rymut 1967), the southern part of the old
Cracow voivodeship (Lubas 1968), Sącz (Pawłowski 1966, 1971) and Orawa
(Goiębiowska 1964) regions.
The publications which should be mentioned here include: Karol Zierhof-
fer's (1957) monograph on place names of Northern Mazovia, Stefan War-
chol's (1964) on town names of the Lublin region, and Gustaw Leyding-
Mielecki's (1947-1959) dictionary of Mazovian place names.
Anthroponomastics developed intensively in the post-war period. The first
publications concentrate on the names of the Piast dynasty (Kętrzynski 1945),
Lech and Piast (Rudnicki 1954-1956), Mieszko (Semkowicz 1946, Urbań-
czyk 1946), Miecław/Masław (Urbanczyk 1954, Siudut 1955), Bolesław
Chrobry (Szymczak 1951, Gansiniec 1951), etc. Numerous authors strive to
explain the name 'Slav' (Otrębski 1947, Lehr-Splawiáski 1948), as well as the
names of other West-Slavonic tribes: Obodrites (Lehr-Spławiński 1947),
Wieleci (Widajewicz 1949), Golęzycy (Rudnicki 1948a), Lędziczanie/Lechici
(Tymieniecki 1949), Lęczyczanie i Sieradzanie (Zajączkowski 1953).
However, the emphasis of anthroponomastic research was on historical
surnames, or, to use more recent terminology, of proto-surnames, mainly their
morphological structure and genesis, for example, in such works as (Siudut
1948) on Polish names with the suffix -ut, (Zwolinski 1950) on the word-for
mative function of the element -slaw (Kuraszkiewicz 1951), on Mazovian
names of the -owic type, or on surnames derived from the names of birds and
dishes (Nitsch 1948a).
Simultaneously, many regional anthroponomastic studies were produced
discussing contemporary official, i.e., legally binding names (surnames, first
names) and optional ones (nicknames, cognomina), for example Banacz-
kowski (1949) on surnames and nicknames from Wądlock, Zadrozny (1952)
on nicknames and cognomina from Jablonkowo, Tokarzówna (1954) on cog
nomina of the highlanders from Szczawnica, and Sychta (1956) on Kashubian
nicknames.
Prescriptive practice constitutes a separate area of interest; it concentrates
on grammatical problems within the domain of inflection, for example, sur
names of the type Zarçba "(Mr.) Swashbuckler" (Doroszewski 1951), Piwko
"(Mr) Little Beer" and Zelazko "(Mr) Iron" (Doroszewski 1967), Vocative
forms of feminine surnames (Doroszewski 1949a), surnames ending in -ek,
-en (Doroszewski 1953a), foreign surnames ending in -a (Idem 1953b), or
creation of feminine forms (Doroszewski 1949b, Nitsch 1951, Kucala 1951).
Anthroponymy, like toponomastics, raises the issue of re-Polonisation of first
names and surnames (Rospond 1947b, Taszycki 1948). A prominent place in
the history of anthroponymy belongs to Tadeusz Milewski's (1969) unique
study devoted to the Indo-European onomasticon.
Stanislaw Rospond's (1964b, 1967) model of a new taxonomy of proper
names according to their structure exerted a great influence on the evolution of
anthroponomastics. It is a transfer of stmctural-grammatical criteria used in to
ponymy to petrified proper nouns of obliterated semantic motivation. His pro
posal, which was used quite commonly, due to the nature of the petrified an
throponomastic data, was a response to the need to systematize the then volu
minous, anthroponomastic material, the card-index of Old Polish personal
names collected by Witold Taszycki's team in what was then the Onomastic
Unit of the Linguistics Department in the Polish Academy of Sciences in Cra
cow, and the card-index of Silesian personal names collected under the guid
ance of Stanislaw Rospond in the Institute of Polish Philology of the Univer
sity of Wroclaw. Those abundant collections of personal names were the basis
of Słownik staropolskich nazw osobowych [Dictionary of Old Polish personal
names] edited by Witold Taszycki (1965-1987) and Rospond's (1967, 1973)
Słownik nazwisk śląskich [Dictionary of Silesian names].
Such a dynamic development of onomastics in the post-war period is to be
linked with the emergence of several research groups: Witold Taszycki's Ono
mastics Department of the Jagiellonian University in Cracow, and later, be
ginning in 1953, Rospond's Wrocław-Opole group in the Onomastic Unit of
the Linguistics Department of the Polish Academy of Sciences, and finally

Gdansk Onomastic Unit headed by Hubert Gómowicz (1922-1986).
An inspiring role was played by the Committee for Establishing Names of
Localities and Physiographic Objects, operating under the auspices of the
Prime Minister of Poland. The Committee's task was to re-Polonise names in
the western and northern territories, as well as to collect and determine names
of places and physiographic structures from the whole territory of the country
(Karas 1975). This large-scale project, completed in collaboration with a num
ber of universities, bore fruit in the form of 1 : 100 000 maps with rich topo
nymic data, a considerable amount of which was confronted with historical
sources and cadastral lists. The collected materials, approved by the Commit
tee, were published as Spis miejscowosci Polskiej Rzeczpospolitej Ludowej [A
register of places of the Polish People's Republic] in Warsaw in 1967, and are
issued by the Bureau of the Cabinet as Urzędowe nazwy miejscowosci i obiek-
tów fizjograficznych [An official register of names of places and physiographic
objects]. Those materials published in several hundred fascicles constitute
sources of unprecedented scope and are of great scientific value and practical
use. They were used as basis of an analysis of regional names with the struc 10
ture of adjectival derivatives (Śmiech 1996).
Considerable influence was exercised by various onomastic publishing se
ries; since 1948 the series Prace onomastyczne [Onomastic studies], and since
1955 the periodical Onomastica. Since the number of publications surpasses
the volume of the specialised publishers, articles, dissertations, and even mon
ographs frequently appear in numerous nation-wide and local-university per
iodicals.
The situation of onomastics in Poland is related to a wider interest in the
onomastic research in other Slavonic countries. Those tendencies found ex
pression in the foundation, in Cracow in 1959, of International Slavonic Com
mittee of Onomastics, affiliated to Slavistic Committee, with the following sub
committees: 1) the Committee for the Slavonic Toponymic Atlas, 2) the Hydro-
nymic Committee, 3) the Committee of Onomastic Terminology, and 4) the
Anthroponymic Committee.
4.3 Recent developments

In the third period of our somewhat arbitrary division, i.e., from the '70s,
projects commenced earlier were continued and some of them completed, for
example, Slownik staropolskich nazw osobowych [Dictionary of Old Polish
personal names]. New research problems were taken up, both theoretical and
data-oriented, particularly in anthroponomastics.
Classification of proper nouns, referring to persons and places, remained

the basic issue of onomastics. It was taken up by Mieczysław Karas with ref
erence to contemporary material (of the 20th century), but with obliterated se
mantic motivation. His proposal drew on the criterion of openness and closed-
ness as name-determinants both on the lexical and morphological planes (Karas
1970b, 1972). This worthwhile idea has not received extensive material verifi
cation, mainly on account of the scarcity of new, onomastic data, apart from
surnames. Regional studies, often of monographic character, published after
1970, followed Rospond's systematics (Mączynski 1970, Borek & Szumska
1976, Bubak 1970, Kopertowska 1980).
A lengthy work on the formation-processes of historical surnames by Jozef
Bubak (1986) discussed the constitution of proto-names in relation to socio-
linguistic factors acting as determinants for semantically-motivated classes, and
within them categorial-derivational types, for example, czyj jest "whose is" -
patronymic type with its appropriate formants, or skąd-pochodzi "where X
comes from" - surname types derived from place names with the -ski formant
Monographs in anthroponomastics also discuss other classes of personal
names: surnames and nicknames (Gołębiowska 1971; Gala 1979, 1987), cog
nomens (Breza 1978a), first names (Bubak 1993), and anthroponymy in gen
eral (Wolnicz-Pawłowska 1993). A significant achievement in this field is the
publication of regional historical (Bubak 1992), as well as historical and con
temporary data (Gómowicz 1992) systematized in the form of dictionaries. We
should not fail to mention here a comprehensive publication of contemporary
Polish surnames in alphabetical order (Rymut 1992-1994).
A separate and important place in anthroponymy research has to be granted
to monographic dissertations on anthroponymic word-formative types, or
families of types relative to the type of historical base (Karas 1970a, Warchol
1970/1971, Malec 1971, Breza 1978b (1979), 1980a, b; Gala 1985). A similar
kind of research concerns lexico-etymological types, i.e., personal names
derived from a specific class of lexical bases, for example, from compound
names (Malec 1982), names of Christian origin (Malec 1994), appellatives
(Cieślikowa 1990), and place names (Kowalik-Kaleta 1981, Matuszewski
1975). Besides material onomastics (anthroponomastics), (the naming of
natural objects), literary onomastics has also been pursued, i.e., the study of
the stylistic function of names in literary texts (Grzeszczuk 1966, Wilkon
1970, Kurzowa 1973, Rospond 1974, Kosyl 1992),
Some interest has also been shown in names of urban objects (urbonymy),
for example, streets, parks, or suburbs. Studies have appeared on street names
of Warsaw (Handke 1970), Gdynia (Górnowicz 1964), Lublin (Buczynski
1966), Wroclaw (Antkowiak 1970), Poznan (Zakrzewski 1971), Kielce

(Dzikowski & Kopertowska 1976), and Cracow (Supranowicz 1996).
Names of animals constitute yet another area of research (Gómowicz 1973,
Strutynski 1972, 1996). The attention this class received is undoubtedly due to
its in statu nascendi character (Warchoł 1996). In this respect, zoonyms re
semble non-urban names and contemporary cognomens.
In addition, onomasticians studied other classes of names which, in their
view, fulfilled the defining criteria of nomen proprium; e.g., names of indus
trial products (Brocki 1972a), meteorological phenomena and stars (Kupiszew-
ski 1974, 1976), minerals (Brocki 1972b), musical ensembles (Pisarkowa
1972), sports clubs (Ozdzynski 1973), or army units (Gomowicz 1979b).
Simultaneously, studies continuing earlier toponymic and hydronymic
projects are under way. The result is a series of monographs devoted to the to
ponymy of Upper Silesia (Borek 1988), Cieszyn Silesia (Mrózek 1984), place
names of the Bialystok region (Kondratiuk 1974, Halicka 1978), historical to
ponymy of Mazovia (Wolff & Rzetelska-Feleszko 1982), microtoponymy of
Cieszyn Silesia in the 18th century (Mrózek 1990), toponymy of Gdańsk
(Eastern) Pomerania — the districts of Koscierzyna (Breza 1974), Puck (Tre-
der 1977), and Bytów (Surma 1990), place names of Sącz (Pawłowski 1984),
the districts of Jasło and Krosno (Lubas 1963, 1964), and non-urban names of
Lublin region (Lesiów 1972).
As in anthroponymy, certain derivational types of toponyms have been in
vestigated, for example, geographical names with the -jb formant (Gomowicz
1979a), place names (Gomowicz 1975), non-urban and hydronymic names
(Gómowicz 1974) with the -ec suffix, geographical names with the -ov suffix
(Kęsikowa 1976), and toponyms with the -ica suffix (Rzetelska-Feleszko
1978).
The research project on hydronymy brought forth monographic studies of
names of the Warta (Rieger & Wolnicz-Pawlowska 1975) and the Oder basins
(Borek 1983), names of rivers of Pomorze between the Vistula and the Oder
(Rzetelska-Feleszko 1978), as well as names of lakes (Gomowicz 1971,
Treder 1979).
Besides data-oriented works, onomasticians have taken up the problems of
an onomastic grammar (Góriiy 1957), norms of word-formation, and inflec
tional acceptability. However, it was only after appropriate, voluminous mate
rials had been accumulated, that nomina propria could be subjected to a
broader, theoretical analysis. Such an approach fostered the various above-
mentioned, attempts at a systematics of proper nouns. The range of issues, in
vestigated by theoretical onomastics, include: the defining characteristics of
— Vol III (1971-1980). 1983. Ed. by Kazimierz Rymut. Wroclaw: Zaklad Naro-
dowy im. Ossolińskich.
— Vol.IV (1981-1990). 1992. Compiled by Przybytek Rozalia, Kazimierz
Rymut. Krakow: Instytut Języka Polskiego PAN.
Borek, Henryk. 1968. Zachodnioslowiańskie nazwy toponimiczne z formantem
-bn- [West-Slavonic toponymic names with the formant -bn-]. Wroclaw: Państ-
Borek, Henryk. 1978. "Diachroniczne i synchroniczne klasyfikacje nazwisk pol
skich", Z polskich studiów slawistycznych, series 5: Językoznawstwo, 447-455.
Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Borek, Henryk. 1979. "Załozenia slownika polskich wyrazów toponimicznych
[Principles of the dictionary of Polish toponymics]". Onomastica 24.5-17
Borek, Henryk, ed. 1983. Hydronimia Odry: Wykaz nazw w ukladzie hydrogra-
ficznym [List of names in a hydrographie system]. Opole: Instytut Śląski.
Borek, Henryk. 1988. Górny Śląsk w swietle nazw miejscowych [Upper Silesia in
the light of place names]. Opole: Instytut Śląski.
Borek, Henryk & Urszula Szumska. 1976. Nazwiska mieszkańców Bytomia od
konca XVI wieku do roku 1740 [Surnames of Bytom inhabitants from the end
of the 16th century until 1740]. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Breza, Edward. 1974. Toponimia powiatu kośctierskiego [Toponymy of Kos-
cierzyna county]. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich.
Breza, Edward. 1978a. Pochodzenie przydomków szlachty Pomorza Gdańskiego.
Gdańsk: Uniwersytet Gdański.
Breza, Edward. 1978b. "Polskie nazwy osobowe z sufiksem -j-[Polish personal
names with a -j- suffix]". Sprawozdania Gdańskiego Towarzystwa Naukowego
5.93 (1979).
Breza, Edward. 1980a. "Niektóre nazwy osobowe z sufiksami -bn- i -'bn- w
języku polskim [Some personal names with the suffixes bn and -'bn- in
Polish]". Prace Filologiczne 29.7-16.
Breza, Edward. 1980b. "Polskie nazwy osobowe z sufiksem -in, -ina, -ino i jego
pochodnymi -lin(a,o) i -owin(a,o) [Polish personal names with the suffix -in,
-ina, -ino and its derivatives -lin(a,o) and -owin(a,o)]". Slavia Occidentalis
27.11-19.
Brocki, Zygmunt. 1972a. "Nazwy polskich pociągów ekspresowych". Zpra-
vodaj Mistopisné komise ČSAV 13.293-295.
Brocki, Zygmunt. 1972b. "Wyraz jantar w onomastyce". Zpravodaj Mistopisné
komise CSAV 13.795-796.
Bubak, Jozef. 1970. Nazwiska ludności dawnego starostwa nowotarskiego
[Personal names of people of the former Nowy Targ county]. 2 vols. Wroclaw:
Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich.
Bubak, Jozef. 1986. Proces ksztaltowania się polskiego nazwiska mieszczanskiego
i chlopskiego [The formation process of the Polish personal name of towns
people and peasants]. Krakow: Uniwersytet Jagielloński.
Bubak, Jozef. 1992. Slownik nazw osobowych i elementów identyfikacyjnych
Sqdecczyzny XV-XVII w. [Dictionary of personal names and the identification
proper nouns (Kucała 1967), the place of proper nouns in the system of lan
guage (Kuryłowicz 1956, 1980; Lubas 1973, Zaręba 1979), the essence of
nomen proprium (Grodziñski 1973, Gala 1981, Furdal 1984), and the rela
tionship between nomen proprium and nomen appellativum (Smoczyński
1962, Szymczak 1980, Mańczak 1984, Kosyl 1974, Borek 1979, Micha
lew ski 1972). Studies of this sort prompted linguists to ask questions about
onomastic grammar, its nature and extent of autonomy from the grammar of
language. This was the subject of a conference organised in 1986 by the Ono
mastic Section of the Linguistics Committee of the Polish Academy of Sciences
and the University of Opołe. The Onomastic Section plays a very important
role in onomastic research, as it co-organizes conferences and determines their
themes, thus initiating and co-ordinating research.
The impressive output of the Polish onomastics is contained in a four vol
ume bibliography comprising works published until 1990 (see Bibliografia
onomastyki polskiej below). This clearly shows that importance of this linguis
tic discipline; its contribution to Polish culture and identity is unquestionable.
For future onomastic research we can identify the following areas: 1) the
continuation of projects begun earlier, 2) the collection of materials for the
preparation of an anthroponymic dictionary of Middle Polish up to and includ
ing the 19th century, 3) the publication of a historical dictionary of place names
(oikonyms), 4) the compilation of a dictionary of Poland's non-urban names,
5.) a further development of the theory of proper nouns, and 6) the synthetic
formulation of particular onomastic classes.
REFERENCES
Antkowiak, Zygmunt. 1970. Ulice i place Wroctawia [Streets and squares of
Wroclaw]. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.
Banaczkowski, Piotr. 1949, "O nazwach, nazwiskach i przezwiskach w Wąchocku
(Swiętokrzyskie) [On names, surnames and nicknames in Wą.chocku (Swięto-
krzyskie voivodship)]". Język Polski 29.78-80.
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan Niecislaw. 1870. O drewne-polskom jazykie do XIV-
go Stoletija [On the Old Polish language before the 14th century]. Leipzig:
Behr & Hermann.
Bibliografia onomastyki polskiej. Vols.I-IV (see below, for details).
— Vol.I (Beginnings to 1958 inclusive). 1960. Compiled by Witold Taszycki,
Mieczysław Karas, Adam Turasiewicz. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu
Jagiellońskiego,
— Vol.11 (1959–1970). 1972. Compiled by Taszycki Witold, Mieczyslaw Karas
& Adam Turasiewicz. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
elements of Sącz region in the 15th-17th century]. 2 vols. Krakow: Towar-

zystwo Autorów i Wydawców Prac Naukowych "Universitas".
Bubak, Jozef. 1993. Księga naszych imion [The book of our names]. Wroclaw:
Zakład Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich.
Buczyński, Mieczyslaw. 1966. "Nazwy ulic i placów Lublina [Names of streets
and squares of Lublin]". Onomastica 11.136-181.
Bujak, Franciszek. 1905. Studia nad osadnictwem Malopolski. Part I. Rozprawy
Wydziatu Historyczno-Filozoficznego AU 47.172-428.
Bystroń, Jan Stanislaw, 1927. Nazwiska polskie. (= Lwowska Biblioteka Slawi-
styczna, 4.) Lwow. (2nd ed., Ksiąznica: "Atlas", 1936.)
Bystroñ, Jan Stanislaw. 1938. Księga imion w Polsce uzywanych. Warszawa:
"Rój".
Cieslikowa, Aleksandra. 1990. Staropolskie odapelatywne nazwy osobowe:
proces onimizacji. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich.
Dejna, Karol. 1955. "Urzędowe i gwarowe postaci nazw miejscowych w okolicy
Glupczyc i Raciborza". Rozprawy Komisji Jçzykowej LTN 2.119-158.
Dejna, Karol. 1956. "Terenowe nazwy Śląskie". Onomastica 2.103-126.
Dejna, Karol. 1973. Dialekty polskie. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Osso
liñskich. (2nd ed., 1993.)
Dejna, KaroL 1981. Atlas polskich innowacji dialektalnych. Warszawa: Państ-
wowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. (2nd ed., 1994.)
Doroszewski, Witold. 1949a. "Marylu czy Marylo". Poradnik Językowy 5.22.
Doroszewski, Witold. 1949b. "Zeńskie formy nazwisk". Poradnik Językowy
5.20-21. (Sequels in 1952: 2.37; 7.37-38; 1954: 8.38.)
Doroszewski, Witold. 1951. "Odmiana nazwisk typu Zaręba". Poradnik Języ
kowy 3.29.
Doroszewski, Witold. 1953a. "Odmiana nazwisk na -ek, -eń". Ibid. 10.40.
Doroszewski, Witold. 1953b. "Nazwiska obce na -a". Poradnik Językowy 4.34.
Doroszewski, Witold. 1967. "Nazwisko Piwko, Zelazko-odmiana". Ibid. 9.431.
Dzikowski, Wladyslaw & Danuta Kopertowska. 1976. Toponimia KielC. War
szawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Furdal, Antoni. 1984. "Onomastyka widziana z zewnątrz". Nazwy wlasne a
wyrazy pospolite w języku i tekście ed. by Henryk Borek, 89-95. Opole: Wyzsza
Szkola Pedagogiczna.
Gala, Slawomir. 1979. "Slowotwórstwo nazwisk i przezwisk ludnosci bylego
powiatu piotrkowskiego". Studia Językoznawcze 4.43-87. Wroclaw: Zaklad
Gala, Slawomir. 198L "W sprawie jçzykowej definicji nazw osobowych". Ono
mastica 26.41-51.
Gala, Slawomir. 1982. "Przeniesienia, derywaty, powielenia w antroponimii pol-
skiej". Rozprawy Komisji Jçzykowej LTN 28.21-32.
Gala, Slawomir. 1985. Polskie nazwy osobowe z podstawowym -l-/-ł- w częsci
sufiksalnej. Łódź: Uniwersytet Lódzkh (2nd ed., 1992.)
Gala, Slawomir. 1987. Slownik nazwisk i przezwisk ludnosci ziemi piotrkowskiej.
Piotrków Trybunalski & Lodz: Wydawnictwo Wydzialu Kultury i Sztuki
Urzędu Wojewódzkiego w Piotrkowie Trybunalskim.
Gala, Slawomir. 1994. "Morfologiczny czy leksykalny aspekt nazwisk okres-

lonych klas leksykalnoetymologicznych". Paper read at an Onomastic Con
ference held in Warsaw.
Galas, Piotr. 1949. "Urzędowe a ludowe nazwy miejscowosci w powiecie b o
cheńskim i okolicy", Język Polski 29.51-62.
Gansiniec, Ryszard. 1951. "Nagrobek Boleslawa Wielkiego". Przeglqd Za-
chodni 7:7/8.359-537.
Gołiębiowska, Teresa. 1964. Terenowe nazwy orawskie. (= Zeszyty Naukowe
Uniwersytetu Jagielloñskiego; Prace Językoznawcze, 11.) Krakow: Uniwersytet
Jagielloński.
Golębiowska, Teresa. 1971. Antroponimia Orawy. (= Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwer
sytetu Jagielloñskiego; Prace Językoznawcze, 34.) Ibid.
Górnowicz, Hubert. 1964. "Toponimia Gdyni". Gdañskie Zeszyty Humani-
styczne 6. Gdańsk: Wyzsza Szkola Pedagogiczna.
Górnowicz, Hubert. 1968. Rodowe nazwy miejscowe Wielkopolski, Malopolski i
Mazowsza. Gdañskie Zeszyty Humanistyczne. Gdańsk: Wyzsza Szkola Peda
gogiczna.
Górnowicz, Hubert. 1971. "Nazewnictwo jezior borzechowskich na Kociewiu".
Onomastica 16.87-121.
Górnowicz, Hubert. 1973. "Zoonimia Powisla Gdañskiego". Zeszyty Naukowe
Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego 2.41-55.
Górnowicz, Hubert. 1974. "Ze studiów nad toponomastykq Pomorza Gdañ
skiego. II: Nazwy terenowe i wodne z sufiksem -ec i jego pochodnymi".
Slavia Occidentalis 21.13-33.
Górnowicz, Hubert. 1975. "Ze studiów nad toponomastyką Pomorza Gdañ
skiego. I: Nazwy miejscowe z sufiksem -ec i jego pochodnymi". Gdańskie
Studia Językoznawcze 1.5-61.
Górnowicz, Hubert. 1979a. "Nazwy geograficzne z formantem -jb na Pomorzu
Gdańskim". Sprawozdania Gdańskiego Towarzystwa Naukowego, 138-139.
Gdańsk.
Górnowicz, Hubert. 1979b. "Nazwy wlasne polskich jednostek wojskowych".
Poradnik Językowy 8.369-386.
Górnowicz, Hubert. 1992. Slownik nazwisk mieszkañców Powisla Gdañskiego.
Posthumously edited by Edward Breza. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu
Gdañskiego.
Górny, Wojciech. 1957. "Zagadnienie polskiej gramatyki onomastycznej".
Jçzyk Polski 37.174-178.
Grodziñski, Eugeniusz, 1973. Zarys ogólnej teorii imion wlasnych. Warszawa:
Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Grzeszczuk, Stanislaw. 1966. Nazewnictwo sowiźrzalskie. (= Zeszyty Naukowe
Uniwersytetu Jagielloñskiego.) Krakow: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Halicka, Irena. 1978. Nazwy miejscowe srodkowej i zachodniej Bialostocczyzny.
Topograficzne i kulturowe. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Hanusz, Jan. 1886. "O nazwiskach polskich Ormian". Muzeum 2.565-573.
Handke, Kwiryna. 1970. Semantyczne i strukturalne typy nazw ulic Warszawy.
Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich.
Hrabec, Stefan. 1955. "O nazwie Mazowsze". Prace Polonistyczne 12.5-20.

Kamińska, Maria. 1964-1965. Nazwy miejscowe dawnego województwa san-
domierskiego. Part I&II. Wroclaw: Zakiad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich.
Karas, Mieczysław. 1955. "Polskie nazwy miejscowe typu Podgóra, Zalas".
Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagelloñskiego: Filología 1.233-238.
Karas, Mieczyslaw. 1970a. "Antroponimiczny sufiks -ur, -ura w języku pol-
skim". Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagelloñskiego. Prace Językoznawcze
29.17-31.
Karas, Mieczyslaw. 1970b. "Nazwy miejscowe i ich klasyfikacje (uwagi i
propozycje)". Biuletyn PTJ 28.63-85.
Karas, Mieczyslaw. 1972. "Nazwy wlasne i ich klasyfikacje (nazwy osobowe)".
Biuletyn PTJ 30.103-150.
Karas, Mieczyslaw. 1974. "Najdawniejsze zapozyczenia obce w jçzyku pol-
skim". Studia indoeuropejskie 79-85.
Karas, Mieczyslaw. 1975. "Onomastyka polska po II wojnie swiatowej (glówne
kierunki i wyniki badań)". Poradnik Językowy 2.57-65.
Karlowicz, Jan. 1888a. Kilka slow o nazwiskach litewskich (z powodu uwag L.
Malinowskiego)". Prace Filologiczne 1.188-191.
Karlowicz, Jan. 1888b. "Niektóre nazwy rodowe litewskiego pochodzenia".
Prace Filologiczne 2.587-589.
Karlowicz, Jan. 1894–1905. Slownik wyrazów obcego a mniej jasnego pocho
dzenia, uzywanych w języku polskim. Krakow: W.L. Anczyc i Spóika.
Karlowicz, Jan. 1900–1911. Slownik gwar polskich. 4 vols. Krakow: Akademia
Umiejętności.
Karlowicz, Jan, Adam Kryński & Wladyslaw Niedzwiedzki. 1900-1927. Slownik
jçzyka polskiego. 8 vols. (Repr., Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy,
1952.).
Karpluk, Maria. 1955. "Polskie nazwy miejscowe od imion kobiecych". Studia
z Filologii Polskie'} i Slowiañskiej 1.111-161.
Kęsikowa, Urszula. 1976. Nazwy geograficzne Pomorza Gdanskiego z sufiksem
-OV-. Gdańskie Towarzystwo Naukowe. Wroclaw: Zakład Narodowy im. Osso-
ińskich.
Kętrzyński, Stanislaw. 1945. "O imionach piastowskich do końca XI w.".
Sprawozdania z Czynnosci i Posiedzeń PAU 46.213-215.
Kielczewska, Maria. 1955. "Pomorze i Prusy". Język Polski 35.158.
Kondratiuk, Michal. 1974. Nazwy miejscowe poludniowo-wschodniej Bialo-
stocczyzny. Wroclaw: Zakiad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich.
Kopertowska, Danuta. 1980. Kieleckie antroponimy XVI i XVII wieku. Kielce:
Wyzsza Szkola Pedagogiczna.
Kosyl, Czeslaw. 1974. "O przechodzeniu nazw wlasnych do kategorii nazw pos-
politych". Onomastica 19.85-104.
Kosyl, Czeslaw. 1992. Nazwy wlasne w prozie Jaroslawa Iwaszkiewicza. Lublin:
Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu M. Curie-Sklodowskiej.
Kowalik-Kaleta, Zofia. 1981. Staropolskie nazwy osobowe motywowane przez
nazwy miejscowe. Wroclaw: Zakiad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich.
Kozierowski, Stanislaw. 1938. Nazwiska, przezwiska, przydomki, imiona polskie

niektórych typów slowotwórczych. Ksiçga rodzaju ludu polskiego. Poznan:
Druk S.A. "Ostoja". (Part II, Fasc.l, 1948.)
Kucala, Marian. 1951. "Slówko o zeñskich nazwiskach na wsi". Jçzyk Polski
30.182-184.
Kucaia, Marian. 1967. "Co jest, a co jeszcze nie jest nazwą własną". Onomastica
12.153-176.
Kupiszewski, Wladyslaw. 1974. Polskie slownictwo z zakresu astronomii i miar
czasu. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Kupiszewski, Wladyslaw. 1976. "Ekspresywne nazwy księzyca w języku pol-
skim". Prace Filologiczne 24.313-318.
Kuraszkiewicz, Wladyslaw. 1951. "Nazwiska na -owic w Warszawie XV-XVI
wieku". Jçzyk Polski 31.28-29.
Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1956. "La position linguistique de nom propre". Onomas
tica 2.1-14.
Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1980. "The Linguistic Status of Proper Nouns (Names)".
Onomastica 25.5-10.
Kurzowa, Zofia. 1973. "Nazwy osobowe na -o w onomastyce literackiej". Ono
mastica 18.173-196.
Lehr-Spławiński, Tadeusz. 1946. O pochodzeniu i praojczyznie Slowian. Poznan:
Instytut Zachodni.
Lehr-Splawiñski, Tadeusz. 1947. "Obodriti-Obodrzycy", Slavia Occidentalis
18.223-228.
Lehr-Splawiñski, Tadeusz. 1948. "Znowu o nazwie Slowian". Jçzyk Polski 38.
140-146.
Leyding-Mielecki, Gustaw. 1947. Slownik nazw miejscowych okrçgu mazur-
skiego, Part I. Olsztyn: Instytut Mazurski. (Part II: Nazwy fizjograficzne.
Poznań: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1959.)
Lubas, Wladyslaw. 1963. "Nazwy terenowe powiatu jasielskiego i kros-
nieńskiego" (Part I). Onomastica 7.195-236.
Lubas, Wladyslaw. 1964. "Nazwy terenowe powiatu jasielskiego i krosnieñs-
kiego" (Part II). Onomastica 9.123-163.
Lubas, Wladyslaw. 1968. Nazwy miejscowe poludniowej części dawnego
województwa krakowskiego. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich.
Lubas, Wladyslaw. 1973. "Onomastyka w systemie językowym (na przykladach
slowiańskich)". Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Slqskiego, Prace Językoznawcze
2.7-23.
Lesiów, Michal. 1972. Terenowe nazwy wlasne Lubelszczyzny. Lublin: Wyda
wnictwo Lubelskie.
Malec, Maria. 1971. Budowa morfologiczna staropolskich zlozonych imion
osobowych. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich.
Malec, Maria. 1982. Staropolskie skrócone nazwy osobowe od imion dwucz-
lonowych. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich.
Malee, Maria. 1994. Imiona chrzescijanskie w sredniowiecznej Polsce. Krakow:
Instytut Języka Polskiego PAN.
Malinowski, Lucjan. 1893. "Przeksztalcanie nazwisk". Prace Filologiczne 4.

659-660.
Mańczak, Witold. 1955. "O zasięgach typów polskich nazw miejscowych w XVI
w. (prócz Śląska i Pomorza)". Język Polski. 35.26-41.
Mañczak, Witold. 1984. "Nazwy wlasne a rzeczowniki pospolite". Nazwy wlasne
a wyrazy pospolite w języku i tekście ed. by Henryk Borek, 155-164. Opole:
Wyzsza Szkola Pedagogiczna.
Matuszewski, Jozef. 1975. Polskie nazwisko szlacheckie. Łódź: Lódzkie Towar-
zystwo Naukowe.
Mączyński, Jan. 1970. Nazwiska Łodzian (XV-XIX wiek). Łódź: Lódzkie Towar-
zystwo Naukowe.
Michalewski, Kazimierz. 1972. "Udzial imion wlasnych we wzbogacaniu
apelatywnyeh zasobów slownikowych". Rozprawy Komisji Językowej ŁTN
18.101-131.
Miklosich, Franz von. 1927. Die Bildung der slavischen Personen- und Orts
namen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Milewski, Tadeusz. 1952. "Nazwy miejscowe Ziem Odzyskanych". Poradnik
Językowy 10.24-37.
Milewski, Tadeusz. 1956. "Nowe prace o pochodzeniu polskiego jçzyka lite-
rackiego". Pochodzenie polskiego jçzyka literackiego. Studia staropolskie ed.
by Kazimierz Budzyk, vol.III, 60-81. Wroclaw: Zakład Narodowy im. Osso-
lińskich.
Milewski, Tadeusz. 1969. Indoeuropejskie imiona osobowe. Ibid.
Mlodziejowski, Jerzy. 1946. "Miedzie, największe jezioro Pomorza Kaszub-
skiego". Przeglqd Zachodni 2:2.124-130.
Moszyński, Kazimierz. 1957. Pierwotny zasięg języka praslowianskiego. Wroc
law: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.
Mrózek, Robert. 1984. Nazwy miejscowe dawnego Ślqska Cieszynskiego. Kato
wice: Uniwersytet Śląski.
Mrózek, Robert. 1990. System mikrotoponimiczny Slqska Cieszyńskiego XVIII
wieku. Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski.
Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1948a. "Pogadanki o imionach i nazwiskach. 2: Nazwiska od
ptaków i ... potraw". Język Polski 28.52-53.
Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1948b. "Mazury". Język Polski 28.85-86.
Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1950. "O pierwotną nazwę Szczecina". Język Polski 30.185.
Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1951. "Uwagi o nazwiskach kobiet zamęznych i panien".
Język Polski 31.62-68.
Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1954a. "O nazwach Pomorze i Prusy", Język Polski 34.312-
313.
Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1954b. "Pogadanka o niektórych nazwach pomorskich".
Język Polski 34.313-314.
Otrębski, Jan. 1935. O najdawniejszych polskich imionach osobowych. Wilno:
Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk w Wilnie.
Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1947. Slowianie. Rozwiqzanie odwiecznej zagadki ich nazwy.
Poznan: Księgarnia Ziem Zachodnich.
Ozdzyñski, Jan. 1973. "Nazwy polskich klubów sportowych". Rocznik Nau-

kowo Dydaktyczny WSP w Krakowie. Prace Językoznawcze 2.99-124.
Pawtowski, Eugeniusz. 1966. Nazwy miejscowe Sqdecczyzny, Part I. Ogólna cha-
rakterystyka nazewnictwa miejscowego Sqdecczyzny. Krakow: Wyzsza Szkoia
Pedagogiczna.
Pawlowski, Eugeniusz. 1971. Nazwy miejscowosci Sqdecczyzny. Part II. Nazwy
miasty wsi, przysiólków oraz dzielnic miejskich i wiejskich. Wroclaw: Zakiad
Pawtowski, Eugeniusz. 1984. Nazwy terenowe ziemi sqdeckiej. Wroclaw: Zakład
Piekosiñski, Franciszek. 1896 [vols. I & II], 1902 [vol. III]. Rycerstwo polskie
wieków średnich. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Akademii Umiejętności.
Pisarkowa, Krystyna. 1972. "Nazwy nowoczesnych zespolów muzycznych
(zespoly obce)". Onomastica 17.167-186.
Polañski, Kazimierz, ed. 1995. Encyklopedia językoznawstwa ogólnego. Wroclaw:
Zakiad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich.
Rieger, Janusz. 1969. Nazwy wodne dorzecza Sana. Wroclaw: Zakiad Narodowy
im. Ossoliñskich.
Rieger, Janusz & Ewa Wolnicz-Pawlowska. 1975. Nazwy rzeczne w dorzeczu
Warty. Wroclaw: Zakiad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich.
Rospond, Stanislaw. 1947a. "Pierwotna nazwa Szczecina a póinocno-zachodnia
granica Polski Piastowskiej". Slavia Occidentalis 18.291-304.
Rospond, Stanislaw. 1947b. "Repolonizacja imion i nazwisk". Komunikaty
Instytutu Slqskiego series 7, No 9.
Rospond, Stanislaw. 1955. "Ślęza i jej derywaty". Onomastica 1.7-40.
Rospond, Stanislaw. 1956. "Problem genezy polskiego języka literackiego".
Pochodzenie polskiego języka literackiego. Studia staropolskie ed. by Kazi
mierz Budzyk, vol.III, 117-177. Wroclaw: Zakiad Narod. im. Ossoliñskich.
Rospond, Stanislaw. 1957, Klasyfikacja strukturalno-gramatyczna slowiańskich
nazw geograficznych. Wroclaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Rospond, Stanislaw. 1964a. Patronimiczne nazwy miejscowe na Slqsku. Wroclaw:
Zakiad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich.
Rospond, Stanislaw. 1964b. "Struktura i klasyfikacja slowiańskich antropo-
nimów". Biuletyn PTJ 24.203-224.
Rospond, Stanislaw. 1967 Part I: A-F: 1973 Part II: G-K. Slownik nazwisk
Slqskich. Wroclaw: Zakiad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich.
Rospond, Stanislaw. 1969. Slowiańskie nazwy miejscowe z sufiksem -b sk-. Wroc
law: Zakiad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich.
Rospond, Stanislaw. 1974. "Nazewnictwo literackie Jana Kochanowskiego".
Kwartalnik Opolski. 20:2.109-116.
Rozwadowski, Jan. 1906. "Krytyczne uwagi o praojczyznie Slowian (Studia nad
nazwami wód slowiańskich)". Part II. Sprawozdania z Czynnosci i Posiedzen
AU w Krakowie 11/3.2.
Rozwadowski, Jan. 1913. "Kilka uwag do przedhistorycznych stosunków
wschodniej Europy i praojczyzny indoeuropejskiej na podstawie nazw wód".
Rocznik Slawistyczny 6.39-58.
Rozwadowski, Jan. 1922. Nazwy Wisly i jej dorzecza. (= Monografía Wisly, 2.)
Warszawa: Polskie Towarzystwo Krajoznawcze. (Repr. in Studia nad nazwami
wód slowiańskich: Prace onomastyczne PAU No.1.280-303. Krakow 1948.)
Rudnicki, Mikolaj. 1948a. "Golensizi = Golęzycy?". Slavia Occidentalis 19.
377-378.
Rudnicki, Mikoiaj. 1948b. Nazwy Odry i jej wazniejszych doplywów. Monografía
Odry. Poznan: Instytut Zachodni.
Rudnicki, Mikoiaj. 1954/56. "Lech i Piast". Slavia Antiqua 5.76-82.
Rudnicki, Mikołaj. 1955. "Slupa". Onomastica 1.121-127.
Rymut, Kazimierz. 1967. Nazwy miejscowe pólnocnej częsci województwa kra-
kowskiego. Wroclaw: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich.
Rymut, Kazimierz. 1968. "Toponomastyka w sluzbie badań historyczno-osad-
niczych". Onomastica 3.7-24.
Rymut, Kazimierz. 1992-1994. Slownik nazwisk wspólczesnie w Polsce uzy-
wanych. Vols. 1-10. Krakow: Instytut Języka Polskiego PAN.
Rzetelska-Feleszko, Ewa. 1978, Rozwój i zmiany toponimicznego formantu -ica
na obszarze zachodnioslowianskim. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narod. im. Ossoliñskich.
Safarewicz, Jan. 1950. "Dyskusja nad nazwą, Nysa". Rocznik Slawistyczny 16.
138-151.
Safarewiczowa, Halina. 1956. Nazwy miejscowe typu Mroczkowizna, Klimo-
ntowszczyzna. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich.
Semkowicz, Wladysław. 1946. "Geneza imienia Mieszko". Inter Arma, Zbiór
prac ofiarowanych prof. Kazimierzowi Nitschowi w siedemdziesiqtq rocznicę
urodzin przez przyjaciól i uczniów. 67-84. Kraków: Uniwersytet Jagielloñski.
Siudut, Andrzej. 1948. "Nazwiska polskie z przyrostkiem -ut" Slavia Occi
dentalis 19.389-397.
Siudut, Andrzej. 1955. "Trzy zagadkowe imiona". Onomastica 1.166-168.
Slawski, Franciszek. 1974. Slownik praslowiañski. Vol. I. Wroclaw: Zaklad Naro
dowy im. Ossoliñskich.
Smoczyñski, Pawel. 1962. "Nomina appellativa i propria we wzajemnym od-
dzialywaniu słowotwórczym", Biuletyn PTJ 21.62-82.
Stieber, Zdzisław. 1951. "Uwaga o Szczecinie". Język Polski 31.33-34.
Strutyñski, Janusz. 1972. Polskie nazwy ptaków krajowych. Wroclaw: Zaklad
Strutyñski, Janusz. 1996. Urbozoonimia polska. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Tomasz
Strutyñski.
Supranowicz, Elzbieta. 1996. Nazwy ulic Krakowa. Kraków: Instytut Języka Pol
skiego PAN.
Sumía, Genowefa. 1990. Toponimia powiatu bytowskiego. Wroclaw: Zaklad
Sychta, Bernard. 1956. "Przezwiska u Kaszubów". Jçzyk Polski 36.97-108 and
205-217.
Szymczak, Mieczyslaw. 1951. "Z dziejów wyrazu chrobry". Prace Polonistycz-
ne 9.8-12.
Szymczak, Mieczyslaw. 1980. "Wlasciwosci znaczeniowe wyrazów utworzonych
w języku polskim od nazw wlasnych". Poradnik Językowy 3.105-112.
Smiech, Witold. 1956. "Historia nazw miejscowych z przyrostkiem *-ov- na te-

renie dawnego powiatu sieradzkiego". Rozprawy Komisji Językowej ŁTN 4.77-
86
Smiech, Witold. 1996. Przymiotnikowe nazwy terenowe Polski. Edited posthu
mously by Siawomir Gala. Łódź: Łódzkie Towarzystwo Naukowe.
Taszycki, Witold. 1924. Polskie nazwy osobowe. Krakow: Gebethner & Wolff.
Taszycki, Witold. 1925. Najdawniejsze polskie imiona osobowe. Krakow: Polska
Akademia Umiejçtnosci.
Taszycki, Witold. 1934. Z dawnych podzialów dialektalnych jçzyka polskiego.
Part 1. Przejscie ra w re; Part 2. Przejscie ja w je. Lwów: Archiwum Towarzyst-
wa Naukowego we Lwowie.
Taszycki, Witold. 1946a. "O nazwach Śląsk i Slçzanie". Jçzyk Polski 26.155-
156.
Taszycki, Witold. 1946b. Slowiañskie nazwy miejscowe (Ustalenie podziału).
Krakow: Polska Akademia Umiejçtnosci.
Taszycki, Witold. 1946c. I. "Sladami jçzyka polskiego na Śląsku". II. "Śląskie
nazwy plemienne". III. "Imiona dawnych Ślązaków". Śląsk 3/4.12-16.
Taszycki, Witold. 1948. "Polszczenie imion i nazwisk". Przeglqd Zachodni
4:7/8.148-149.
Taszycki, Witold. 1949. "Sudeckie nazwy górskie". Przeglqd Zachodni 5:7/8.
110-122.
Taszycki, Witold. 1951. Patronimiczne nazwy miejscowe na Mazowszu. Krakow:
Polska Akademia Umiejçtnosci.
Taszycki, Witold. 1956. "Geneza polskiego jçzyka literackiego w swietle faktów
historycznojęzykowych". Pochodzenie polskiego jçzyka literackiego. Studia
staropolskie ed. by Kazimierz Budzyk, vol.Ill, 30-59. Wroclaw: Zakład Naro-
dowy im. Ossolińskich.
Taszycki, Witold. 1963. "Stosunek onomastyki do innych nauk humani-
stycznych". Onomastica 8.1-18.
Taszycki, Witold, ed. 1965-1987. Słownik staropolskieh nazw osobowych. Vols.
I-VII. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich.
Tokarzówna, Krystyna. 1954. "Przydomki górali szczawnickich". Lud 41.728-
735.
Treder, Jerzy. 1977. Toponimia byłego powiatu puckiego. Wroclaw: Zaklad
Treder, Jerzy. 1979. "Nazwy jezior w powiecie wejherowskim". Prace Filolo-
giczne 28.249-270.
Tymieniecki, Kazimierz. 1949. "Lędzicze (Lechici), czyli Wielkopolska w wieku
IX". Przeglqd Wielkopolski 2.161-172.
Ulaszyn, Henryk. 1950. Znaczenie nazw Wielkopolska i Malopolska. Lodz:
Lódzkie Towarzystwo Naukowe.
Urbańczyk, Stanislaw. 1946. "O imię pierwszego historycznego ksiçcia Polski".
Inter Arma, Zbiór prac ofiarowanych prof. Kazimierzowi Nitschowi w sie-
demdziesiqtq rocznicę urodzin przez przyjaciól i uczniów, 107-117. Kraków:
Uniwersytet Jagielloński.
Urbañczyk, Stanislaw. 1948. "O pochodzeniu nazwy Szczecin". Szczecin 3:29.3.
Urbańczyk, Stanislaw. 1950. "O pierwotną nazwę Szczecina". Przeglqd Zachod-

ni 6:1.502-506.
Urbaiiczyk, Stanislaw. 1954. "Mieclaw (Maslaw): Ksiązę mazowiecki". Slavia
Antiqua 4.350-356.
Urbańczyk, Stanislaw. 1956. "Glos w dyskusji o pochodzeniu polskiego języka
literackiego". Pochodzenie polskiego języka literackiego. Studia staropolskie,
ed. by Kazimierz Budzyk, vol.III, 82-101. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im.
Ossolińskich.
Warchol, Stefan. 1964. Nazwy miast Lubelszczyzny. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Lubel-
skie.
Warchol, Stefan. 1970, 1971. "Slowiaiiskie nazwy osobowe z sufiksami -ula, -ul
(na tie formacji odapelatywnych)". Onomastica 15.202-233, 16.186-210.
Warchol, Stefan, ed. 1996. Systemy zoonimiczne w językach slowiañskich. (= Roz-
prawy Slawistyczne UMCS, 11.) Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu M. Curie-
Sklodowskiej.
Widajewicz, Jozef. 1949. "Masudi o Wieletach". Pamiętnik Slowiański 1.55-82.
Wilkoń, Aleksander. 1970. Nazewnictwo w utworach Stefana Zeromskiego. Wroc
law: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich.
Wisla. 1887-1905. 19 vols. Warszawa: A. Gruszecki.
Wisla. 1916-1917. Vol. XX. Warszawa: M. Arct.
Wojciechowski, Tadeusz. 1873. Chrobacja: Rozbiór starozytnosci slowiañskich.
Krakow: "Kraj".
Wolff, Adam & Ewa Rzetelska-Feleszko. 1982. Mazowieckie nazwy terenowe do
konca XVI wieku. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Wolnicz-Pawlowska, Ewa. 1993. Antroponimia lemkowska na tle polskim i sło-
wackim XVI-XIX wiek. Warszawa: Instytut Slawistyki PAN.
Zadrozny, Jerzy. 1952. "Jablonkowskie przydomki, jablonkowskie przezwiska".
Zwrot 4:10.9-10.
Zają.czkowski, Stanislaw. 1953. "W sprawie plemion Lęczycan i Sieradzan". Sla
via Antiqua 4.117-129.
Zakrzewski, Zbigniew. 1971. Nazwy osobowe i historyczne ulic Poznania. Poz
nan: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie.
Zaręba, Alfred. 1968. "Dialektologia i onomastyka". Onomastica 13.7-24.
Zaręba, Alfred. 1979. ''Osobowe nazwy wlasne i ich miejsce w systemie języko-
wym". Poradnik Językowy 1.1-22.
Zierhoffer, KaroL 1957. Nazwy miejscowe pólnocnego Mazowsza. Wroclaw: Za
klad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich.
Zwoliński, Przemyslaw. 1950. "Funkcja slowotwórcza elementu -slaw w staro-
polskich imionach osobowych". Biuletyn PTJ 10.166-185.
Zwoliñski, Przemyslaw. 1954. "Nazwy toni rybackich jeziora Sniardwy", Język
Polski 35. 286-304.
Zwoliñski, Przemyslaw, ed. 1965. HydronimiaWisly. Part I: Wykaz nazw w układ-
zie hydrograficznym. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich.
PART II
PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS
CHAPTER 6
JAN BAUDOUIN DE COURTENAY'S
CONTRIBUTION TO GENERAL LINGUISTICS*
ARLETA ADAMSKA-SAŁACIAK
Adam Mickiewicz University
1. Introduction
Jan Ignacy Niecisiaw Baudouin de Courtenay (1845-1929) is probably
one of the most interesting and complex figures of the linguistics of his time.
He was one of the chief precursors of structuralist linguistics, father of several
linguistic schools, and a role model for generations of Polish scholars. Pre
senting his scholarly profile in a few pages is a daunting task, not only because
a lot has already been written about him,1 but also because his impressive
scholarly output does not lend itself to neat pigeon-holing.
Among the areas of linguistics to which Baudouin made important contri
butions one finds, among others: phonetics and phonology, historical linguis
tics, psycho- and sociolinguistics, contrastive linguistics, dialectology, lan
guage typology, lexicology and lexicography. He was also a distinguished
Slavist and Indo-Europeanist.
If one disregards the list of 22 principles of linguistics formulated in his au
tobiographical note (Baudouin 1897:33-35), Baudouin never produced any
thing approaching a synthesis of his views. We are told by his contemporaries
(e.g., Rozwadowski 1929) that, looking back at his long career, he repri
manded himself for having frittered away his energies on too many diverse
topics.
An author dealing with Baudouin is thus confronted with the sheer bulk of
his production (over 400 publications, mostly scattered in obscure periodicals)
and hampered by the lack of a major synthetic oeuvre. Additionally, there is the
awareness that, since only a tiny fraction of Baudouin's work has been trans
lated into English, the burden of responsibility to one's Western readers is
perhaps greater than usual.
* This chapter first appeared as an article in Historiographia Linguistica 25:1/2.25-60 (1998).

1
See especially Häusler (1968), Koerner (1972), Šaradzenidze (1980), Mugdan (1984), and
Rieger & Szymczak (1989).
176 PORTRAITS OF MAJOR POLISH LINGUISTS
Owing to the preceding observations, some self-imposed restrictions seem

to be in order. I have decided to concentrate on what is likely to be of interest
to students of general linguistics (thus ignoring, e.g., Baudouin's achieve
ments in the area of Slavic), and on what is of special interest to me personally
(hence the noticeable bias towards Baudouin's treatment of language change). 2
This seems to me to be a more fruitful path to follow than attempting to pro
duce a paper of comparable size dealing with a larger number of issues, but in
a more perfunctory way. The References at the end should provide a reason
ably exhaustive guide for readers wishing to find out more about any particular
topic connected with Baudouin.
Where possible, I have tried to let my subject speak in his own voice, both
in order to give the readers a taste of his — admittedly heavy — prose, and,
more importantly, in order to minimise the danger of misrepresenting his
thoughts. 3
2. Biographical sketch4
Baudouin was descended from a long line of French aristocrats which went
back to the 13th century and which died out in France by 1730. Some time be
fore that date two of Baudouin's impoverished ancestors had migrated to
Poland. One of the brothers, a colonel of artillery, became head of the foreign
court-guard of King August II; the other founded the famous Hospital of the
Infant Jesus for abandoned children in Warsaw. The colonel's son (Bau
douin's great-grandfather) was chamberlain and advisor to the last Polish king,
Stanislaw August Poniatowski. He became fairly well-known as a translator of
Molière and author of numerous works on mesmerism. Baudouin's father was
a land surveyor and his mother came from the landed gentry; they had twelve
children and lived a life typical of 19th-century Polish intelligentsia.
Baudouin himself was born in 1845 in Radzymin near Warsaw. Despite
his French background, and the fact that he spent merely a fraction of his life in
an independent Poland, the testimony of one of his daughters (Małachowska
1973) makes it clear that Baudouin thought of himself as a Pole. At the same
2
A subject treated in considerable detail in Adamska-Saiaciak (1996).
3
Unless indicated otherwise, all translations into English are mine: AA-S.
4
This section is based on a number of published sources — including Baudouin (1897),
Bulič (1897), Rozwadowski (1929), Jakobson (1929), Korbut (1930), Szober (1930),
Uiaszyn (1934), Nitsch (1935), Vasmer (1947), Leont'ev (1960), Vinogradov (1963), Häusler
(1968), Koerner (1972; 1973[1971]:138-147), Stankiewicz (1972), Malachowska (1973),
Šaradzenidze (1980), Mugdan (1984), Rusek (1989), Stachurski (1989), Urbańczyk (1989) —
and on personal communication with Prof. Magdalena Smoczyńska of the Jagiellonian Uni
versity.
JAN BAUDOUIN DE COURTENAY 177
Picture of the young Baudouin de Courtenay
time, being passionately opposed to all forms of nationalism and institution

alised religion, he insisted that every individual had the right to belong to the
nation and denomination of his choice, including no nation and no denomina

tion.5
In 1862 Baudouin entered the historical-philological faculty of the newly
opened Warsaw University (called Szkoła Główna "Main School"). When,
two years later, the faculty split into three departments, he chose Slavic philol
ogy. In his own view (Baudouin 1897:22), he was an autodidact from the
start, pursuing, apart from curricular subjects, the study of Sanskrit, Lithua
nian, and of the physiology of sounds. It was also around that time that he de
veloped a profound interest in psychology, thanks mainly to contact with the
works of Steinthal.
After receiving his master's degree in 1866, Baudouin was sent abroad in
order to prepare for a professorial career at the Szkola Główna. He went to
Prague, Jena and Berlin, spending at most a semester in each place, but com
ing into contact with some of the most prominent linguists and natural scien
tists of his time.
In the years 1868-1870 Baudouin studied in St. Petersburg under Izmail
Ivanovic Sreznevskij (1812-1880), who encouraged his incipient interest in
dialectology. In 1870 he spent some months in Leipzig, where, at the insti
gation of his former fellow-student at Jena, August Leskien (1840-1916), he
received a doctorate for "Einige Fälle der Wirkung der Analogie in der polni
schen Declination" (which had appeared in 1868 in a journal edited by August
Schleicher and Adalbert Kuhn). It was also in Leipzig that he published O
drevne-pol'shorn jazyke do XIVgo stoletija (1870),6 a work for which he was
awarded an M. A. by the University of St. Petersburg (the Warsaw degree was
not recognised in Russia) and offered the post of privat-docent of comparative
grammar.
Baudouin might have preferred to go elsewhere, but in the end he had little
choice. In 1871 the historical-philological faculty of Kiev University nomi
nated him to the post of docent of comparative grammar, but the university
council vetoed the decision on the grounds of the candidate's nationality. For
the same reason, and despite earlier promises, he was not wanted at his War
saw alma mater, by then completely Russified. Finally, having once held a
scholarship from the Russian government, he could not accept the post of pro
fessor of Slavic offered him by the Jagiellonian University in Cracow, which
was then under Austro-Hungarian administration. This scenario of settling for
second best was to be repeated more than once in the course of his subsequent
career.
5
See excerpts from his letter to Arnošt Muka (1854-1932) in Besta (1962:440).
6
English translations of all Polish and Russian titles are given in the References.
In 1872 the Russian Academy agreed to finance Baudouin's fieldwork on

the Slovenian dialects of southern Austria and northern Italy, a study under
taken at the suggestion of Sreznevskij. Apart from providing the eager young
scholar with the opportunity to attend Ascoli's lectures in Milan and Leskien's
lectures in Leipzig, the trip ultimately resulted in Opytfonetiki rez'janskix gov-
orov (1875), a work which earned him a doctorate from St. Petersburg.
Meanwhile, in 1874, the University of Kazan offered Baudouin the post of do-
cent of comparative grammar. He moved there in the autumn of 1875, soon
after defending his dissertation. In August 1876 he married Cezaria Pryfke,
whom he had known since his student days in Warsaw.
Baudouin was to stay in Kazan until 1883, although he never ceased to
complain of the place's provincialism and his scholarly isolation. A brighter
aspect of his stay there was that he managed to attract some highly motivated
and talented students with whom he met regularly not only at the university,
but also privately, during weekly seminars at which original papers were read
and new developments in Western linguistics discussed. The group of enthusi
asts included V. A. Bogorodickij, S. K. Bulič, W. Radloff, and, last but not
least, Mikołaj Habdank Kruszewski (1851-1887), with whom, for a few sem
inal years, Baudouin collaborated very closely. Unfortunately, towards the end
of Baudouin's Kazan period, the views of the two scholars started to diverge;
not long afterwards, Kruszewski became terminally ill and died at the age of
thirty-six. Both facts filled Baudouin with a bitterness discernible in virtually
all his subsequent writings in which reference is made to the so-called Kazan
School. An even more personal tragedy had struck earlier: in 1878 Baudouin's
wife, pregnant with twins, had died at her parents' house in Warsaw, where
she had gone in the hope of having a safer delivery.
In the academic year 1881-1882 Baudouin applied for a sabbatical, pro
posing to devote it to a continuation of his fieldwork on Slovenian dialects. As
it happened, he used the leave primarily to refresh his contacts with Western
scholarship. He went to the Third International Congress of Geography in
Venice, participated in several sessions of the Société de linguistique de Paris
(meeting Saussure,7 Bréal and Havet, and receiving life membership in the
society), and spent some time in Leipzig, working on his dialectological data
and studying Celtic with Ernst Windisch (1843-1918). In January 1882 he
married Romualda Bagnicka, a student of the historical-philological faculty at
the St. Petersburg Higher School for Women. She was later to become a
recognised author (mainly of historical and biographical works) and a cam-
7
See Sljusareva (1974) for information on the subsequent correspondence between the two
scholars.
paigner for women's rights, particularly active in the fight for the admission of
women to universities. The couple had five children, whose speech Baudouin
studied systematically for 19 years (1885-1904).8
In 1883 they moved to Dorpat (now Tartu in Estonia), where Baudouin re
ceived the newly founded Chair of Comparative Slavic Grammar. Owing to its
geographical location (closer to the West) and to the fact that the university was
German-speaking, Baudouin must have considered it to be an improvement
upon Kazan, though still a far cry from what he aspired to.9 He taught general
linguistics, Slavic and Lithuanian, studied Armenian, Estonian, Latvian and
Arabic, and took courses in higher mathematics and speech pathology. It was
during the Dorpat period that he wrote his most important theoretical studies,
including Mikołaj Kruszewski, jego zycie iprace naukowe (1888-1889), O za-
daniach językoznawstwa (1890), and O ogólnychprzyczynach zmian dźwięko-
wych (1890).
In 1893, having worked in Russia for the twenty-five years entitling him to
early retirement, Baudouin was finally able to transfer to Cracow, where he be
came titular professor of comparative linguistics. His best-known publication
from the period is the treatise on sound alternations, Proba teorji alternacyj
fonetycznych (1894), whose German version was published the following
year (Baudouin 1895).
In addition to fulfilling his professorial duties at the Jagiellonian University
and being a spectacularly active member of the Academy of Sciences, Bau
douin organised private seminars for academics and advanced students of lin
guistics, as well as presided over linguistic discussions open to university lec
turers and distinguished secondary school teachers. His influence on the intel
lectual life of Cracow was immense. Working at what was essentially a Polish
university,10 surrounded once again by a group of dedicated students (includ
ing Kazimierz Nitsch, Stanislaw Szober, Henryk Ułaszyn, and Tytus Benni —
all later to become distinguished scholars in their own right), Baudouin was
finally reasonably happy. Sadly, extending his stay in Cracow proved impos
sible, since the ministry of education in Vienna, under some pressure from
Baudouin's enemies at the university,11 refused to renew his five-year con-
8
For details, see Chmura-Klekotowa (1974:6).
9 From Baudouin's copious correspondence with his friends and colleagues, extending over
many decades, we learn of his dashed hopes regarding various academic posts, one example
being the chair of Slavic in Vienna (Seldeslachts & Swiggers 1999:283).
10
The Polish territories administered from Vienna enjoyed a considerable degree of cultural
autonomy compared with those under Russian or Prussian rule,
11
Mostly conservative Catholics, resentful of his professed agnosticism and his passion for
social reform.
tract. The immediate reason was, allegedly, a pamphlet in which Baudouin

attacked the corrupt practices of the Austro-Hungarian administration; a less di
rect reason may have been his interest in the Slavic languages, which was in
terpreted by Hungarian nationalists as a symptom of dangerous 'panslavism'.
As a result, Baudouin, still technically a Russian citizen, returned to St. Pe
tersburg. In addition to general linguistics and phonetics, his interests now en
compassed lexicology, lexicography and language typology; he also continued
to delve deeper and deeper into the psychological substrate of linguistic phe
nomena. In 1904 he published Szkice językoznawcze, an important collection
of essays written in earlier periods and scattered in various Polish, Russian and
German periodicals. In 1907 he entered into a polemic with the Leipzig profes
sors Brugmann and Leskien (1907), declaring himself a staunch supporter of
artificial languages. He published a number of textbooks for students of vari
ous Slavic languages, as well as a highly successful introduction to linguistics,
Vvedenie v jazykovedenije (1917[1909]). Much as in Kazan a quarter of a cen
tury earlier, he again raised a group of first-rate linguists. One of his disciples,
Lev Vladimirovic Scerba (1880-1944), was later to become the head of yet
another linguistic school — known in Soviet historiography as the Leningrad
School — whose major achievement was the development of Baudouin's ideas
in phonology.
However respected he may have been as a scholar, Baudouin's political
sympathies did little to endear him to the tsarist regime. The situation became
critical when in 1913, true to his lifelong commitment to social justice, he pub
lished a pamphlet on the suppression of the rights of national minorities in the
empire. The move resulted in his suspension from the university and a two-
year prison sentence. He was released from prison after a few months, with
the outbreak of World War I, but all his personal property, including linguistic
documentation gathered painstakingly over many years, was lost in the wake
of the war and the Bolshevik Revolution,
After the revolution Baudouin briefly resumed his duties at St. Petersburg.
Upon the re-emergence of an independent Polish state in 1918 he took the
Chair of Indo-European Linguistics at the University of Warsaw, where he
was to remain for the rest of his life. During that final decade he continued to
be active as a scholar, pedagogue, and indefatigable writer on ethical, social
and political issues. His personal integrity had won him immense respect, par
ticularly with those social groups in whose defence he had frequently risked
his career: he was even the minorities' candidate for the presidency of Poland
in 1922. Recognition of his professional achievement resulted in the appear
ance in 1921 of the first Festschrift ever to be devoted to a Polish linguist.
In 1922 Baudouin spent some time in Prague, lecturing on the classifica

tion of languages; in 1923, at the invitation of Holger Pedersen (1867-1953),
he went to Copenhagen to give a lecture on the influence of language on world-
view (published as Baudouin de Courtenay 1929). This was to be his last trip
abroad. He died in Warsaw in 1929.
3. Baudouin's views on language

In various places Baudouin characterised language in various ways. Al
though the characterisations are not mutually exclusive, they are usually given
in passing, which does not facilitate interpretation. To start with, language is
not a (Schleicherian) organism, but one of the functions of an organism (Bau
douin 1869). It is also defined, in a Humboldtian manner, as 'a universal reac
tion of the spirit to the incitements or stimuli of the world' (1990[1903]: 335),
the formative organ for thought, or a kind of world-view. Given its origin and
functioning, language is — again in Humboldtian terms — both an ergon and
energeia, the latter aspect being responsible for the ubiquity of change, the
former justifying conscious attempts at language improvement on the part of its
users. This ergon-cum-energeia nature of language underlies Baudouin's
(1907) defence of artificial languages:12
Die Sprache ist weder ein in sich geschlossener Organismus, noch ein unantastbarer
Abgott, sondern ein Werkzeug und eine Tätigkeit. Und der Mensch hat nicht nur das
Recht, sondern geradezu die soziale Pflicht, seine Werkzeuge zweckmäßig zu ver
bessern, oder sogar die schon bestehenden Werkzeuge durch andere bessere zu erset
zen. (1907:394)
Die Sprache ist wohl ein viel komplizierteres Gebilde, als z.B. ein Gedicht oder ein
Musikstück, aber es ist auch gewissermaßen ein Kunstprodukt. Neben der 'kollek
tiven' Schöpfung einer ganzen Sprachgenossenschaft ist auch hier eine individuelle
schöpferische Tätigkeit hervorragender Erfinder denkbar. (1907:397)
In the nature-culture debate Baudouin would thus seem to stand some
where in the middle, conceiving of language as both a function of the human
organism and a cultural product.
Baudouin was a uniformitarianist In his view, the essential features of lan
guage, including its poly genetic origin, followed from the identity of the phy
siological and psychological constitution of all humans. Uniformitarianism also
lay at the heart of his belief that any language at any time must be a mixture of
old and new elements, since this is what one finds in the living languages
available for inspection.
12
Note that original emphasis has been retained in all quotations.
Most importantly, Baudouin's concept of language was psychological, as

evidenced by his oft-repeated dictum that a language exists only in the minds of
its speakers:
Language is a psychical phenomenon through and through. The basis for all its mani
festations is exclusively psychical, cerebral. (1904[1888—1889]: 165)
In particular, Baudouin insisted that what he called "the people's feeling for
the language" (Russ. čut' je jazyka narodom) was something real and objective
ly verifiable:
The people's feeling for the language is not a fiction, not a subjective delusion, but a
real, positive category (function), which can be determined by its properties and ef
fects, confirmed objectively, proven by facts. (1990[1871]:48)
This psychological bias became more pronounced with time, reaching a
culmination in Baudouin de Courtenay (1915). Contrary to Jakobson's claim
(1971:417ff.), however, it is evident not only in Baudouin's post-Kazan
period, but virtually in all his writings (cf. Bulič 1897:47).
Although psychologism was exceedingly common in 19th-century linguis
tics, Baudouin's own version of it appears somewhat idiosyncratic. In addition
to drawing upon associative psychology, it also contains elements of ethnopsy-
chology. 13 This has created a difficulty for later commentators, some of whom
have dubbed Baudouin a 'psychologist', others a 'sociologist', 14 while still
others — such as Čikobava (1959) or Leont'ev (1965) — have used both la
bels in different combinations. If one insists on characterising his stance in
those terms, the last option seems the most sensible one, Baudouin's 'psy-
chologism' does indeed appeal' to be combined with a 'sociologism' of sorts.
As already indicated, the latter is rather peculiar. For Baudouin there was no
such thing as a collective soul or a collective language, no society other than
the average of individuals, and no ethnopsychology in the literal sense. Unlike
Steinthal, Lazarus or Wundt, he never talked of the national language as a
manifestation and measure of the national spirit; in fact, he hardly ever talked
of the national spirit at all. This is understandable, given his decisive rejection
of all personification in science (cf. Mugdan 1984:145), as well as his pro
found distaste for anything even vaguely suggestive of nationalism. 15 Still,
like Steinthal, he looked upon language as the linguistic activity of groups of
13
This may have bothered those (including the ethnopsychologist Wundt himself) who re
garded Herbartian associationism and Völkerpsychologie as incompatible; cf. Wundt's (1901)
exchange with Delbrück (1901),
14
For details, see Saradzenidze (1980:32n.l3).
15
For some exemplary evidence, see Baudouin de Courtenay (1908); for more discussion see
Rothstein (1989).
people making up a society. Accordingly, he approved of the central idea be

hind Völkerpsychologie, viz. that individual psychology must be supplemented
by sociological considerations. He gave the ususal raison d'être for a 'psy
chology of the people', namely, that the development of such phenomena as
language, myths, customs etc. did not normally depend on individual acts of
will.
One would look in vain for a coherent theory of language as a social phe
nomenon among Baudouin's theoretical pronouncements, most of which do
not go beyond slogans of the type:
The existence of language is only possible within a society. (1904[1888-89]:128)
However, Baudouin's work with concrete linguistic data testifies to his
profound awareness of the role of the social in language. As early as in the
1870 monograph, he is to be found making a largely successful attempt at re
constructing the phonetic features of different Old Polish dialects on the basis
of historical documents. What we now call socially conditioned synchronic
variation figures prominently in the writings based on his own fieldwork.
Analyses such as that of the loss of h or the variable realisation of word-final
consonants in the Resia dialects (1875 and many later mentions) distinctly re
semble subsequent work in sociolinguistics, a discipline of which Baudouin is
rightly considered to have been a forerunner (see, e.g., Rothstein 1975, Stone
1989).
In sum, Baudouin seems to have realised that the language-society nexus
was far more complicated than allowed for in current linguistic theory. Para
doxically, he paid a high price for his innovative frame of mind. It seems o b
vious — if only from a cursory glance at Jakobson's writings on the Kazan
School — that Baudouin's "precocious, premature and unappreciated discov
ery of what is now called sociolinguistics and, following from that, his im
mersion in what is now called psycholinguistics" (Olmsted 1989:26) proved
damaging to his reputation as a structuralist, costing him the loss of influence
over scholars who embraced this new direction in linguistics.
4. Baudouin's views on linguistics

Baudouin was distinctly unhappy with the natural-historical dichotomy, so
popular in his time in the classification of the sciences:
Contrasting 'historicalness' with 'naturalness' is illogical, and smacks of contrast
ing, e.g., length with youth, or weight with colour. (1904[1888-1889]:127)
Linguistics was for him a discipline sui generis. When forced to think in
terms of the simplistic dichotomy, he suggested that linguistics was a psycho
logical-historical discipline by virtue of its attitude to the object investigated,
whereas its method, as well as its whole internal organisation, brought it close
to the natural sciences (Baudouin 1963[1869]:37; 1881b:278).
Believing firmly in the psychological character of language, he stressed the
links between linguistics and psychology, demanding that all linguists be fa
miliar with the principles of psychology (Baudouin 1904[1901]:6).
Another issue that figures prominently in his reflections on the nature of
linguistics as a science is the relation between the linguistic past and present. It
has often been suggested that the synchronic/descriptive and the diachronic
study of language are equally important in Baudouin's work. This is true
enough, if we take his division of linguistics to be analogous to that champi
oned later by de Saussure. Such an assumption is wholly justified for a large
part of Baudouin's work. However, in a number of writings — e.g., in Bau
douin (1889, 1890, 1897, or 1899) — we see an attempt to introduce a three
fold division of linguistics, corresponding to the three interrelated aspects of
language: the static, the dynamic, and the historical. None of the three is co
extensive with either half of the Saussurean dichotomy. Baudouin's statics is a
limiting case of dynamics, an abstraction (for the purposes of description) from
the real behaviour of languages, which exhibit change also in their synchrony:
In language, as in nature in general, everything is alive, everything is moving and
changing. All stillness, rest, stagnation, is only apparent: a special case of move
ment in conditions of minimal change. The statics of language is but a special case
of its dynamics [...] (1897:34)
Dynamics is the central part of linguistics, the one which reflects the ever-
changing reality of language and looks for the causes of the changeability. The
third member of the triad, history, would seem to be a mere chronicle, a non-
causal account of the sequence of events in the tribal/national language. Bau
douin declared history to be marginal in his work, since his professed concern
was with development, i.e., with what can only happen in the individual lan
guage. In practice, the investigation of tribal/national languages played a much
more important role in his work than he was willing to admit. In Baudouin
(1922), for instance, he deals with the history of the (average, collective etc.)
Polish language, and not with the development of the languages of individual
Poles. Little is altered by his insistence that the history of a language equals the
history of mental representations, as in the following:
[...] what is the internal history of the Polish language a history of? It is by no
means a history of transient phonetic-acoustic or graphic-visual phenomena, indis
pensable for interpersonal interaction in the domain of human language or speech,
but a history of the representations corresponding to those phenomena and stored in
individual human souls. (1983[1922]:101)
In sum, regarding the synchrony ~ diachrony issue, it is probably fair to

say that, while one cannot equate Baudouin's and de Saussure's views on the
matter, one must not overestimate their differences either. In both cases the un
derlying division is between the unchanging (Baudouin's statics, Saussure's
synchrony) and the changing (Baudouin's dynamics, Saussure's diachrony).
Superimposed upon this distinction is Baudouin's notion of history, which
comprises not only change, but also persistence: change and lack of change are
thus conceived as complementary.16
5. Baudouin's contribution to phonology

Of all the topics connected with Baudouin this is the one most thoroughly
dealt with in the existing literature, both in historiographically oriented studies
and in strictly phonological ones.17 While there may be differences of opinion
regarding the extent of Baudouin's importance for any other area of linguistics,
his contribution to the development of phonology appeal's undisputed.
Already in the Kazan period Baudouin distinguished between what he
called 'anthropophonics' (roughly, today's phonetics) and 'phonetics' (corre
sponding to later (morpho)phonology). Subsequently, he tried to disambiguate
the latter term by talking of 'psychophonetics'. Anthropophonics dealt with
sounds and psychophonetics with phonemes. Alongside the distinction be
tween these two aspects of the study of speech sounds, Baudouin insisted on
the yet more basic separation of the study of sounds/phonemes from the study
of graphemes (a term he himself coined). The issues are discussed, for in
stance, in his early lecture programmes (Baudouin 1876 and 1877-78) and in
his mature work on sound laws (Baudouin 1910).
Like most pioneers, Baudouin did not always use his own distinctions con
sistently. Thus, one occasionally finds him using the terms 'sound' and 'pho
neme' interchangeably, which has not escaped the attention of later phonolo-
gists (e.g., Jakobson 1971[1960]:420).
The elaboration of the phoneme concept dates back to the time when Bau
douin and Kruszewski worked in tandem, which makes it difficult, if not im
possible, to assess their respective contributions to this fundamental develop-
16
For a diagram illustrating the synchrony-diachrony and statics-dynamics perspectives, see
Lencek(1989:75n.6).
17
Despite some reservations expressed below, and despite the subsequent appearance of a
number of works devoted to the topic, Jakobson's (1960) treatment still remains unsurpassed.
18
Baudouin's creations, side by side with dozens of terms which were never to be used out
side the Kazan circle, included also such felicitous coinages as 'morpheme'.
ment in structuralist phonology.19 The relevant publications appeared in the

same year (Baudouin 1881a, Kruszewski 1881a,b), and both scholars readily
acknowledged their debt to each other. Despite his subsequent disappointment
with Kruszewski's major work, Ocerk nauki o jazyke (1883), and long after
he had become disenchanted with the whole Kazan era, Baudouin continued to
pay tribute to his late student, especially as regards the logical organisation and
orderly presentation of their common findings. It is not unlikely that, had he
acted differently, the part played by Kruszewski would have fallen into obliv
ion.
Pursuing the age-old question of the relation between sound and meaning,
Baudouin and Kruszewski arrived at the concept of the phoneme as a meaning-
differentiating unit through the study of phonetic alternations. Their notion of
alternation is therefore sketched briefly in the following section.
5.1 Alternations
The topic of alternations occupied Baudouin for half a century, from his
article on the s ~ ch alternation in Polish (Baudouin 1868b) until his introduc
tion to linguistics (Baudouin 1917[11909]); his 1894 monograph (German ver
sion: Baudouin 1895) contains the fullest exposition of his views on the sub
ject.
In that work an alternation is defined as the coexistence (das Nebeneinan
der) of phonetically different but etymologically related sounds. Three basic
classes of alternations are distinguished: 1) neophonetic alternations (diver
gences), 2) paleophonetic or traditional alternations, and 3) psychophonetic al
ternations (correlations). Divergences result from the influence upon a sound
of its phonetic context; their members, divergents, are combinatory variants of
the same sound. Traditional alternations are residues of divergences, i.e., they
attest to past operation of sound changes which are no longer active. Finally, in
correlations phonetic differences perpetuated by tradition come to be utilised
'for psychical purposes' (1990[1894]:143), i.e., as signals of morphological
or semasiological distinctions. Another property exclusive to alternations of the
third type is their 'vitality', manifested in the analogical extension of their
members (correlatives) to new words.
The boundaries between the three classes are not sharp, since alternations
of one type gradually evolve into those of another. The usual scenario is as
19
It has been known since at least Jakobson (1971 [1960] : 396) that Baudouin and Kru
szewski acquired the term from Saussure (1879), who got it from A. Dufriche-Desgenettes
(1804-1878), possibly via Havet. It should be clear, though, that it is not the word 'pho
neme' I am concerned with, but the concept.
follows: with the obliteration of the phonetic context (caused, among others,
by the gradual transformation of a formerly combinatory phonetic process into
a spontaneous one), a divergence is transformed into a regular, traditional
alternation, which eventually acquires a morphological/semasiological func
tion, thus turning into a correlation. With the passage of time, the resulting cor
relation tends to lose its psychological motivation, changing back into a tra
ditional alternation. What at a given time still constitutes a psychophonetic
alternation for one individual may already be a traditional alternation for an
other.
The study of alternations was one of the manifestations of Baudouin's con
viction that linguists should work with living languages prior to investigating
dead ones (see, e.g., Baudouin 1897:34). Unlike with the Neogrammarians,
this was not simply a theoretical postulate largely devoid of practical conse
quences, but a principle Baudouin adhered to consistently.
At the same time, the theory of alternations had important consequences for
Baudouin's conceptualisation of language change. He tried to introduce some
order into the current treatments of the subject, arguing that one should not
mistake currently operating processes for historical changes, or, in general, in
voke the terminology of historical linguistics without making sure that what
one was dealing with really was the result of a historical process. In his view,
the only type of phonetic change occurring in the linguistic present resulted
from the discrepancy between the speaker's phonetic intention and its realisa
tion, thus amounting to no more than a mere substitution:
[T]he substitution of an actual pronunciation for an intended one is the only strictly
phonetic change, the only phonetic 'transition' which can take place in the linguistic
present. That, however, which is usually called phonetic 'change', or 'transition' of
one sound into another, is, from the objective point of view, merely coexistence, or
alternation. (1990[1894]:167)
As an example of alternation — as opposed to substitution — Baudouin
cited pairs such as the Polish k~ č in ręka "hand" ~ rqczka "little hand", where
the appearance of c could not be due to a discrepancy between the intended and
the actual, since speakers of Polish could easily pronounce a k in the relevant
context.
Unlike substitutions, alternations are results of historical changes. This is
not to say that the whole issue boils down to an either-or choice between 'syn
chronic' vs. historical processes. The occurrence of different sounds in related
morphemes may be an instance of a simple substitution or a reflex of a histor
ical change, but it may also be due to both factors, i.e., to a process which
started in the past, but is still operative in the present. Baudouin insisted that
using the cover term Lautwandel or Lautübergang to describe all these phe
nomena would gloss over important differences between them.
The immediate response to these proposals was lukewarm at best. Bau
douin and Kruszewski failed to convince their contemporaries that the distinc
tion between sound alternation20 and sound change was worth maintaining, as
is evident from the reviews of Baudouin (1895) by Lloyd (1896), Meringer
(1896) and Wagner (1896), or, earlier, from the review of Kruszewski
(1881a) by Brückner (1881) and of Kruszewski (1881b) by no lesser a scholar
than Bmgmann (1882). Many years had to pass before the value of the concept
of alternation came to be appreciated (see, e.g., Kilbury 1974, Klausenburger
1978).
5.2 The phoneme

As indicated above, the idea of sound alternations served Baudouin and
Kruszewski as a point of departure for distinguishing between sounds and
phonemes. The phoneme was, for both of them, a phonetic unit (as opposed to
the sound, an anthropophonic unit) which constituted the invariant part of the
word. At first, they viewed phonemes as prototypes of sound correspondences
in related languages (i.e., rather like Saussure in 1879), as well as prototypes
underlying sound alternations in a given language (see, e.g., Kruszewski 1995
[1881b]: 14n.5). Most of the time, however, their attention was focussed on
the synchronic plane, the phoneme being defined as:
[...] the sum of generalised anthropophonic properties of a given phonetic part of
the word, indivisible in the process of establishing the links of coreelation within
one language and the links of correspondence within several languages. In other
words: the phoneme is what is phonetically indivisible from the point of view of
the comparability of phonetic parts of the word. (Baudouin 188la:69)
There is a much commented upon difference between this definition and a
later one, which reads:
The phoneme = a uniform representation from the phonetic world, which comes into
existence in the mind through the psychical fusion of impressions obtained by pro
nouncing one and the same sound = the psychical equivalent of a sound, (Baudouin
1990[1894]:153)
The shift from defining the phoneme in functional terms to conceiving it as
a psychological unit has generally been treated, especially by representatives of
the Prague School, as a sign of regression on Baudouin's part This assess
ment, entirely typical of early structuralism, is also evident, for example, in the
20
The term 'Lautalternation' was first used by Baudouin's colleague, Radloff (1882). In their
earlier works Baudouin and Kruszewski talked of 'Lautabwechslung' or 'Lautwechsel'.
relative indifference to Sapir's psychological definition of the phoneme three

decades later (Sapir 1921, 1925, 1933), or in Trubetzkoy's abandonment of
his earlier mentalist approach (Trubetzkoy 1929, 1933) in favour of a func
tionalist one (Trubetzkoy 1939). Although the advent of generative phonology
to some extent legitimised the mentalist treatment, it is probably fair to say that
in the end the functional approach proved more fruitful. Still, one ought to be
aware that the definitions of the phoneme Baudouin proposed at different
points in his career differ more in theory than in practice: no matter which
definition is adopted, the units identified as phonemes will turn out largely to
be the same, and, more often than not, identical to the units arrived at through
later phonemic analysis.
A detailed examination of the reasons which led Baudouin to concentrating
on the psychological aspects of the phoneme falls outside the scope of the pre
sent article. Suffice it to say that there is little evidence to support Jakobson's
(1971[1960]:419) claim that the move was "fundamentally just camouflage to
justify his discoveries in the eyes of his contemporaries", who, for the most
part, stressed the dependence of linguistics on psychology and favoured the
genetic approach. Contrary to Jakobson (1967), there is also no indication that
towards the end of his life Baudouin reverted to the functional understanding
of the phoneme championed in the Kazan period. Such claims run deeply
against what we know about Baudouin's lifelong allegiance to the psychologi
cal interpretation of the facts of language and about his scholarly and personal
integrity. In my view, there is no reason to disbelieve what he himself said on
the topic, and that hardly leaves any doubts as to his genuine conviction —
mistaken as it may have been — that the psychological approach to the pho
neme was an improvement upon his own earlier treatments of the subject.
5.3 Distinctive features21

Although in the early stages of Baudouin's and Kruszewski's work one of
the defining features of the phoneme was its indivisibility, the later Baudouin
(e.g., 1910) proposed to resolve the unit into still smaller components: the sim
plest indivisible mental representations of single articulatory actions and of the
acoustic impressions evoked by those actions. He called these two types of re
presentations kinemas and akusmas, and defined the phoneme accordingly as
"a complex of kinemas and the corresponding akusmas, joined into one whole
by their simultaneity, with an inseparable beginning and end" (1990[1910]:
416).
21
See Ruszkiewicz (1973) for more on Baudouin's treatment of distinctive features.
The immediate reason behind this resolution of the phoneme into what
were later called distinctive features was the need to disambiguate the notion of
sound change, which Baudouin believed to be hopelessly misunderstood by
most of his contemporaries. He argued that representing phonemes — and, eo
ipso, their changes — as complexes of kinemas and akusmas would help the
linguist to see what really changed in the course of a sound change. Rather
than saying, for instance, that b has changed into p, one would have to say that
"the group of kinemas and akusmas characteristic of the phoneme associated
with the grapheme b has been replaced by a different group of kinemas and
akusmas, characteristic of the phoneme associated with the grapheme p "
(1990[1910]:416). A schematic presentation of that statement, with all the
properties of b listed on the left and those of p on the right, allows one to see
that the kinemas and akusmas are identical on both sides, except that the
akusma of voicing (with its underlying kinema) has changed into the akusma
of voicelessness.
Baudouin also pointed out that, apart from clearly identifying the changing
elements of a sound in a particular sound change, his way of representing pho
nemes facilitated the identification of factors responsible for the varying de
grees of changeability of different sounds. The more complex a phoneme in
terms of its composition, he argued, the greater the likelihood of its succumb
ing to change: p, b, t or d, for instance, are more stable than their palatalised
counterparts. Also, fairly rare or unusual combinations of kinemas and akus
mas — such as r or / — are more prone to change than commoner combina
tions of features, present in whole series of phonemes.
Interestingly, Baudouin does not seem to have regarded the reasoning be
hind his proposal as particularly innovative, as the following quote makes
clear:
All this has long been known to all thinking linguists. All I am trying to demon
strate is the desirability of representing the simplest articulatory-auditory elements by
means of stable technical terms and symbols. (1990[1910]:418)
'All thinking linguists' probably included scholars such as Sweet or Passy,
who shared Baudouin's concern with the optimal graphic representation of
sound. Since the late 1870s Baudouin had recognised the need to develop
two systems of transcription, differing in the amount of phonetic detail in
cluded; around 1900 this became the subject of abundant correspondence
between him and Henry Sweet (see Jakobson 1971[1960]:424-425).
6. Baudouin's views on language change

Like most of his contemporaries, Baudouin talked of language change in
terms of sound change and analogy, and had to take a stand on the notorious
controversy over sound laws. The following two sections summarise his
thinking on the subject.
6.1 Analogy
Baudouin's pioneering study on analogy (1868a), published in German in
the same year as Scherer (1868), was hardly noticed by his contemporaries.
One of the reasons for this lack of recognition was certainly the fact that the
data for the study came from Polish; a contributing factor may have been
Schleicher's editorial intervention, which consisted in removing (without the
author's knowledge) the whole theoretical introduction to the study. What was
left of the article just about succeeded in dispelling the myth of the existence of
vocalic stems in Polish declension. In all probability, however, without the
omitted theoretical preface it was hard to appreciate the innovative character of
Baudouin's analysis, especially his argument that the only valid criterion for
morphological boundary placement was the state of the language at a given
time, or, more precisely, 'the linguistic feeling of the speakers'.
Ever since this early work Baudouin's view of analogy was in all important
respects identical to that championed later by the Neogrammarians (who, as is
well known, acknowledged their debt to Scherer) and sharply opposed to the
teaching of Schleicher. In short, Baudouin stressed the universality of analogy,
insisting that its operation should be recognised not only for contemporary, but
also for past (including pre-historical) stages of languages.
6.2 Sound change and sound laws

Baudouin's writings from all periods abound in statements questioning the
reality of sound changes and sound laws, for example:
There are no phonetic changes or 'phonetic laws' (Lautgesetze), nor can there be any,
if only for the reason that the human voice in general, and the sounds of language in
particular, do not have, and cannot have, any continuity. A pronounced word or sen
tence disappears as soon as it has been pronounced. There is no physical connection
between one utterance and the next. The link between successive utterances of a
given sound, a given phonetic word, or, finally, the whole of phonetic speech (i.e.,
the speech that is heard and perceived by ear) is constituted by representations,
memory images (Erinnerungsbilder), which in the course of pronouncing become the
stimuli for moving the organs of speech in the appropriate manner. (1990[1894]:
165-166)
As for changes (as distinct from laws), what Baudouin rejected was merely
the idea of a sound change as a synchronic process (cf. 5.1 above); the issue
might thus be considered to be partly terminological. His rejection of neogram-
marian sound laws, on the other hand, was something much more serious. It
followed from his insistence on distinguishing between individual and social
language, his conviction that sounds have no continuity, and, above all, his
belief in the psychological character of language.22 For Baudouin, the notion
of Lautgesetze would only appear to make sense,
[i]f we replace the articulatory-auditory representation permanently present in individ
uals with its transient, short-lived manifestation during inter-individual intercourse, if
we forget about the unfilled breaks between the individual psyches, if, finally, we as
sume that 'sound changes' (Lautwandel) are effected in and of themselves, indepen
dently of articulatory-auditory representations. (1990[1910]:413)
He argued further that the assumption of an uninterrupted, continuous exis
tence of sounds was patently wrong. There are no such sounds, and that which
does not exist, but is merely a transitory manifestation of that which does, can
not change. Neither sounds nor words are capable of phonetic development.
What can and does develop are the speakers' mental representations of linguis
tic units, as well as the skill of their articulatory and auditory organs. Conse
quently, the only real Lautgesetze are the laws of acoustics, which, by virtue of
being applicable to all (including nonlinguistic) sounds, belong together with
other laws of the physical world. Linguists have been misled into postulating
specifically linguistic sound laws by the stability of graphemic representations,
which obscures the gradual nature of change:
A uniform representation of a letter, i.e., a uniform grapheme, [...] furnishes the
grounds for regarding the corresponding representation of a sound as something uni
form. However, any representation of a sound, any phoneme, must, by the nature of
things, be broad, unstable and changeable. Related to the failure to distinguish be
tween letters and sounds, graphemes and phonemes, is another misunderstanding in
the thinking on 'sound laws', The overwhelming majority of linguists are unable to
understand that the relations of dependence, subsumable under the notion of a law,
can only be present here in vacillations and changes which are imperceptible, micro
scopic. Between the two end-points of the historical changes which have led, for in
stance, from the k of the linguistic ancestors to the c of the linguistic descendants
[...] there is no relationship that could be captured by a formula of a law of develop
ment. However, on the way along which a whole series of generations has proceeded
in this direction, one must assume an infinite number of discrete points, such that
each successive stage depends directly on the conditions of individual linguistic
thought and social intercourse. (1990[1910]:414-415)
22
For a more extensive discussion than is possible here, see Adamska-Salaciak (1997).
The distinction Baudouin was after seems to me to be analogous to the dis

tinction between diachronic correspondence and diachronic change introduced
by Andersen (1972). A correspondence is an epiphenomenal result of a
change, often first identifiable on the basis of a difference in spelling. Changes
are what happens in the linguistic microcosm, while correspondences are what
historical linguists have access to, and what they often perceive as regular
enough to be deserving of the name 'law'. Given enough time and a large
enough territory, changes do indeed result in regular correspondences:
[...] the psychical processes which accompany the activation and manifestation of
phonemes, as well as social processes [...], lead to historical-phonetic changes in the
average language. The results of those changes, ascertained statistically, exhibit regu
larity over vast territories and long time stretches. (1990[1910]:443-444)
Baudouin himself was much more interested in micro- than in macro-
change. He called the former change in actu and claimed it was reflected,
among others, in the 'multilingualism' of all members of any speech commu
nity, as well as in the differences observable in the speech of successive gen
erations, or in the speech of one and the same individual over the years.23 He
refused to be impressed by superficial generalisations about secondary macro-
changes:
The 'exceptionlessness' characteristic of such phonetic correspondences and generali
sations, pompously christened 'sound laws', is on a par with the Taws' or generalisa
tions of meteorology [...]. It is simply the ascertaining of that which occurs on the
surface of the phenomenal world. The actual laws', the laws of dependence, are hid
den deep down, in a complicated tangle of most varied factors. (1990[1910]:416)
Unlike for some other critics of the neogrammarian dogma, such as, for
example, Schuchardt (1885), for Baudouin the rejection of the sound law con
cept did not mean embracing the other extreme, i.e., treating all change as the
result of more or less conscious imitation. Phonetic change usually proceeds
slowly and imperceptibly, he claimed, "so that fashion and conscious imitation
are out of the question" (1990[1910]:447).
6.3 Causation
Like his views on sound laws, Baudouin's ideas on the causes of language
change remained remarkably stable over the years. The fullest treatment of the
topic is given in Baudouin (1890), but remarks similar to those quoted below
can be found in his writings from different periods.
23
Cf. his observations on the changes in his own pronunciation (e.g., Baudouin 1990
[1910]:433).
It is hardly surprising, in view of Baudouin's psychological bent, that he

considered the individual brain to be the main locus for change and, at the same
time, a guarantee of language maintenance:
The nervous centre, the brain, is characterised in relation to language by the ability
to bring about coiTespondence, harmony, between content and form, that is, to bring
closer in form what is close in content, and, conversely, to bring closer in content
what is close in form, as well as to differentiate in form what is different in content,
and, conversely, to differentiate in content what is different in form. Here resides both
a guarantee of maintaining the state of the language, as well as a stimulus for
change. (1904[1890]:57)
Broadly speaking, change in language is due to the following factors:
1) The linguistic stock of form-content combinations arises in an unplanned
fashion, through chance associations of images; this results in the simultaneous
excess and shortage of means of expression, both conducive to change.
2) Linguistic intercourse is indirect (the linguistic images of one individual
must be transmitted to the 'psychical reservoirs' of other individuals), which
leads to the loss of form-content connections; when etymological links are for
gotten, words become isolated and more susceptible to change.
3) Creative individuals enrich both the resources of their own language
and, through contact with others, those of the social language.
4) Due to the haphazard manner in which its resources accumulate, lan
guage may sometimes impede logical thinking; this leads to changes which
make language more orderly and logical.
5) The universal tendency of human thought to become increasingly more
abstract leads to changes of meaning through metaphor, "through making
words, qua linguistic vehicles for concepts, more abstract, [...] through the as
sociation of images according to similarity, in a certain fixed direction" (1904
[1890]:58).
It should be clear from the above that the factors which bring about change
at the same time determine its direction(s). In the most general terms, change is
governed by the tendency to minimise effort in three areas: articulation, percep
tion, and 'cerebration', The underlying assumption is that, in relation to lan
guage, the human mind works in three directions: from the centre outwards
(the work of motor nerves, the muscular work involved in speaking, i.e.,
phonation), from the outside inwards (the work of sensory nerves, listening,
directing attention to what is heard, i.e., audition and perception), and in the
very centre of the brain (the work of the nerves in the central nervous system,
attention, memory, linguistic thinking, or, in Baudouin's terminology, 'cere
bration'). Each of the three aspects of our mental work is subject to the ten
dency to minimise effort. Accordingly, any change motivated by this tendency
will proceed in one or more of the three directions. The tendencies sometimes
counteract one another,
[a]nd a perfectly natural thing it is, too, since [...] [a] 11 three types of linguistic work
take place during every single act of speaking. No wonder, then, that tendencies in
one direction may be paralysed by tendencies in another direction, so that, for in
stance, the effects of the tendency to facilitate pronunciation manifest themselves
only insofar as there is no interference from the tendency towards clarity and towards
preserving links among forms which constitute one family. (1904[1890]:63)
Baudouin's examples of the operation of the three basic tendencies of
change are of the following kind:
1. F (changes resulting from the tendency towards ease of phonation):
simplification of consonant clusters, final vowel reduction, dissimilation of
liquids (as in the Polish barwierz > balwierz "barber").
2. F(-C) (as above, unless the tendency towards ease of cerebration inter
venes): palatalisation of Polish s and z (to ś and ź respectively) before
palatal p ' , b', m', w', except when the s and z are still perceived as pre
positional in origin (thus śpi "is sleeping", weźmie "will take" (3rd sg.),
but zbierać "to gather", zmiana "change", spisać'"to write down").
3. F+A (simultaneous operation of the tendencies towards ease of phona
tion and ease of audition): failure to pronounce the Polish i (dark /) sylla
ble-finally, e.g., in niósł "he carried" or jabtko "apple",
4. F+A(-C) (as above, unless the change is arrested by the tendency to
wards ease of cerebration): f, lost in similar contexts, was preserved in
picha "louse", where it was "felt by the Poles to constitute an indispensable
phonetic part of the word"24 (1904[1890]:69).
5. C (changes resulting from the tendency towards ease of cerebration,
i.e., towards "the removal of redundant differences which violate [...] the
agreement between content and form" (1904[1890]:72)): loss of grammati
cal gender, adoption of the same case ending for several declensions, rise
of prepositions and articles.
A finer distinction needs to be made in the case of changes in meaning mo
tivated by the ease of cerebration, since there one has to deal with two conflict
ing aspects of the relevant tendency: the tendency towards poetic creativity,
which makes language more concrete and lively, and the tendency towards the
isolation of individual words, which facilitates logical and abstract thinking.
Depending on which tendency is favoured on a given occasion, the human
mind executes a simplification in either one or the other direction:
While metaphor is a mnemonic device, which facilitates the remembering of words
through association by similarity [...], the forgetting of etymological links between
24
Presumably because of the threat of homonymy with pcha "is pushing".
words whose semantic affinity has become obscured adds to their clarity, distinctness
and psychical force. As a result, words become more precise symbols, less unstable
than they used to be when their etymological connection with other words was still
felt. (1904[1890]:76)
Several observations are worth making at this point. First, when Bau
douin's contemporaries talked of ease as a factor determining the direction of
change, they usually meant ease of pronunciation alone. Baudouin's treatment
of the issue resembles the much later, and much better known, 'principle of
economy' advocated by Martinet (1955). Secondly, Baudouin's discussion of
the desired harmony between content and form amounts to invoking one of the
fundamental principles of language organisation, viz. the principle of 'one
meaning, one form'. Another prominent motif in his discussion of the ease of
cerebration is the conflict between the tendency towards greater iconicity
(metaphor, folk etymology) and the tendency towards greater symbolisation
(obliteration of etymologies). This is a theme familiar from many present-day
treatments of change, notably those carried out with the apparatus of Peircean-
type semiotics (cf., e.g., Anttila 1989).
Occasionally, Baudouin makes yet another distinction: between causation
in the absolute sense and causation 'in a given state of the language'. The for
mer is responsible for the appearance of alternations (it is in this sense that the
cause of an alternation is always phonetic), while the latter ensures the contin
ued presence of alternations (particularly, though not exclusively, traditional
ones) in the speech of an individual or a group of individuals:
In a given state of the language, only tradition (transmission by some members of a
speech community to other members of that community) can be considered the cause
of an alternation [...]. We have learnt to speak the way we do from our surroundings
and from our ancestors — this explanation is entirely sufficient. (1990[1894]:210)
In general, questions concerning the appearance and evolution of different
alternation types are directly related to the larger question of the mechanisms of
change. According to Baudouin, it is the least strongly motivated (i.e., paleo-
phonetic or traditional) alternations which carry within them the seeds of
change. Supported by tradition alone, they are most likely to fall victim to the
conflict of individual strivings and needs with that tradition:
Psychical associations, which secure the preservation of traditional alternations, are
constantly in collision with the tendency to eliminate those phonetic differences
which are justified neither by individual anthropophonic tendencies nor by individual
psychical needs. (1990[1894]:224)
The conflict is typically resolved in one of the following ways: 1) the alter
nation in question may be eliminated through the replacement of one of the al-
ternants with the other; 2) it may be eliminated through the loss of the feeling
of an etymological relationship between the relevant morphemes; 3) it may
evolve into a psychophonetic alternation (correlation) through endowing the
difference between the alternants with a morphological or semasiological func
tion (1990[1894]:256-257). The winner in cases 1) and 2) is the tendency to
wards 'one meaning, one form'; in 3) tradition prevails, but only if new asso
ciations are formed. In the long run, a traditional alternation will either disap
pear or change into a correlation.
One could find numerous examples of quotes illustrating Baudouin's ideas
on causation, but they would hardly affect the picture sketched above. Change
is consistently presented in his writings as a reaction to a situation of conflict
(between different tendencies, needs etc.), with the solution to the conflict be
ing unpredictable in advance, since it depends on which tendency prevails on a
given occasion.
6.4 Linguistic innovations

Baudouin seems to have believed that all languages abound in potential in
novations resulting from the reinterpretation by language users of the linguistic
material available to them. The following is one of the clearest formulations of
this thought:
The normal functioning of objective linguistic thinking consists in continuous and
incessant assimilation, in [...] bringing the incomprehensible back to life by linking
it to the comprehensible, in [...] endowing it with meaning and subsuming it under
known types. Objective linguistic thinking is characterised by the constant joining
of words and their meaningful parts into groups which share a common semasiologi
cal image, i.e. by constant 'etymologising'. We only notice it, however, when a
word's lack of meaning connection [to other words] activates the tendency to endow
it with meaning in one way or another.
Objective linguistic thinking is characterised by the joining of linguistic forms
into groups/types which share a common, morphologically laden, phonetic (artic-
ulatory-auditory) image. We only notice it, however, when this joining leads to the
rise of unexpected forms, of neologisms.
At any time, therefore, we should be prepared for the surfacing of latent 'folk
etymology' and latent 'analogy'. (1983[1915]:63-64)
In addition to saying what it does, the quote illustrates a rather exasperating
habit of Baudouin's: an original thought is expressed in passing,25 probably
judged by the author to be self-evident, and never developed in enough detail.
A careful reader, however, might agree that it does not seem too far-fetched to
25
In this particular case, in a book on the Polish language, and not, say, a theoretical work
on language change.
compare the scenario sketched by Baudouin with Andersen's (1973) notion of

abductive innovation in evolutive change. As those familiar with Andersen's
model will recall, this type of innovation remains covert — or, as Baudouin
would have said, 'latent' — unless it is followed by a deductive innovation
which makes the reanalysis explicit.
6.5 The language system.

What most distinguishes Baudouin's approach to change — especially
sound change — from the atomism dominant in the linguistics of his time is
probably his recognition of the role played in change by the system of the lan
guage which undergoes it. Already in his 1870 master's thesis and in his early
university lectures he pointed out that physiologically identical sounds in dif
ferent languages could differ in value depending on their relations to the re
maining sounds of the same language, i.e., to the sound system of that lan
guage. Such differences have important consequences for the historical devel
opment of sounds:
[...] one must not forget about the possibility of one and the same sound in different
languages developing differently [...] in connection with the difference of the whole
sound system. [...] German s may have developed into r due to the fact that the
whole sound system of German was at that time completely different from the sound
system of Slavic, where s did not undergo a similar change. (1904[1888-89]: 165)
Other changes with which Baudouin illustrated "the mutual relationship and
interdependence of the details of the phonetic system" include, for instance, the
rise of nasal vowels in open-syllable languages, followed by their gradual loss
after the languages in question develop closed syllables (1990[1910]:445).
Baudouin went further than viewing individual changes as system-depen
dent: he believed that even notions such as economy and ease were relative to
the language system in question. This thought was formulated in response to
Delbrück's (1902:296-297) objections against appealing to economy as an ex
planatory device. Delbrück's question was, roughly, how to account for de
velopments which are the exact opposites of changes associated with minimi
sation of effort, e.g., in a situation when we find both the change ai > ei and
the change ei > ai. Baudouin proposed that one must allow for the relative na
ture of ease. The following was his example:
For many people, the phonemes associated with the graphemes ƒ and x (ch) are quite
easy, while for the Lithuanians they sometimes constitute such an insurmountable
difficulty that they have to be replaced by p and k [respectively]. (1990[1910]:421)
He immediately added that there was more to minimisation of effort than

facilitating pronunciation, referring the reader to the threefold notion of econ
omy introduced in his earlier work (cf. 6.3).
With reference to morphological and semantic change, Baudouin seems to
have been of the opinion that, as a language develops, its systematic character
increases, primarily through the subsumption of originally isolated forms un
der different form types (cf. 6.4). Authors such as Leont'ev (1960:14) have
taken this to be one of the most important features of his treatment of change.
The issue may not be self-evident, since the notion of the linguistic system in
most of Baudouin's work seems to be taken for granted rather than argued for
explicitly. As a result, some scholars have underplayed its relevance for Bau
douin, while others have tended to exaggerate it. While I obviously cannot
agree with the opinion that "there is no indication that Baudouin ever conceived
of language as a system in the manner in which Saussure formulated it"
(Koerner 1973:140), I think one should also be careful with statements to the
effect that "Baudouin's understanding of language as a system is considerably
deeper and more seminal for contemporary linguistics than the notion of sys
tem proposed by de Saussure" (Berezin 1976:190). What we can be reason
ably sure of, given the evidence presented in this section, is that Berezin was
right in one respect, namely, with regard to the importance of the role of the
language system in language change.
6.6 Goals of change

Baudouin appreciated the role played in change by both internal and exter
nal factors, recognising what is now called the multiple causation of change.
Most importantly, he believed that the causes of language change could not be
extricated from the speakers. He speculated that change could best be viewed
as the fight of the chaos of nature and life with the 'ordering human spuit':
In the life of language we can observe constant work directed at removing chaos and
divergence, and at introducing order and uniformity. (1990[1903]:353)
The ordering tendency, which counteracted the lack of one-to-one corre
spondence between meaning and form, was aided by language mixture, which,
in addition to introducing change from without (e.g., through borrowing),
constituted a powerful si mplificatory force. Apart from ordering/simplificatory
trends, Baudouin occasionally talked of other universal tendencies of language
(or rather, of language users), such as, e.g., the tendency towards morpholo-
gisation and towards semasiologisation. He also identified tendencies in the
development of separate languages and language groups, one frequently men-
tioned example being the drift towards the consonantal type in the history of
certain Slavic languages.
In short, Baudouin's view of change was distinctly teleological. The ver
sion of teleology which he espoused — albeit implicitly — is common enough
in the literature on the subject, where change is conceived of as a result of the
competition of a number of tendencies operating with or (more often) without
the language users' consciousness.
Baudouin's work is especially rich in references to short-term processes
whose nature can only be construed as teleological Here belong, for instance,
cases of so-called 'prohibitive analogy', i.e., "the tendency towards a phonetic
uniformisation of morphemes which are felt to belong together psychically"
(1990[1894]:197), or cases where the 'preventive' or 'conservative' effect
(i.e., the non-occurrence of change) is attributed to the high frequency of a
given form or to its "high psychical weight coefficient" (1990[1905]:380).
Needless to say, Baudouin (e.g., 1904[1888-1889]) explicitly rejected the
kind of teleology that ascribes goals to language itself. The tendencies/forces
whose operation he admitted in language were all supposed to be derived from
the tendencies of the speakers. The overriding goal of language users, as indi
cated above (6.3), was the minimisation of effort in the domains of language
production, perception and mental processing. Here is a typical example of his
reasoning on the subject:
The simplification of linguistic forms, [...] the introduction of greater agreement be
tween form and content, between word and thought, does not occur because of a striv
ing towards any goal given in advance, but only in order to facilitate the process of
speaking, as a simple, unconscious mnemonic device, as a striving to spare oneself
unnecessary work. What is at work here are simple egoistic and altruistic motives,
the tendency to facilitate, on the one hand, the mental development of the individual,
and, on the other hand, social life. The fact that, in the process, parts of the language
come closer to the ideal indicated by Kruszewski26 is only an unintentional, acciden
tal effect, which has nothing to do with the real cause of the changes. (1904 [1888-
1889]: 166-167; emphasis in the original)
Readers familiar with Keller (1990) will no doubt have noticed the essen
tially 'invisible-hand' conceptualisation of change implicit in the above. Just as
the increase of general prosperity (e.g., in Mandeville's Fable of the Bees) is
an unintended consequence of countless individual actions which are guided by
selfish motives, and not by any desire to further the common good, so the op
timisation of linguistic structure (in particular, the increase in the degree of one-
26
The ideal referred to is the principle of "correspondence between the world of words and the
world of ideas" (Kruszewski [1995:173], translated from the fifth and last of the Položenija
"Theses" which Kruszewski appended to his dissertation [1883:149]).
to-one correspondence between form and content) is, in Baudouin's scheme of

things, a contingent result of a mass of individual actions which, although
goal-directed, are not intended by the actors as means towards attaining the
state of affairs they happen to bring about.
I tried to make it clear in the Introduction that the present paper would not,
and could not, do justice to Baudouin's versatility, or to the impact his work
has had on many different branches of linguistics. By concentrating on a few
chosen areas, I hope to have given the reader a taste of how innovative and
original Baudouin's work was for his time.
It is in this light that one should view the tentative comparisons I have
drawn between some of Baudouin's statements and later developments in lin
guistics, such as, e.g., Andersen's model of abductive and deductive change
or Keller's invisible-hand theory of language. The singling out of these models
inevitably reflects my own bias and interests. Other commentators would no
doubt be able to show parallels between Baudouin and other recent ap
proaches. 27 This, of course, attests to the necessarily subjective character of
the historiographer's endeavour, but is also, I believe, indicative of something
more important: far from being of merely historical value, Baudouin's ideas
continue to hold interest and relevance for students of linguistics, largely irre
spective of their theoretical allegiance.
REFERENCES
Adamska-Sałaciak, Arleta. 1996. Language Change in the Works of Kruszewski,
Baudouin de Courte nay and Rozwadowski. Poznan: Motivex.
Adamska-Sałaciak, Arleta. 1997. "Baudouin de Courtenay on Lautgesetze".
Hickey & Puppel 1997.911-921.
Andersen, Henning. 1972. "Diphthongization". Language 48.11-50.
Andersen, Henning. 1973. "Abductive and Deductive Change". Language 49.
765-793.
Anttila, Raimo. 1989. Historical and Comparative Linguistics. 2nd ed. Am
sterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan (Ignacy Niecisław). 1868a. "Einige Fälle der Wir
kung der Analogie in der polnischen Declination". Beiträge zur vergleichen
den Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der arischen, celtischen und slavischen
Sprachen 6.19-88. (Polish translation with restored preface in Baudouin
1904:176-248.)
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1868b. "Wechsel des s (š, ś) mit ch in der polni
schen Sprache", Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung 6.221-222.
27
For some attempts, see the contributions to the Rieger & Szymczak volume of 1989.
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1869. "August Schleicher". Tygodnik Ilustrowany

104.317-319. (Russian transl, in Baudouin 1963 I, 35-44.)
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1870. O drevne-pol' skom jazyke do XIVgo stoletija
[On the Old Polish language before the 14th century]. Leipzig: Behr &
Hermann.
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1875. Opyt fonetiki rez'janskix govorov [An
attempt at a phonetics of the Resia dialects]. Warsaw: E. Wende.
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1876. "Programma čtenij docenta sravniternoj
grammatiki indoevropejskix jazykov v tekuščem 1875/76 akad. godu [A
program of readings by a docent of comparative grammar of Indo-European
languages in the current academic year 1875-1876]". Izvestija Imperator-
skogo Kazanskogo Universiteta 1.191-195. (English transl, in Baudouin 1972:
81-91.)
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1877-1878. "Podrobnaja programma lekcij v
1876-77 ucebnom godu [A detailed program of lectures in the academic year
1876-1877]". Izvestija Imperatorskogo Kazanskogo Universiteta 13.309-324.
14:1. 61-133. (English transl, in Baudouin 1972:92-113.)
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1881a. "Nekotorye otdely 'sravnitel'noj gram
matiki' slavjanskix jazykov [Some chapters of the 'comparative grammar' of
the Slavic languages]". Russkij Filologiceskij Vestnik 5.265-344.
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan, 1881b. "Neskol'ko slov' o 'sravniternoj gram-
matike indoevropejskix jazykov' [A few words about the 'comparative gram
mar of Indo-European languages']". Žurnl Ministerstva Narodnogo Pro-
sveščenija 218:2.269-321.
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1888-89. "Mikolaj Kruszewski, jego zycie i prace
naukowe [Mikolaj Kruszewski, his life and scholarly works]". Prace Filo-
logiczne 2:3.837-849, 3:1.116-175. (Repr. in Baudouin 1904:96-175.)
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1889. "O zadaniach językoznawstwa [On the tasks
of linguistics]". Prace filologiczne 3:1.92-115. (Repr. in Baudouin 1904:24-
49.)
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1890. "O ogólnych przyczynach zmian języko-
wych [On the general causes of linguistic changes]". Prace Filologiczne 3:2.
447-488. (Repr. in Baudouin 1904:50-95.)
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1894. "Próba teorji alternacyj fonetycznych [An
attempt at a theory of phonetic alternations]". Rozprawy Akademii Umiejęt-
ności: Wydziałfilologiczny 2:5.219-364. (Repr. in Baudouin 1990:140-278.)
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1895. Versuch einer Theorie phonetischer Alter
nationen: Ein Kapitel aus der Psychophonetik. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner.
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1897. "Boduèn de Kurtenè, Ivan Aleksandrovic:
Avtobiografičeskaja zametka [Boduèn de Kurtenè, Ivan Aleksandrovic: An
autobiographical note]". Vengerov 1897.18-45.
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1899. "Fonologija [Phonology]". Wielka ency-
klopedia powszechna ilustrowana, vol.XXII, 791-798. Warsaw. (Repr. in Bau
douin 1990:281-294.)
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1901. "Językoznawstwo czyli lingwistyka w wieku
XIX-ym [Linguistics in the 19th century]". Prawda 1.1-23. (Slightly ex
panded version in Baudouin 1904:1-23.)
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1903. "Język i języki [Language and languages]",
Wielka encyklopedia powszechna ilustrowana, vol.XXXIII, 266-278. Warsaw.
(Repr. in Baudouin 1990:332-354.)
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1904. Szkice jçzykoznawcze [Linguistic sketches].

Vol.1. Warsaw: Piotr Laskauer.
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1905. "Próba uzasadnienia samoistności zjawisk
psychicznych na podstawie faktów językowyçh [An attempt to justify the in
dependence of psychical phenomena on the basis of linguistic facts]".
Sprawozdania z posiedzeá Wydziaíu Filologicznego AU w Krakowie 1-3. (Repr.
in Baudouin 1990:372-392.)
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1907. "Zur Kritik der künstlichen Weltsprachen".
Annalen der Naturphilosophie 6.385-433.
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1910. "O 'prawach glosowych' [On 'sound
laws']". Rocznik slawistyczny 3.1-72. (Repr. in Baudouin 1990:410-471.)
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1913. National' nyj i teritorial' nyj priznak v
avtonomii [The national and the territorial criterion in autonomy]. St. Peters
burg: Tipografija M. M. Stasjuleviča.
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1915. "Charakterystyka psychologiczna języka
polskiego [A psychological profile of the Polish language]". Encyklopedya
polska, vol.II:3.154-226. Warsaw. (Repr. in Baudouin 1983:28-98.)
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1917[1909]. Vvedenie v jazykovedenie [Intro
duction to linguistics]. 4th ed. St. Petersburg: Author, 233 pp. (Extracts repr.
in Baudouin 1963 II, 246-293.)
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan, 1922. Zarys historji języka polskiego [An outline of
the history of the Polish language]. Warszawa: Polska Składnica Pomocy
Szkolnych. (Repr. in Baudouin 1983:99-186.)
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1929 "Einfluss der Sprache auf Weltanschauung
und Stimmung", Prace Filologiczne 14.184-225.
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1960. I. A. Boduèn de Kurtenè (k 30-letiju so dnja
smerti) [I. A. Boduèn de Kurtenè (on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of
his death)]. Ed. by S[amuel] B[orisovic] Bernstejn. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo
Akademii Nauk SSSR.
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1963. I. A. Boduèn de Kurtenè: Izbrannye trudy po
obščemu jazykoznaniju [I. A. Boduèn de Kurtenè: Selected works in general
linguistics]. 2 vols. Ed. by V[iktor] P. Grigor'ev & A[leksej] A. Leont'ev.
Moskva: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1972. A Baudouin de Courtenay anthology: The
beginnings of structural linguistics. Ed., transl, and with an introduction by
Edward Stankiewicz. Bloomington & London: Indiana Univ. Press.
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1974. Spostrzezenia nad językiem dziecka [Ob
servations on child language]. Ed. with an introduction by Maria Chmura-
Klekotowa. Wroc-ław-Warszawa-Krakow-Gdansk: Zakład Narodowy Imienia
Ossolinskich.
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1983. Dziela wybrane [Selected works]. Vol.V.
Warszawa: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Baudouin de Courtenay. Jan. 1990. Dzieła wybrane [Selected works]. Vol.IV.
Ibid.
Berezin, F[edor] M. 1976[1968]. Russkoe jazykoznanie: Konca XIX - načala XX
v. [Russian linguistics: Late 19th - early 20th century]. 2nd rev. ed. Moscow:
Izdatel'stvo "Nauka".
Besta, Theodor. 1962. "Neznámé listy J. Baudouina de Courtenay luzickosrbs-
kému buditeli A. Mukovi [Unknown letters of J. Baudouin de Courtenay to the
Sorbian activist A[mošt] Muka]". Slavia 31:3.419-440.
Boduèn de Kurtenè, Ivan Aleksandrovic = Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan Ignacy

Niecisiaw.
Brückner, Aleksander. 1881. Review of Kruszewski (1881a). Archiv für Slavische
Philologie 5.685-686.
Brugmann, Karl. 1882. Review of Kruszewski (1881b). Literarisches Centralblatt
für Deutschland 32:12.400-401.
Brugmann, Karl & August Leskien. 1907. Zur Kritik der künstlichen Weltspra
chen. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner.
Bulič, Sergej K. 1897. "Boduèn de Kurtenè. Ivan Aleksandrovic". Vengerov
1897.45-50.
Chmura-Klekotowa, Maria. 1974. "Wstęp [Introduction]". Baudouin 1974:5-9.
Cikobava, Arnold S. 1959. Problema jazyka kak predmeta jazykoznanija [The
problem of language as the subject of linguistics]. Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe
ucebno-pedagogiceskoe izdatel'stvo Ministerstva prosveščenija.
Delbrück, Berthold. 1901. Grundfragen der Sprachforschung mit Rücksicht auf
Wundts Sprachpsychologie erörtert. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner.
Delbrück, Berthold. 1902. "Das Wesen der Lautgesetze". Annalen der Natur
philosophie 1.277-308.
Erlich, Victor, Roman Jakobson & Czesław Miłosz, eds. 1975. For Wiktor
Weintraub: Essays in Polish literature, language and history presented on the
occasion of his 65th birthday. The Hague: Mouton.
Häusler, Frank. 1968. Das Problem Phonetik und Phonologie bei Baudouin de
Courtenay und in seiner Nachfolge. Halle/Saale: Max Niemeyer. (2nd rev. ed.,
1976.)
Heilmann, Luigi, ed. 1974. Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of
Linguists. 2 vols. Bologna: II Mulino.
Hickey, Raymond & Stanislaw Puppel, eds. 1997. Language History and Lin
guistic Modelling: A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60 th birthday. Berlin &
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Jakobson, Roman. 1929. "Jan Baudouin de Courtenay". Slavische Rundschau
1.809-812. (English transl, in Jakobson 1971.389-393.)
Jakobson, Roman. 1960. "Kazanska szkola polskiej lingwistyki i jej miejsce w
światowym rozwoju fonologii [The Kazan' school of Polish linguistics and its
place in the international development of phonology]". Biuletyn Polskiego
Towarzystwa' Językoznawczego 19.3-34. (English transl. in Jakobson 1971:
394-428.)
Jakobson, Roman. 1967. "Znaczenie Kruszewskiego w rozwoju językoznawstwa
ogólnego [The significance of Kruszewski in the development of general lin
guistics]". Kruszewski 1967:x-xxv.
Jakobson, Roman. 1971. Selected Writings. Vol.11: Word and language. The
Hague: Mouton.
Keller, Rudi. 1990. Sprachwandel: Von der unsichtbaren Hand in der Sprache.
Tübingen: Francke.
Kilbury, James. 1974. 'The Emergence of Morphophonemics: A survey of
theory and practice from 1876 to 1939". Lingua 33.235-252.
Klausenburger, Jürgen. 1978. "Mikołaj Kruszewski's Theory of Morphon-
ology". Historiographia. Linguistica 5.109-120.
Koerner, E. F. K[onrad]. 1972. "Jan Baudouin de Courtenay: His place in the
history of linguistic science". Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue canadienne
des Slavistes 14:4.663-682. (Repr. in Koerner 1978:107-126.).
Koerner, E. F. K. 1973[1971], Ferdinand de Saussure: Origin and development

of his linguistic thought in Western studies on language. Braunschweig:
Friedrich Vieweg & Sohn.
Koerner, E. F. K. 1978a. Toward a Historiography of Linguistics: Selected
essays. Foreword by R. H. Robins. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Koerner, E. F. K. 1986. "Kruszewski's Contribution to General Linguistic
Theory". Linguistics across Historical and Geographical Boundaries: In
honour of Jacek Fisiak ed. by Dieter Kastovsky & Aleksander Szwedek, vol.1:
Linguistic Theory and Historical Linguistics, 53-75. Berlin & New York: Walter
de Gruyter. (Revised and extended version, with a full bibliography of Kru
szewski's writings, in Kruszewski 1995:xi-xxxv.)
Korbut, Gabrjel. 1930. "Jan Niecisław Baudouin de Courtenay". Wiedza i Zycie
2 (offprint).
Kruszewski, Mikołaj Habdank. 1881a. "K voprosu o gune: Issledovanie v oblasti
staroslavjanskogo vokalizma [On the question of guna: A study in the field of
Old Slavic vocalism]". Russkij Filologiceskij Vestnik 5:1.1-109. (Partial Polish
transl. in Kruszewski 1967:25-46.)
Kruszewski, Mikołaj. 1881b. Ueber die Lautabwechslung. Kazan: Universitäts
buchdruckerei. (English transl. by Robert Austerlitz in Kruszewski 1995:5-34.)
Kruszewski, Mikołaj. 1883. Očerk nauki o jazyke [An outline of the science of
language]. Kazan: Tipografija Imperatorskogo Universiteta. (English transl. by
Gregory M. Eramian in Kruszewski 1995:51-173.)
Kruszewski, Mikoiaj. 1967. Wybór pism [Selected writings]. Transl. by Jerzy
Kurylowicz and Krystyna Pomorska, with introductory articles by Jerzy
Kurylowicz and Roman Jakobson. Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków: Zaklad Naro-
dowy Imienia Ossolinskich.
Kruszewski, Mikołaj. 1995, Writings in General Linguistics: On Vocalic Aterna-
tions; An Outline of Linguistic Science. Ed. with an Introduction by Konrad
Koerner. (= Amsterdam Classics in Linguistics, 1800-1925, 11.) Amsterdam &
Kruševskij, Nikolaj Vjaceslavovic = Kruszewski, Mikoiaj Habdank.
Lencek, Rado L. 1989. "Language-Society Nexus in Baudouin's Theory of
Language Evolution: Language change in progress". Rieger & Szymczak
1989.73-81.
Leont'ev, Aleksej A. 1960. "Tvorčeskij put' i osnovnye čerty lingvističeskoj
koncepcii I. A. Boduèna de Kurtenè [The creative path of I. A. Boduèn de
Kurtenè and the basic characteristics of his linguistic conception]". Baudouin
1960.5-27.
Leont'ev, Aleksej A. 1965. "I. A. Boduèn de Kurtenè i ego ucenie o jazyke (K
120-letiju so dnja rozdenija) [LA. Boduèn de Kurtenè and his teaching on
language (On the occasion of the 120th anniversary of his birth)]". Russkij
Jazykv Škole 29:2.87-93.
Lloyd, Richard John. 1896. Review of Baudouin de Courtenay (1895). Die
Neueren Sprachen 3.615-617.
Makkai, Valerie Becker, ed. 1972. Phonological Theory. New York: Holt, Rine-
hart & Winston.
Małachowska, Ewelina. 1973. "Jan Baudouin de Courtenay w zyciu prywatnym
[Jan Baudouin de Courtenay in private]". Przegląd Humanistyczny 5.92-104,
119-131.
Martinet, André. 1955, Économie des changements phonétiques. Berne: Francke.
Meringer, Rudolf, 1897. Review of Baudouin de Courtenay (1895). Öster

reichisches Litteraturblatt 22.684-686.
Mugdan, Joachim. 1984. Jan Baudouin de Courtenay (1845-1929): Leben und
Werk. München: Wilhelm Fink.
Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1935. "Jan Baudouin de Courtenay 13 III 1845 - 3 XI
1929". Polski slownik biograficzny, vol.I, 359-369. Warsaw. (Repr. in Nitsch
1960:182-216.)
Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1960. Ze wspomnien językoznawcy [From the memoirs of a
linguist]. Kraków: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Olmsted, D[avid] L[ockwood]. 1989. "Baudouin, Structuralism and Society".
Prace lingwistyczne ofiarowane Janowi Baudouinowi de Courtenay dla
uczczenia jego dziaialnosci naukowej 1868-1921 [Linguistic works presented
to Jan Baudouin de Courtenay to celebrate his scholarly activity 1868-1921].
1921. Kraków: Drukarnia Uniw. Jagiellonskiego.
Radioff, Wilhelm. 1882. "Die Lautalternation und ihre Bedeutung für die
Sprachentwicklung, belegt durch Beispiele aus den Türksprachen". Abhand
lungen des Fünften Internationalen Orientalisten-Congresses gehalten zu Ber
lin im September 1881 vol.III, 54-70. Berlin: Ascher.
Rieger, Janusz & Mieczysław Szymczak, eds. 1989. Jan Baudouin de Courtenay
a lingwistyka światowa: Materiały z konferencji międzynarodowej, Warszawa
4-7 IX 1979 [Jan Baudouin de Courtenay and world linguistics: Materials
from an international conference, Warsaw 4-7 IX 1979]. Wrocław-Warszawa-
Kraków: Zakład Narodowy Imienia Ossolinskich.
Rothstein, Robert A. 1975. "The Linguist as Dissenter: Jan Baudouin de Cour
tenay". Erlich et al. 1975.392-405.
Rothstein, Robert A. 1989. "Jednostka ludzka jako motyw przewodni twórczości
Jana Baudouina de Courtenay [The individual as the leading motif of Jan Bau
douin de Courtenay's output]". Rieger & Szymczak 1989.529-537.
Rozwadowski, Jan Michal. 1929. "Jan Baudouin de Courtenay". Jęzvk polski
14.164-170. (Repr. in Rozwadowski 1960:260-265.)
Rozwadowski, Jan. 1960. Wybór pism [Selected writings]. Vol.Ill: Języko-
znawstwo ogólne [General linguistics]. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo
Naukowe.
Rusek, Jerzy. 1989. "Krakowski okres dziaialnosci Jana Baudouina de Cour
tenay [Jan Baudouin de Courtenay's Cracow period]". Rieger & Szymczak
1989.603-608.
Ruszkiewicz, Piotr. 1973. "Baudouin de Courtenay and the Theory of Distinc
tive Features". Biuletyn Fonograficzny 14.91-99.
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New
York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.
Sapir, Edward. 1925. "Sound Patterns in Language". Language 1.37-51. (Repr.
in Makkai 1972.13-21.)
Sapir, Edward. 1933. "La réalité psychologiques des phonèmes". Journal de
psychologie normale et pathologique 30.247-265. (English original, "The
Psychological Reality of Phonemes", first published in 1949, has been
reprinted in Makkai 1972.22-31.)
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1879. Mémoire sur le système primitif des voyelles dans
les langues indo-européennes. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.
Saradzenidze, T[inatin] S. 1980. Lingvisticeskaja teorija I. A. Boduèna de Kur-

tenè i ee mesto v jazykoznanii XIX - XX vekov [I. A. Boduèn de Kurtenè's
linguistic theory and its place in 19th and 20th-century linguistics]. Moskva:
Izdatel'stvo "Nauka".
Scherer, Wilhelm. 1868. Zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: Weid
mann. (Repr., with an Introd. by Kurt R. Jankowsky [ix-lv], Amsterdam &
Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1995.)
Schuchardt, Hugo. 1885. lieber die Lautgesetze: Gegen die Junggrammatiker.
Berlin: Robert Oppenheim.
Seldeslachts, Herman & Pierre Swiggers. 1999. '"Ich erwarte mit Ungeduld das
absolute Ende meiner elenden Existenz': The 'image' of Jan Baudouin de
Courtenay in his Correspondence with Hugo Schuchardt". History of Lin
guistics 1996 ed. by David Cram et al., vol.11: From Classical to Contemporaiy
Linguistics, 277-288. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Sljusareva, N[atalija] A. 1974. "Problems of Scientific Connections and In
fluence (F. de Saussure and J. Baudouin de Courtenay)". Heilmann 1974 II,
753-757.
Stachurski, Edward. 1989. "Listy Jana Baudouina de Courtenay [Jan Baudouin
de Courtenay's letters]". Rieger & Szymczak 1989.625-646.
Stankiewicz, Edward. 1972, "Baudouin de Courtenay: His life and work", Bau
douin 1972:3-47.
Stone, Gerald. 1989. "Jan Baudouin de Courtenay's View of Free Variation".
Szober, Stanisław. 1930. "Jan, Ignacy, Niecislaw Baudouin de Courtenay (1845-
1929)". Prace filologiczne 15:l.vii-xxiii.
Trubetzkoy, Nikolaj S. 1929. "Zur allgemeinen Theorie der phonologischen
Vokalsysteme". Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 1.39-67.
Trubetzkoy, Nikolaj S. 1933. "La phonologie actuelle". Journal de psychologie
normale et pathologique 30.227-246.
Trubetzkoy, Nikolaj S. 1939. Grundzüge der Phonologie. (= Travaux du Cercle
Linguistique de Prague, 7.) Prague.
Ulaszyn, Henryk. 1934. "Jan Baudouin de Courtenay: Charakterystyka ogólna
uczonego i czlowieka [Jan Baudouin de Courtenay: A general profile of the
scholar and the man]". Poznań: Gebethner & Wolff,
Urbańczyk, Stanislaw. 1989. "Zycie i naukowa droga Jana Baudouina de Cour
tenay [The life and scholarly path of Jan Baudouin de Courtenay]". Rieger &
Szymczak 1989.515-522.
Vasmer, Max. 1947. "J. Baudouin de Courtenay: Zur 100. Wiederkehr seines
Geburtstages". Zeitschrift für Phonetik 4/5.71-77.
Vengerov, S[emen] A., ed. 1897. Kritiko-biografičeskij slovar' russkix pisatelej i
učenyx [A critical-biographical dictionary of Russian writers and scholars].
Vol.V. St. Petersburg: Tipografija M. M. Stasjuleviča.
Vinogradov. Viktor V. 1963. "I. A. Boduèn de Kurtenè". Baudouin 1963 I, 6-
20.
Wagner, Ph[ilipp]. 1896. Review of Baudouin de Courtenay (1895). Zeitschrift
für französische Sprache und Litteratur 18.106-109.
Wundt, Wilhelm. 1901. Sprachgeschichte und Sprachpsychologie mit Rücksicht
auf B. Delbrücks "Grundfragen der Sprachforschung". Leipzig: Wilhelm
Engelmann.
CHAPTER 7
MIKOLAJ KRUSZEWSKI AND 20TH-CENTURY

LINGUISTICS*
FEDOR MIXAJLOVIČ BEREZIN

Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow
At certain points in the development of sciences there appear classical texts
which accumulate in generalized form the achievements of various spheres of
knowledge. On the one hand, they are a reaction against previous theories,
while on the other, they pave the way for new theories, These theories, both
past and future, depend on the philosophical premises on which a particular
science is founded.
If we adopt this point of view in order to look at paradigms in the history
of linguistics, we may distinguish three such paradigms: NEOGRAMMARIAN,
with Karl Brugmann's (1849-1919) and Hermann Osthoff s (1847-1909) fa
mous preface to the first volume of their Morphologische Untersuchungen auf
dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen (1878), also referred to as the
'Neogrammarian manifesto' (positivism being its philosophical basis); STRUC
TURALIST, with Ferdinand de Saussure's (1857-1913) Cours de linguistique
générale (1916) as the classical text (again predicated on positivist principles);
and GENERATIVIST, with Noam Chomsky's (b.1928) Aspects of the Theory of
Syntax (1965) as the representative 'exemplar' (rationalist positivism consti
tuting its philosophical background).
It has commonly been claimed that these three paradigms in their historical
sequence stand in sharp opposition to each other. Such a claim impedes our
understanding of 'continuity' in the formulation and elaboration of some of the
stages in the evolution of linguistics. In between these paradigms, there exist
certain intermediate links which escape attention of historians of linguistics.
For instance, it is maintained that "Baudouin de Courtenay and Ferdinand de
Saussure bridge as it were the linguistics of the 1880s with modern linguistic
* This chapter was first published in Historiographia Linguistica 25:1/2.61-86 (1998). The
translated from the Russian original was provided by Waldemar Skrzypczak, in consultation
with Stefan Grzybowski. It was further revised by the editors with the help of Gregory M.
Eramian (University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada).
trends'5 (Guxman 1964:13). This connection, however, lacks one important

link, i.e., Mikołaj Kruszewski's linguistic theory, which an American re
searcher, Joanna Radwanska-Williams (1993) justifiably calls 'a lost para
digm'.
2. A brief sketch of Mikotqj Kruszew ski's life

Mikolaj Habdank Kruszewski was born in Luck, in the Volhynia region
(today a part of Ukraine), on 6 December (18 December) 1851. After graduat
ing from Grammar School, he entered the Historical-Philological Faculty of
Warsaw University, where he first enrolled in the history department. Most of
his time, however, he devoted to studying philosophy. The Slavist Mitrofan
Alekseevic Kolosov (1832-1891), who worked at that time at Warsaw Uni
versity, turned his attention to the extraordinary talents of the young student
and strong his attraction to linguistics, and advised him to further improve his
knowledge of linguistic either in Xarkov under the famous linguist Aleksandr
Afanas'evič Potebnja (1835-1891), or in Kazan with Jan Baudouin de Courte-
nay (1845-1929). As it was rather difficult to obtain a scholarship to further
his studies, having graduated in 1875, Kruszewski had to accept the post of a
school teacher in the town of Troick in Orenburg Province. On the way to his
new job Kruszewski stopped in Kazan in order to meet Baudouin. He talked
with him about his further research plans. In 1878, after a three-year period in
Troick, Kruszewski arrrived in Kazan as a graduate student — a candidate for
a faculty position without a professorial fellowship (professorskij stipendiat
bez soderzanija).
The intensified study of linguistics under the guidance of Baudouin, the
ability to select from extensive reading what was important and to reject what
was of secondary importance, enabled Kruszewski, as early as in 1880, to
start teaching courses in Russian phonetics, anthropophonics, and Sanskrit In
1883, having defended his doctoral dissertation Očerk nauki o jazyke (An out
line of the science of language), he became successor to Baudouin's Chair, and
after the departure of the latter for Dorpat, he began teaching ail Baudouin's
courses: general linguistics, comparative phonetics of Indo-European lan
guages, linguistic palaeontology, and some parts of the historical grammar of
Russian.
Unfavourable external conditions (such as the necessity to support his large
family) forced him to take up an additional job at the institute of noble young
ladies (Girls' Institute), besides his university teaching. Extreme fatigue, weak
health, and constant emotional anxiety ruined Kruszewski's nervous system
and led to its gradual paralysis. In February 1886 he finally stopped working
for the university and found himself in hospital. Progressive brain damage led
MIKOLAJ KRUSZEWSKI AND 20TH-CENTURY LINGUISTICS 211
Mikoiaj Kruszewski
to an inevitable end: on 31 October (12 November) 1887 the life of that young
and yet promising scholar came to an end. It is difficult to say in what direction
the Russian, and even World linguistics would have evolved at the end of the
19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries and afterwards, had Kruszewski
lived longer. It is possible that he sensed his huge, unfulfilled creative poten
tial, as on the eve of his death he is reported to have said to his wife: "Ax!
[Oh, how quickly I passed across the
stage!]". The words of Potebnja, grieving over the loss of his favourite student
Aleksandr Vasil'evic Popov (1855-1880), can also be fully applied to Kru
szewski's death:
[Such youth [...], such
broad plans, and the hard-working nature to match them, and to burn himself
out [...]!]" (Potebnja 1881:ii).
In the historiography of Russian linguistics Kruszewski is usually associ
ated with the Kazan School of Linguistics. Baudouin de Courtenay himself
was sceptical about this label, and whenever he did use the term 'Kazan
School', without fail he placed it in inverted commas. Apart from Kruszewski,
among the other members of the School, as well as among Baudouin's stu
dents, it is necessary to mention Sergej Konstantinovic Bulič (1859-1921),
Vasilij Alekseevic Bogorodickij (1857-1941), Aleksandr Ivanovic Aleksan-
drov (1861-1917), Professor of Slavonic Philology, as well as Vasilij
Vasil'evic (alias Wilhelm) Radlov (1837-1918), the distinguished Turkologist,
who attended Baudouin's seminars. All these scholars left a significant mark
on linguistics. The most general principles, that bound all these linguists, were
their active interest in the investigation of modem living languages, the under
standing of language in terms of social phenomena, and the emphasis on com
parative typological study of languages (Baudouin de Courtenay 1963 II:48-
55).
Baudouin de Courtenay was the unquestionable intellectual leader of this
School, whose nature reconciled, in a strange way, a slighting attitude towards
his students and pupils with exaggerated overestimation of some of them (in
particular, the poorest ones) and underestimation of others (the most talented).
In his letter to Radlov from Dorpat, dated 15/27 July 1886, Baudouin writes:
My Kazan work — during its better years! — was mostly beating the air [ein leeres
Strohdreschen] and a senseless waste of time. All the so-called Kazan linguistics is
simply humbug. My so called-Kazan students were for the most part idlers and good
for nothing [sind meistenteils Faulenzer und Taugenichtse]. And I, a fool [dummer
Kerl], instead of performing my own duties, was wasting 15 hours a week working
with them (a cui bono)? Now I only feel pangs of conscience and bitter disappoint
ment. (Quoted after Leont'ev [1968:15])
MIKOŁAJ KRUSZEWSKI AND 20TH-CENTURY LINGUISTICS 213
This criticism, mixed with irritation, of his own Kazan work can probably
be explained by the fact that by this time Baudouin was disappointed by the
intellectual climate of his environment and by the distance from Western aca
demic centres of linguistic research. In his letters to the great Slovenian Slavist
Vatroslav Jagic (1838-1923) teaching in Vienna, he complains:
[...] the milieu which surrounds me is not at all conducive to scientific work. [...]
The exchange and scientific verification of ideas is limited exclusively to conversa
tions with my students. Among these there are some very talented ones. I think you
are already familiar with the work of one of them [Kruszewski]. (Jagic 1983:149)
[...] my stay in Kazan is becoming more and more unbearable. (Jagic 1983:198)
He also revealed that he was planning to leave Kazan. His exasperation can
also explain his unfortunate description of his students. "I think", he writes to
Jan Karlowicz (1836-1903) on 23 August 1885, "that, of all my 'disciples',
Aleksandrov is the most successful." In another letter to Karlowicz dated 10/22
November 1883, he describes Kruszewski in the following ternis:
Kruszewski wants to look like a 'child prodigy'. In order to prove it, he insisted dur
ing a discussion that he had never read anything by Paul at all, and had arrived at his
conclusions with the help of his own intellect [...]. Poor him, he forgot that he him
self in his Zur Lautabwechslung (1881) had said that, already at that time, he had
been familiar with Paul. How can this be reconciled? There is no question that he is
very talented and intellectually independent, and put in a lot of his own work into his
book, but it is difficult to deny Paul's influence [...] Kruszewski's Ocerk — is a very
successful book, but it's superficial and somewhat careless. (Quoted after Leont'ev
[1968: 9, 14])
Baudouin expressed his harsh opinion on that work again later, saying that
the book, although original, seemed to lack any expression of linguistic laws
and thus it did not present itself as any particular 'event' in linguistics. "He
himself did not succeed in formulating any important laws. However, he paved
the way for their discovery" (Baudouin de Courtenay 1963 I:197). And at the
same time, he wrote that Ocerk nauki o jazyke "has remained until now one of
the best works in general linguistics, not only in Russian" (Baudouin de
Courtenay 1963 II:53). Radwańska-Williams says: "[...] we can find at the
core of Baudouin's critique of Kruszewski's writings a legitimate theoretical
disagreement" (1993:146). It is interesting to note that Kruszewski's Ocerk
was included by Baudouin in the obligatory reading list for the students of
Dorpat University in 1884, along with Paul's Principien der Sprachgeschichte
(1880) and Brugmann & Osthoff's foreword to Morphologische Untersuchun
gen (1878). There seems to be no indication, however, that Baudouin recom
mended Kruszewski's Ocerk to his students at St. Petersburg University (dur-
ring 1900-1918). Radwariska-Williams explains this as follows (p.134):
Kruszewski's relationship to Baudouin as his teacher and mentor was an important

factor determining the reception of Kruszewski's linguistic theory by his contempo
raries. During Kruszewski's lifetime Baudouin was an enthusiastic promotor of his
student's writings and ideas. After Kruszewski's death, Baudouin's enthusiasm gave
way to disillusionment [...]. In the context of the neogrammarian period in Russian
linguistics, i.e. the late 19th and early 20th century, Baudouin's ultimately negative
judgement of Kruszewski had the effect of devaluing Kruszewski's work.
Koerner (1989:379) also noted that "Baudouin's [1888-1889] account
vacillates between disdain and envy"; Kilbury had earlier characterized his ex
tensive obituary article as nothing more than "a nervous mixture of praise and
personal attacks" (1976:22). Be that as it may, during Baudouin's Petersburg
period, the name of Kruszewski was most probably not mentioned a single
time in his lectures and recommended literature, None of his Petersburg stu
dents—including Lev Vladimirovič Ščerba (1880-1944), Max Vasmer (1886—
1962), Boris Jakovlevic Vladimircov (1884-1931), Evgenij Dmitrievič Poli-
vanov (1891-1938), Boris Aleksandrovic Larin (1893-1964) — ever referred
to, or even mentioned, in their writings, any of Kruszewski's works.
Baudouin's Petersburg students profited a great deal from his lectures.
Scerba writes:
When, in 1923, we received in Leningrad the Cours de linguistique générale by de
Saussure [...], we were struck by the many coincidences between de Saussure's tenets
and those we had been used to. (1957[1930]:94).
And Polivanov adds:
As for the notorious posthumous book by de Saussure it can be said with a great deal
of justification that it does not contain any statements that would have novelty value
for us, as they have been known to us from Baudouin de Courtenay's teaching. (Poli
vanov 1968[1929]:185).
These students of Baudouin did not know his admission of debt to Kru
szewski, as can be gathered from remarks such as: T myself learnt a lot from
him [Kruszewski], and his influence on me was envigorating' (Baudouin 1963
I[1888]: 149), and at the same time they did not know the classical model Oerk
nauki o jazyke. Baudouin himself did not produce any classical text. As Ščerba
wrote: 'Baudouin [...] in most cases expressed his ideas casually, in innu
merable reviews and minor articles, often on completely different subjects'
(Scerba 1974[1930]:391).
It is regrettable that such a talented scholar' as Baudouin could not under
stand the ideas and views of his equally talented student.
3. Kruszewsk's ideas in phonology and morphology

3,1 Kruszewski on phonology
In the history of phonology Kruszewski, along with Baudouin de Courte-
nay, is usually referred to as one of the founders of the phonological theory of
language. Speaking out against the 'archaeological' trend in linguistics, whose
representatives reduced the essence of phonetic study to the reconstruction of
the sound system of the proto-language, Kruszewski demonstrated in his inau
gural lecture "The subject, division and method of a science of language" of
1880, that
[...] the most immediate task of phonetics is not the reconstruction of the sound sys
tem of protolanguages, but above all the study of the character of the sounds of a
given language, the conditions and laws of their changes and disappearance, and the
conditions of the appearance of new sounds. (Kruszewski 1894:89).
Introducing Russian linguists to Saussure's Mémoire sur le système primi
tif des voyelles dans les langues indo-européennes (1878), Kruszewski bor
rows from this work the term 'phoneme', interpreting it as a designation of a
phonetic unit. Kruszewski's peculiarity consisted in his grounding of an inter
pretation of the phoneme on the comparison of related morphological units, as
sociating it with sound alternation. Kruszewski analyzess the idea of sound al
ternation in a very detailed way in his work K voprosu o gune [On the question
of the 'guna'] (1881a). Contemporary foreign historians of linguistics discover
in this very work views that are comparable with those of the 20th century.
Thus Jakobson maintains that the chapter 'General notes on sound alternation'
from K voprosu o gune "is the first proposal in linguistic literature of a theory
and classification of sound alternations" (Jakobson 1985:341).
Kruszewski subdivided all the changes, or sound alternations, into three
categories, The first category included 'The minimal change in the original
sounds [...] which is a combinatory sound change and depends on anthropo-
phonic, that is to say purely physical causes" (Kruszewski 1995:11[1881:8]).
The second type of alternation refers to the alternation in which "The causes or
conditions of such an alternation can only be discovered by investigating the
history of the language" (Kruszewski 1995:13[1881:9]). An example of such a
change in Russian is muxa/muska [múxa]/[múska] "fly/little fly". The third
type of sound alternation is closely related to morphological phenomena and
can be exemplified by the k/č alternation as in proroklproročit' [prarók]/[pra-
róčit'] "prophet/to prophesy", or s/z as in the Gemían Haus/Häuser.
In his analysis of K voprosu o gune, referring to the first type of alterna
tion in particular, Kilbury writes that in the s/z type of alternation:
Title-page of Kruszewski's Über die Lautabwechslung (Kazan, 1881)

[...] no line is drawn here between phonemics and morphophonemics in the typical
American sense, but perhaps his distinction is roughly that between subphonemic
variation and automatic morphophonemic alternation, on the one hand, and nonauto-
matic morphophonemic (i.e. morphological) alternation, on the other hand. (Kilbury
1976:19)
In Radwariska-Williams's opinion, "In 20th century structuralist terms, the
first category is phonological, while the second and third categories are mor-
phophonological" (1993:53). She claims that the term 'phoneme', as used by
Kruszewski, is close in meaning to the modern understanding in phonology,
including both historical phonology and morphophonology. The point is,
however, that in her view the quoted argumentation, found in Kruszewski's K
voprosu o gune
[...] is rather different from the typical 19th century linguistic text. It is an attempt
to construct a theory rather than to systematize a particular set of data; in this respect
it can be contrasted even with Saussure's Mémoire. (Radwańska- Williams 1993:51)
Kruszewski's theory of sound alternation is connected with his aspiration
to replace the sound laws, operating without exceptions, proposed by the Neo-
grammarians. In his polemics with them on the operation of sound laws Kru
szewski claims that "my views diverge from those of Prof. Paul on the ques
tion of the nature of sound laws, and where they are to be sought" (Kru
szewski 1995:49[1883:9]).
Kruszewski's elaboration of the theory of sound alternation was founded
on his study of phonetic alternations characteristic of the synchronic state of the
Russian language, on the norms of a living language, because in ancient lan
guages such phonetic changes cannot be registered due to the letter-sound di
vergence. Sound alternation should be considered in close relation to morpho
logical categories.
3.2 Kruszewski on morphology

Kruszewski took too broad a view of morphology as a part of grammar.
He subdivided morphology into the study of word-formation (lexicology) and
the study of inflection (syntax). The external aspect of lexicology is lexicology
in the narrow sense of the term, whereas the internal aspect relates to semasiol
ogy; similarly syntax is subdivided into the study of inflexion and the study of
function. "The main morphological unit, which is called the root, has as its
function the expression of a certain relation" (Kruszewski 1893:44). Kruszew
ski sees the task of linguistics to be the discovery of morphological laws, or
generalisations, two of which he considers important: the generalisation con
cerning "morphological assimilation"[...] and the generalisation concerning
"apocopy of stems in favour of suffixes" (Kruszewski 1995;8[1881:4]; origin

al emphasis).
Kruszewski subdivided morphological assimilation into four categories: 1)
prefix assimilation; 2) stem assimilation; 3) suffix assimilation, and 4) inflec
tional assimilation. The prefix assimilation consists in the modification of the
prefix by analogy with some other prefix or in the breaking down of an incom
prehensible word into the prefix and the stem: peκpym [rekrút], "recruit" for
instance, is assimilated into the category of lexical items with the ne prefix (as
in Hexpucmb [néxrist'] "non-believer"), hence Heκpym [nekrut] "non-re
cruit". The thematic (stem) assimilation consists in the change of the lexical
stem. The suffix assimilation is seen by Kruszewski in the case of loanwords,
used with native language suffixes as in Latin patella (Cκoeopo∂a) [skәv
radá] "frying pan"), rendered in Polish as patel-nia.
As for the inflectional assimilation, Kruszewski emphasised that it was the
most common type of morphological assimilation. As examples of such an as
similation he gives forms of the third person plural xo∂m [xodjut] "they
go",  o c  m [nosjut] "they carry", eO3m [vozjut] "they cart", in place of
the correct forms xo∂m [xodjat], ocm [nosjat], eo3m [vozjat]. It needs
to be pointed out that the idea of analogy, so widely accepted by linguists at the
end of the 19th century, was viewed by Kruszewski as 'morphological assimi
lation'.
Kruszewski's doctrine of morphological assimilation is closely related to
another element of the morphological system — the theory of so-called mor
phological absorption, which later grew to even broader dimensions and re
ceived the name of metanalysis (pereintegracija). Kruszewski's concept of
morphological absorption develops Baudouin's idea, bold for his time, of the
shift in boundary between the morphological elements of a lexical unit, particu
larly the change of border between the stem and the ending. Having developed
Baudouin's idea, Kruszewski turned it into a broad scientific generalisation,
applicable to numerous Indo-European languages. Baudouin admitted "that this
morphological generalisation in his [i.e., Kruszewski's] formulation looks in
comparably more significant than [it does] in my own" (Baudouin de Courte-
nay 1963 I[1888]:160). In the works of Kruszewski's student Vasilij Alek-
seevic Bogorodickij (1857-1941), Kruszewski's theory on morphological ab
sorption was developed into the theory of metanalysis of stems in favour of
inflection, the theory which became an integral part of university handbooks of
Russian grammar.
Kruszewski explains 'morphological absorption' as the shift from a lan

guage state referred to as synthetic to the state known as analytic, which can be
illustrated by the following formula:
abc + def + ghi > bcde
1 2 3 2
Kruszewski saw the differences between the synthetic and analytic forms
of words primarily in the systems of declensions and conjugations. He main
tains that morphological absorption not only helps to understand the shift from
synthetic to analytic languages, but it also leads to the creation of new morpho
logical elements. Kruszewski turned his attention to the dynamism of morpho
logical elements within a word and subtly noticed their various modifications,
conditioned by their positions and phonological causes. It should be noted that
Kruszewski never used the term 'morpheme'. This 'joli mot' (Meillet) was in
troduced into linguistic nomenclature by Baudouin later.1 Kruszewski spoke of
'morphological element', and essentially reduced all language to the word, to
the morphology of the word, refusing to see anything beyond the boundaries
of the word, beyond its morphological elements. It is interesting to note that
post-Bloomfieldian descriptivism also focused mainly on morphology. The
narrowing of the scope of research by Kruszewski led to an interesting inter
pretation of morphological problems from both the point of view of meaning
expressed by individual morphemes, as well as from the point of view of their
mutual interrelationships.
Kruszewski gave a very precise and comprehensive description of mutual
interrelationships among morphological elements. The nature of their correla
tions allowed him to conclude that, in Indo-European languages, prefix, root,
and suffix are not always mutually independent elements, but their parts often
overlap, so that with time their boundaries become unstable. Kruszewski as
cribed great significance to the metanalysis of components of a word, explain
ing their evolution by the morphological structure of a word.
4. The philosophical foundations of Kruszewski' s linguistic views

In Western linguistic literature of the end of the 19th century there appeared
a number of reviews on two fundamental works of Kruszewski in German
translation Über die Lautabwechslung (1881) and Prinzipien der Sprachent
wickelung (1884-1890), written by Karl Brugmann (1849-1919), Louis
Havet (1849-1925), Vatroslav Jagic (1838-1923), and Aleksander Brückner
(1856-1939). These reviews demonstrate that Western linguists did not un-
1
Baudouin added the term to the published version of his 'Detailed program of lectures for
the academic year 1877-1878' at Kazan University (1881:149 = 1963 I, p.116).
derstand much of Kruszewski's ideas. It is my contention that the lack of ac

ceptance of Kruszewski's ideas by Western linguists was due to his peculiar
philosophical outlook, which was shaped by his intense interest in philosophy,
logic and psychology. He familiarised himself with these disciplines either by
studying them on his own or by attending courses at Warsaw University which
were taught by the eminent Russian psychologist and logician Matvej Mix-
ailovič Troickij (1835-1899) who was close to materialism. As Baudouin
notes, "thanks to the influence of Prof. Troickij he [Kruszewski] acquired a
clear insight into fundamental philosophical problems" (Baudouin de Courte-
nay 1963 I:199). As Anan'ev (1947:151-152) noted, Troickij
[...] being one-sided in his eulogy of English empirical psychology [...] expressed
his sympathy for the natural sciences and [...] materialism and avoided any of the
conformism and [...] prevailing idealistic philosophy in those days.
The use of data drawn from psychology and logic in Kruszewski's attempt
to determine the fundamental laws of language in terms of logico-grammatical
categories, for instance, was undoubtedly inspired by Troickij's lectures. In
his lectures on psychology and logic, Troickij claimed that the purpose of logic
is 'to present only the best types of human intellectual activity and human
thought, which find their expression in known concepts, which we refer to as
the meaning of a given word' (Troickij [1883/84]:4), and also that 'Words,
with their respective concepts, are also subdivided into classes' (ibid., p.43).
While attending Troickij's lectures, Kruszewski also became familial* with
the views of John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), the founder of English positivism,
who in his two-volume work A System of Logic (1843) attempted to reconcile
two epistemological traditions, empiricism and rationalism. The empirical ap
proach treated sensory experience as the only source of knowledge and derived
from deduction, whereas the rationalist position derived from induction. "The
first and most obvious distinction between observation and experiment is that
the latter is an immense extension of the former" (Mill 1865:419). Further, Mill
claims that the bases of certain areas of science (physiology, philosophy, so
ciology) was very limited and that their methods ought to be, to a large degree,
if not totally, derivable from experience. Hence Kruszewski aimed at the de
scription of those linguistic facts which are perceived with our sensory organs.
Such facts are available only in the physiology of sounds, in other words, an-
thropophonics.
As far as the method of anthropophonics is concerned, it differs considerably from the
general methodology of language study in that, along with observation, it admits ex
perience. (Kruszewski 1892:266; emphasis added: FMB)
And in this vein he writes further that 'our science is purely inductive'. On the
other hand, the experiential study of anthropophonic data, particularly in the
area of phonetics, leads to the formulation of empirical laws, general assump
tions, and generalisations which allow the clarification of the nature and causes
of linguistic changes. According to Kruszewski, the real knowledge of lin
guistic facts is possible only when deductive and inductive methods are treated
inseparably.
We do not possess any general truths or axioms, which could be applicable by means
of deduction in the science of language [...] But in addition inductive sciences usually
use general truths arrived at by means of induction for deductive conclusions. Such
general truths are also plausible in linguistics, in particular in the branch called the
physiology of sounds ... (Kruszewski 1894:89-90)
No matter whether intentionally or not, his 'philosophical and highly gen
eralising mind' (Baudouin de Courtenay 1963 I, p. 176) made him shift from
the positivist observation of facts and experience towards the discovery of laws
governing language changes, and the discovery of interrelations among lin
guistic elements.
We should not lose sight of the fact that in Russia of the 1860s and 1870s,
bold theoretical research in the realm of biology and physiology was carried
being out, particularly in the works of Kliment Arkad'evič Timirjazev (1843—
1920), Andrej Sergeevic Famincyn (1835-1918), Ivan Mixajlovic Secenov
(1829-1905). Hence Kruszewski's attention was focused sharply on the recent
achievements of biology, particularly on Charles Darwin's (1809-1882) On
the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (1859), which he quotes
three times in German translation. Thus, in order to support his position re
garding the gradualness of the sound changes brought about by anthropopho-
netic causes, he drew upon the Darwinian concept of the extreme importance of
minimal phenomena and their thorough analysis. These minimal changes tak
ing place over long periods of time can bring about bigger changes. 'Sounds to
Kruszewski', writes Baudouin de Courtenay, 'are almost the same as what
species of animals and plants are to a naturalist' (Baudouin de Courtenay 1963
I:187). This particular philosophy of science led Kruszewski to assign linguis
tics to
[...] the natural sciences. Its main task is not to restore the picture of the past history
of language, but to discover laws of language phenomena [...] The laws of language
are absolutely identical with the laws operating in other spheres of the existing uni
verse, that is the so called laws of nature, which do not allow any exceptions or devi
ations. (Kruszewski 1881a: 107; emphasis added: FMB)
Claiming that linguistic phenomena are also governed by laws of nature,
which allow no exceptions, Kruszewski, in fact, puts forward a hypothesis of
the universal nature of sound laws, as Radwańska-Williams justifiably points

out in the following terms (1993:59-60):
The hypothesis of universal sound laws reflects the goal of Kruszewski's linguistic
theory, the search for the laws of language. In this respect Kruszewski's conception
of linguistic science anticipates the goal of discovering linguistic universals ex
pressed by 20th century structuralist and generative theories.
A brief analysis of Kruszewski's philosophical views allows us to under
stand why the few reviewers of his works, being outstanding scholars in their
own fields, could not appreciate the theoretical conclusions contained in his
works. Kruszewski's enthusiasm for the positivist inductive approach — evi
dently harking back to August Schleicher — stood in opposition to the deduc
tively-oriented approach of Neogrammarians, and did not meet with their un
derstanding.
Even so, two of Kruszewski's works, translated into German, contain
ideas which, even if not fully understood by his contemporaries, allow the
definition of Kruszewski's linguistic theory "as a full-fledged structuralist the
ory, antedating Saussure's Cours de linguistique générale (1916) by over 30
years" (Radwańska-Williams 1993:69).
5. Kruszew ski on the fundamental problems of general linguistics

The conception of language as a system is one of the crucial elements in
Kruszewski's general linguistic theory. According to Kruszewski, the linguis
tic system consists of structural families of words, systems of types. The
structural families constitute grammatical categories which correspond to a
similarly organised representation of objects and phenomena of objective real
ity. Kruszewski conveys a deep belief that structural systems, the systems of
types, are connected and correlated with processes of typification, that is the
ability of human thinking to classify and generalise objects and phenomena of
the objective world into definite systems or types of concepts (qualities, prop
erties, features, etc.). The systems of declension and conjugation are not only
systems; "everything that is known in grammars under the general designation
of 'word-formation', presents a large number of systems" (Kruszewski 1995:
137-138[1883:109]). Such an understanding of language as a system led
Koerner (1989:387) to claim that in Kruszewski's conception, the language is
"not simply a system, but more like something that Josef Vachek calls 'a sys
tem of systems'".
On numerous occasions Kruszewski emphasised the importance of mem
ory (cf. 1995[1883]: 96, 124, 139, 142, etc.) — "our memory retains for us
parallel systems of models" (p,145[l 18]) as a condition for the production of
linguistic forms within an individuar s mind. What is remembered, is stored or

fixed in a linguistic system. In this sense Kruszewski's concept of language is
close to the conception of 'linguistic code', i.e., of a linguistic system which is
present in the memory of the speakers of a given language. It is important to
highlight Kruszewski's characterization of the elements of the language system
and their changeability through time. According to Kruszewski, it is important
that the historical development of language as a system is conditioned by the
internal regularities of a language, the close interconnection of semantic cate
gories of a language with their external formal grammatical expression, and the
presence of general laws.
Evaluating Kruszewski's general conception of the systemic nature of lan
guage, it is necessary to emphasise two points: 1) the application of the princi
ple of systematicity not only to phonetics and morphology, but also to the lexi
con, and 2) the conception of language, not only as a system of structures, but
also as a system of relations (dependencies). The relations of dependencies of
every category with numerous other categories create the harmony of a linguis
tic system — "language forms a harmonious whole" (Kruszewski 1995:149
[1883:122]; emphasis in the original).
The cause of the historical changeability of language as a system, according
to Kruszewski, lies in the psychological nature of the linguistic system, which
can be explained by the laws of association. Language is a system of signs
which do not exist independently of the mind of the speaking individual, and
therefore, like everything which exists in the human mind, are also subject to
psychological laws.
Kruszewski attaches great importance to associative links for ordering the
language system. While the Neogrammarians understood associations merely
as the fusion of various concepts into one whole and the establishment of vari
ous interrelations among those concepts, Kruszewski was under the influence
of Mill's conception of the interrelationships among natural phenomena:
The phenomena of nature exist in two distinct relations to one another; that of
simultaneity and that of succession. Every phenomenon is related, in a uniform
manner, to some phenomena that coexist with it, and to some that have preceded or
will follow it. (Mill 1856:362)
Mill's idea on simultaneity or succession in natural phenomena was devel
oped by Kruszewski into two laws of association, i.e., association by contigu
ity (the order of succession) and association by similarity (the order of coexis
tence). Jakobson claims that Kruszewski's conception of the two ways of
word classification had a considerable influence on Saussure's ideas on as
sociative relations, analogous to Kruszewski's associations by similarity, and
on syntagmatic relations, analogous to Kruszewski's associations by contigu

ity (Jakobson 1985:337-338). Jakobson maintains that Kruszewski's concep
tion is more systematic than Saussure's, and his subdivision into "two lin
guistic axes [...] raised by Kruszewski from the mechanistic to phenomenolog-
ical level, developed in Kruszewski's work into a harmoniously complete and
unusually fruitful theory of language" (p.336).
Kruszewski's claim concerning the two laws of association also occurs in
the capacity of an explanatory principle of language structure, which Kru
szewski is more likely to consider to be lexical rather than syntactic.2 The
homogeneity of a system is determined by the production of words, that is by
the association by similarity, along with the operation of the association by
contiguity, i.e., reproduction. The formation of words leads, by analogy to
patterns present in the language, to the creation of other forms, less regular,
secondary, and yet functioning in the language. The association by similarity
introduces into a linguistic system only a temporary and relative irregularity,
which cannot be said about the association by contiguity which has a more de
structive effect on the system of language. Quoting Mill almost verbatim, Kru
szewski claims that
[...] we will always find a twofold stratification in every language: a geographical
stratification of the coexisting order, or borrowing, and a chronological stratification
of the sequential order, or inheritance. Words of these two stratifications will always
more or less disrupt the harmony of a linguistic system. (Kruszewski 1995:123
[1883:93-94]; emphasis in the original)
From Kruszewski's above conception on associative links among words

there emerge three important conclusions:
First, the development of language is defined as an eternal antagonism
between the progressive association by similarity and the conservative assimi
lation by contiguity. In terms of contemporary terminology, one can say that
paradigmatic and syntagmatic lexical relations, according to Kruszewski, are
found in relations of antagonism, and at the same time, the syntagmatic rela
tions determine the paradigmatic ones.
Second, as regards associative relations, an implicit analogue can be found
in what is now termed as semantic field theory, elaborated in the 1920s and
1940s by such German linguists as Leo Weisgerber (1899-1985), Jost Trier
(1894-1970), Gunther Ipsen (1899-1984), Walter Porzig (1895-1961). When
Kruszewski talks about words in our consciousness being capable of inducing
2
Cf. Baudouin de Courtenay's (1963 I:176) comment: Tn general, Kruszewski sees the
essence of language in the word to such an extent [...] that the "ideal of language" presented
by him is, in fact, the "ideal of the word".'
one another, i.e., inducing definite types of relations among words of a given
language, then we can clearly see a semantic field— 'the link between two or
more words, conditioned by syntactic bonds' (Ufimceva 1961:56).
Third, when Kruszewski speaks about associative links of words, he con
nects with them the frequency of occurrence of one or another word in speech.
The frequency is connected mainly with association by contiguity when we re
call words in our memory. The association by contiguity based on meaning,
and, the reproduction of a word connected with this association, is closely de
pendent on the frequency of use of the word in one meaning or another. Kru
szewski establishes the following law of inverse relationship between the
sphere of use of a word and its content: "the broader the use of a given word,
the less content it will have" (Kruszewski 1995:166[1883:141]; emphasis in
the original).
The law of frequency formulated by Kruszewski does not simply state the
fact that some concepts are encountered more often than others, but explicitly
postulates the primary and secondary nature of elements of a linguistic struc
ture in the sense of their opposition of meaning (association by contiguity) and
the external structural resemblance (association by similarity). This law is of
primary importance for the theory of association (Deese 1965:14-15), and was
further elaborated in the works of an eminent Polish linguist, Jerzy Kurytowicz
(1895-1978), who also indicated:
C'est-à-dire que plus le contenu est générale, plus large est l'emploi du signe dans la
communauté parlante; plus le contenu est special, plus l'emploi, non seulement in
terne (= à l'intérieur du système), mais aussi externe (= à l'intrieur de la commu
nauté) est étroit. (Kuryiowicz 1960:14)
The law discussed above has received the name of the Kruszewski-Kury-
lowicz principle and is formulated as follows: 'The richer the content of a lin
guistic unit, the less often it occurs in a text". This law is considered to be one
of the fundamental principles in contemporary information theory.
Kruszewski's doctrine of the two laws of association is inseparable in his
theory from the recognition of the symbolic nature of language: "we must
never lose sight of the basic nature of language: the word is a sign for a thing"
(Kruszewski 1995:98[1883:67]), and "language is [...] a system of signs"
(ibid., p.99[1883:68]), In all likelihood Kruszewski became acquainted with
the word-as-a-sign concept through Troickij's lectures, who also had claimed
that 'a word is a sign of a thing' (Troickij [1883/84]:4). The word, according
to Kruszewski, designates a definite concept along with its nuance or nuances
of meaning; its symbolic function manifests itself in that the word occurs as a
substitute, a symbol of that object which it designates, and — at the same time
— the function of the word as a symbol is, according to Kruszewski, one of

the most remarkable advantages of language. Radwañska-Williams (1993:81)
remarks that
[...] the idea that the sign is bound by association by contiguity rather than by
association by similarity, i.e. by virtue of the co-occurrence in the mind of the lin
guistic form and the idea of the object, signified by the form, is close to Saussure's
principle of the arbitrariness of the linguistic sign.
Kruszewski, thirty years before Saussure, used the terms such as 0ó0-
3Hcųa ee [oboznacajuscee] "signifying" and oóo3HanaeMoe [obozna-
čaemoe] "signified", understanding the 'signified' as a 'symbol' — the sub
stitute of a thing, and 'signifying' as the sound of a word, its acoustic image.
Here is Radwañska-Williams' subtle observation (1993:85) on the correlations
of the lineai' nature of the linguistic sign by Kruszewski and Saussure:
According to Saussure, the linguistic sign is linear, i.e., the units of the language in
their combination with each other in the stream of speech occur in the order of suc
cession. This corresponds to Kruszewski's conception of "the order of succession",
but note that for Kruszewski the order of succession constitutes only half of the
linguistic relations into which the sign enters. The linguistic sign is only linear in
sofar as it also enters into association by similarity, it is not linear, i.e., it always
has the potential of evoking related forms with which it is associated, and of being
influenced both in use and in form by these related forms.
Kruszewski's treatment of words as signs attracts attention to their arbi
trary character: "A word can serve in turn as a sign for an endless series of
things which change in the course of time" (Kruszewski 1995:159[1883:133]).
In connection with this, it should be mentioned that the very possibility of a
continuous and never-ending change of a word in time is conditioned by the
arbitrary character of a linguistic sign, that is, this very arbitrariness enables the
change of the sound form of the sign on the condition that the change is suffi
ciently gradual so as to secure the continuity of the link between the signifying
and the signified. As Radwañska-Williams puts it (1993:94), "[...] the arbi
trariness of the linguistic sign throws a bridge between the stability of the sys
tem (synchrony) and historical change (diachrony)". She also remarks that in
Kruszewski's conception, the word as a linguistic sign is both motivated and
arbitrary. The semantic motivation of a given word is determined by the asso
ciation by similarity, and arbitrariness by the association by contiguity. The as
sociation by contiguity determines the independence of a linguistic sign and is
fully sufficient for its existence, while the association by analogy is necessary
for the existence of language as a system.
Apart from the laws of association, Kruszewski considered as "the other
basic law of the development of language", that of "[t]he correspondence be-
tween the world of words and the world of ideas" (Kruszewski 1995:100
[1883:69]), whereas the ideal state of the language he regarded as a full cor
respondence between a system of linguistic signs and what they mean, i.e., "a
complete general and particular correspondence between the world of words
and the world of ideas" that "language constantly strives for" (Kruszewski
1995:118[1883:87]. These remarks by Kruszewski are in our opinion some of
the most significant points in the understanding of his general linguistic theory,
for a question arises here as to the correlation of language and thought, logical
and grammatical categories, and the understanding of language as a system.
In Kruszewski's claims regarding the correspondence between the world
of words and the world of ideas, Radwanska-Williams (1993:82) sees a semi-
otic function, a semiotic conception of the nature of language:
If the semiotic function is to express thought, i.e., language is a system that is
suited to the expression of thought (or to the modelling of our 'knowledge of the
world'), then the ideal state of language would be a perfect correspondence between
the 'outer' form of words and their 'inner' content, i.e., between the structure of ideas
and the structure of language.
It is precisely this semiotic function that induces the changes in the linguis
tic system, as well as the division of linguistic phenomena into the psychologi
cal and the physiological. This makes the semiotic function fundamental in
Kruszewski's theory.
A brief survey of Kruszewski's basic views is by no means evidence that
we are dealing with 'a talented dilettante' (Leont'ev 1968:15). On the contrary,
we are dealing with a profoundly insightful scholar, who not only met the
standards of the contemporary science of language, but whose ideas reached
far into the future and thus turned out to have had an influence upon the lin
guistics in the 20th century. To quote Radwanska-Williams again (p. 158):
By the end of the neogrammarian period in Russian linguistics, that is, by about the
time of the Russian Revolution, Kruszewski would have been all but forgotten were
it not for his influence on one young linguist, Roman Osipovic Jakobson (1896—
1982). Through Jakobson, the phonological theory of the Kazan School, and Kru
szewski's theory of language in general, became seminal elements in the develop
ment of Prague School structuralism. Later, it was Jakobson's reconstruction of the
development of his own thought that brought Kruszewski to the attention of Western
linguistics.
In this regard, the reminiscences of Jakobson himself also are of interest :
As a first-year graduate student in 1914 I naively decided to start my reading of Rus
sian linguistics with the very first issue of the periodical Russkij Filologiceskij
Vestnik, which was the Russian journal treating topics closest to those of linguis
tics. When I began studying its first issues, which appeared at the border of 1870s
and 1880s, I was immediately drawn to the unusual ideas of a young Polish scholar
named Mikoiaj Kruszewski, who had died at an early age and had been unjustly for
gotten. Filip Fedorovic Fortunatov, the head of the Moscow Linguistic School, had
just died, and his offprints and pamphlets were being sold to the students.3 I thus
came to own a remarkable article by Kruszewski on sound alternations. This article
which had been written in German had been turned down by the conservative editors
of a German linguistic journal, and the author printed it at his own expense and sent
a copy to Fortunatov. This is how the name of Kruszewski first entered my con
sciousness [...]. Thus it was quite by accident that I became familiar with Kruszew
ski's attempt to extend and apply to language the theory of association by similarity
and contiguity that he had founded drafted by English thinkers. (Jakobson & Pomor-
ska 1983:126-127).
Radwańska-Williams finds many echoes of Kruszewski's linguistic theory
in Jakobson's linguistic views. They are such issues as the sound-meaning re
lationship, which became fundamental for Jakobson's phonological theory, the
relationship between the system of language and the history of language, and
between the variant and the invariant, i.e., essentially the problem of the defi
nition of linguistic units and their valiants. The proximity of Jakobson's and
Kruszewski's views can be seen in Jakobson's search for linguistic universals,
and in his definition of distinctive features in terms of their phonetic properties.
Jakobson's theory of the semiotic and functional nature of language, as Rad
wañska-Williams maintains, also largely derives from Kruszewski's ideas. It
was from him that Jakobson took over the very notions 'similarity' and 'con
tiguity'. The contrast between the oppositions of similarity and contiguity, or,
using Jakobson's terms, of "metaphorical and metonymic fields", permeates
Jakobson's works on aphasia and poetics. Jakobson introduced the distinction
in a general semiotic sense between aphasic disorders during the selection of
linguistic elements through similarity and their combination through contiguity.
Contiguity relationships mainly concern coding, whereas similarity relation
ships concern decoding in speech disorders. The similarity and contiguity, or,
in other words, metaphor and metonymy, according to Jakobson, constitute
the bipolar structure of language, as well as other semiotic systems. Radwañ
ska-Williams even holds that, due to Jakobson, Kruszewski's theory maintains
its strength in the capacity of explanatory principles of the 20th-century neu-
rolinguistics.
3
Radwanska-Williams (1993:160) specifies that they were books and offprints from For
tunatov's rich personal library.
Evaluating Kruszewski's general theory of language and its impact on the
further development of linguistics, Radwanska-Williams writes (1993:177):
The theory which Kruszewski sketched as an alternative helped to lay the foundations
for 20th century structuralism [...] Kruszewski's theory is a Tost paradigm' in the
history of linguistics because his major work, Oèerk nauki o jazyke, had the poten
tial to become a 'classical' text or 'exemplar' for linguistic science. That this did not
happen was the result of a combination of a number of historical factors, including
Kruszewski's early death, and the simultaneous consolidation of the neogrammarian
paradigm along different lines than those which Kruszewski had envisaged. That
Kruszewski's work was seminal in the history of linguistics is attested by the fact
that his ideas influenced Saussure and Jakobson and have through them indirectly be
come a part of the foundations of modern linguistic theory.
That Jakobson valued Kruszewski's theories highly may be gathered from his
testimony of 1966, some eighty years after Kruszewski's departure from the
linguistic scene:
Kruszewski [...] grew into one of the greatest theoreticians of language among the
world linguists of the late nineteenth century [...]. The cardinal novelty of Kruszew
ski's theory is displayed both in his morphological analysis of words and in the
phonemic (strictly, morphophonemic) analysis of morphological units, which in his
studies found a "more exact and more scientific" treatment than in the original sug
gestions of his teacher, as Baudouin himself repeatedly confesed. [...] in his later Pe
tersburg teaching and writing he [i.e., Baudouin de Courtenay] vindicated and devel
oped the chief ideas of his deceased associate. These two Polish searchers were the
only linguists in the world who approached a genuine theoretical conception of lan
guage, according to Saussure's acknowledgement of 1908, and his Geneva courses in
general linguistics evince a deep and fruitful influence of Kruszewski's thought. Yet
in such crucial questions as, for instance, the creative aspect of language and the rela
tionship between verbal signs and concepts, Kruszewski stands closer than Baudouin
and Saussure to the scientific vistas of today. (Jakobson 1971:449-450)
REFERENCES
Anan'ev, Boris Gerasimovic. 1947. Očerki istorii russkoj psixologii XVIII i XIX
vekov [Sketches of the history of the Russian psychology in the 18th and 19th
centuries]. Moskva: Ucpedgiz.
Boduèn de Kurtenè, I[van] A[leksandrovic] (= Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan).
1881. Podrobnaja programma lekcij v 1877/78 ucebnom godu [A detailed
program of lectures for the academic year 1877-1878]. Kazan & Warsaw.
Boduèn de Kurtenè, I. A. 1963. Izbrannye trudy po ob ščemu jazykoznaniju
[Selected works in general linguistics]. Ed, by V[iktor] P. Grigor'ev &
Afleksej] A. Leont'ev, 2 vols. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk.
Deese, James. 1965. The Structure of Associations in Language and Thought.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
Godel, Robert. 1957. Les sources manuscrites du Cours de linguistique générale

de F. Saussure. Geneva: Droz.
Guxman, M[irra] M[oiseevna]. 1964. 'Istoriceskie i metodologiceskie osnovy
Strukturalisma [Historical and methodological grounds of structuralism]".
Osnovnye napr.avlenla struktur alisma [Main trends in structuralism], 5-45.
Moscow: Izdatel'stvo "Nauka".
Jagic, V[atroslav]. 1983. Korrespondencija Vatroslava Jagića. Vol.III. Zagreb:
Jugoslavenska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti.
Jakobson, Roman. 1971. Selected Writings. Vol.11: Word and Language. The
Hague: Mouton.
Jakobson, Roman. 1985. Izbrannye raboty [Selected writings]. Moscow: Iz
datel'stvo "Progress",
Jakobson, Roman & Krystyna Pomorska. 1983. Dialogues. Cambridge, Mass,:
MIT Press.
Kilbury, James. 1976. The Development of Morphophonemic Theory. Amster
dam: John Benjamins.
Koerner, Konrad. 1989. Practicing Linguistic Historiography. Amsterdam &
Kruszewski, Mikolaj Habdank [in Russian: Nikolaj Vjaceslavovic Kruševskij].
1881a. "K voprosu o gune: Issledovanie v oblasti staroslavjanskogo vokalizma
[On the question of the 'guna': A study in the domain of Old Slavic vocal-
ism]". Russkij filologićeskij vestnik 5.1.1-109.
Kruszewski, Mikolaj. 1881b. Ueber die Lautabwechslung. Kazan: Universi
tätsbuchdruckerei. (English transl, by Robert Austerlitz in Kruszewski 1995.5-
34.)
Kruszewski, Mikolaj. 1883. Oeerk nauki o jazyke [An outline of the science of
language]. Kazan: Tipografía Imperatorskago Universiteta. (English transl, by
Gregory M. Eramian in Kruszewski 1995.43-172.)
Kruszewski, Mikołaj. 1891. "Očerki po jazykovedeniju. 1: Francuzskaja gram-
matika [Essays in linguistics: French grammar]". Posmertnoe izdanie s pre-
disloviem i pod redakciej Prof. V. A. Bogorodickogo. Russkij Filologie eskij
Vestnik 28:2.253-271, 28:4.173-186 (1891). [This and the following 2 entries
were posthumously published by V[asilij] A[lekseevic] Bogorodickij, together
with an introduction by him (248-252).]
Kruszewski, Mikołaj. 1892-1894. "Ocerki po jazykovedeniju. 2: Antropofonika
[Essays in linguistics: Anthropophon(et)ics]". Russkij Filologie eskij Vestnik
28:4.266-290 (1892); 29.332 (1893), and 31:1/2.66-83 (1894). [This and the
subsequent item also appeared separately, Očerki po jazykovedeniju (Warsaw:
Tipografija Varšavskago Ucebnago Okruga, 1893), 48 pp.
Kruszewski, Mikolaj. 1894[1880]. "Ocerki po jazykovedeniju: Pribavlenie.
Predmet, delenie i metod nauki o jazyke [Essays in linguistics. Supplement:
The subject, division and method of the science of language]". Russkij Filo-
logićeskij Vestnik 31:1/2.84-90. [Appendix to Kruszewski 1892-1894.] (Repr.
in Istorija jazykoznanija XIX i XX vekov v oćerkax i izvlecenijax [History of
linguistics in the 19th and 20th centuries in sketches and extracts] ed. by Vla
dimir] A[ndreevic] Zvegincev, 3rd enl. ed., vol.1, 284-289. Moscow: Izd.
"Prosvesccenie", 1964, and in Xrestomatija po istorii russkogo jazykoznanija
ed. by F[edor] P[etrovic] Filin, 412-417. Moscow: Vysšaja škola, 1973, and in
the 2nd ed., prepared by F[edor] M[ixajlovic] Berezin, 1977, pp.376-381.)
Kruszewski, Mikolaj. 1995[1881b, 1883]. Writings in General Linguistics: On

Vocalic Aternations: An Outline of Linguistic Science. Ed., with an introduc-
tion, by Konrad Koerner. (= Amsterdam Classics in Linguistics, 1800-1925,
11.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kuryiowicz, Jerzy. 1960. Esquisses linguistiques. [I]. Wroclaw & Kraków: Zaklad
Narodowy im. Ossolinskich. Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akad. Nauk.
Leont'ev, A[leksej] A[lekseevic]. 1968. "Predislovie [Foreword]". Ocerki po
istorii jazykoznanija v Rossii (konec XIX - naalo XX v.) [Sketches in the
history of linguistics in Russia (end of the 19th — beginning of the 20th
century)] by F. M. Berezin, 3-24. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo "Nauka".
Mill, John Stuart. 1843. A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive; being a
connected view of the principles of evidence and the methods of scientific
investigation. London: Parker. (6th ed. in two vols., vol.1, London: Longmans,
Green & Co., 1865.)
Polivanov, E[vgenij] D[mitrievic]. 1968. Stat'i po obscemu jazykoznaniju [Ar-
ticles in general linguistics]. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo "Glavnaja redakcija vos-
tocnoj literatury".
Potebnja, A[leksandr] A[fanas'evic]. 1881. "A. V. Popov: Nekrolog [Obitu-
ary]". Aleksandr Vasil'evic Popov, Sintaksiceskie issledovanija [Syntactic
studies], i-ii. Voronez: V. I. Isaeva..
Radwañska-Williams, Joanna. 1993. A Paradigm Lost: The linguistic theory of
Mikoiaj Kruszewski. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Scerba, L[ev] V[ladimirovic]. 1957[1929]. "I. A. Boduèn de Kurtenè i ego zna-
cenie v nauke o jazyke [J. Baudouin de Courtenay and his significance in the
science of language]". Izbrannye trudy po russkomu jazyku [Selected writings
on the Russian language], 85-96. Moscow: Ucpedgiz.
Scerba, L. V. 1974[1930]. "I. A. Boduèn de Kurtenè: Nekrolog [J. Baudouin de
Courtenay: Obituary]". Jazykovaja sistema i recevaja dejatel' nost [Language
system and speech activity] by L. V. Scerba, 381-394. Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo
"Nauka".
Troickij, M[atvei] M[ixajlovic]. Logika [Logic]. A course of lectures of from the
academic year 1883/84. Moscow: Section of Rare Books, Russian National
Library.
Ufimceva, A[nna] A[mfilof'evna]. 1961. "Teorii 'semantic eskogo polja' i voz-
moznosti ix primenenija pri izucenii slovarnogo sostava jazyka [The theories of
the 'semantic field' and the possibility of their use while studying the
vocabulary of the language]". Voprosy teorii jazyka v sovremennoj zarubecnoj
lingvistikie [Problems of the theory of language in modern linguistics abroad],
30-63. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo "Nauka".
CHAPTER 8
MIKOŁAJ RUDNICKI'S
GENERAL LINGUISTIC CONCEPTIONS*
JERZY B AŃCZEROWSKI
1. Introduction
The history of linguistics knows of cases in which credit for certain lin
guistic theories has gone not to their original founders but to scholars who
formulated them subsequently and yet were first to succeed either in making
these theories widespread or in finding disciples who would later accomplish
this propagation in their names. As we probe into the works of Mikolaj Rud-
nicki (1881-1978) today, it is easy to establish that he was the founder of a
number of original theories in reference to which his name deserves to be men
tioned in linguistics textbooks. In the period during which these theories
emerged, the world of linguistics was not yet suitably prepared to appreciate
their true value and indeed Rudnicki's general linguistic ideas have not coin
cided with subjects of broad academic discussion or in-depth linguistic analysis
to date. This should not be stated without a certain degree of embarrassment.
In reconstructing Rudnicki's linguistic theories we encounter a variety of
difficulties, some of them serious. The problem of adequately restoring the
spirit of a theory formulated, in a time other than that in which our own out
looks have been formed, is seldom an easy undertaking. We cannot simply re
strict ourselves to word-for-word recapitulations of someone's works or to
quoting sections of text. The most important thing is to present a correct inter
pretation of a given theory in terms we know, so that it is rendered compre
hensible and comparable when set alongside other theories. Verbatim excerpts
from a text may well appear incongruous.
As we have mentioned, many of Rudnicki's conceptualizations are of con
siderable importance and should be granted a corresponding status in Polish
linguistics. The fact that they are passed over in silence in favor of the persis-
This article first appeared in Lingua Posnaniensis 24.7-27 (1981). It is being republished
here, with the permission of both the author and the editor of the journal, after a certain
number of revisions in form and presentation have been made. (A parallel Polish version
appeared in Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 38.11-32 in the same year.)
MIKOLAJ RUDNICKI'S GENERAL LINGUISTIC CONCEPTIONS 233
Mikolaj Rudnicki
tent importation of notions from abroad evokes a certain bewilderment. By this

I do not mean to say that we ought to disregarded whatever happens elsewhere
in the world, but I would like to assert in no uncertain terms that it is an inex
cusable mistake to be forgetful of one's native heritage and its creative devel
opment. This is all the more true when this heritage is so authentically original
and inspiring.
I do not know whether I will succeed in faithfully reconstructing some of

Rudnicki's theoretical linguistic ideas below. It seems that a satisfactory ap
proach to such an undertaking would require still deeper consideration of the
issues at hand. In any case I have sought throughout my discussion to present
the main principles behind his theories, to infer their natural consequences, and
to resolve minor discrepancies whenever possible.
2. Language as a form of consciousness

In Rudnicki's linguistic conceptualizations, a distinctly language subject-
oriented relativization of linguistic notions comes to the fore. This is due to his
understanding of language as one of the forms of consciousness. Thus, terms
such as 'the consciousness of the language subject' or 'language conscious
ness' are often to be found pervading his works (1927:54). Rudnicki's ap
proach to language consciousness probably does not stray far from contempo
rary approaches, which speak rather of 'language competence', understood as
language knowledge, which is essentially a form of cognition.
It would be a mistake to say that Rudnicki was speaking exclusively of in
dividual language consciousness. Beyond the consciousness of language sub
jects, he clearly discerned the social (super-individual) consciousness of a
given language community which is reflected in the language consciousness of
the individual. He wrote fairly early in his career (1913b:5):
Clarity of apperception depends, in the final analysis, strictly on the will of the lan
guage subject. It does not follow as a consequence of this assertion that language is
simply governed by arbitrariness. Certainly we can and should speak assertively of
sound laws. For no one will arbitrarily devote special attention to a particular phone,
and were anyone to do so, he might thereby produce certain effects on his own indi
vidual language alone, but without having any impact on the whole development of
language.
In his deliberations upon how social language consciousness is reflected in
various individual language subjects, Rudnicki (1927:56) accounted for the
difference in these reflections as follows:
The memory of the language subject embraces the whole of the native language, i.e. its
phonology, morphology, syntax and lexicon. Although, the psycho-language content of
any two language subjects of the same language, or even of the same language subject at
different periods of his life, is never constant, the basic, essential features are the same,
and it is these very features which constitute the basis and the prerequisite for regularity
in language change.
In Rudnicki's conceptualization, language consciousness is set in opposi
tion to language reproduction, which should be conceived of as language use,
that is, language performance.
MIKOŁAJ RUDNICKI'S GENERAL LINGUISTIC CONCEPTIONS 235
Language, according to Rudnicki, is a cultural phenomenon. Its place lies

in the realm of human culture, of which it unquestionably forms the most im
portant part. It follows, therefore, that the governing principles of language
ought to be applicable across the entire domain of cultural phenomena (1955a:
191).
Rudnicki openly opposed the tendency to reduce linguistics to the outer
sciences. In connection with this he wrote, T only want to indicate that the re
lationship, the bond, of language facts with philosophy or with biology is dis
tant enough that we should, first of all, at least attempt an interpretation of lan
guage facts on the basis of language concepts and relationships' (1915: 255).
Yet he himself was not always consistent in this respect. For, as the history of
linguistics teaches us, metatheoretical knowledge does not always go hand in
hand with the theoretico-empirical activity of linguists.
3. Language consciousness as the space of reproductive images

In Rudnicki's consciousness-oriented conception of language, a fundamen
tal role is played by reproductive and reproduced images. The reproduced im
ages are simply individual, concrete language objects in articulatory and acous
tic forms. The reproductive images are to be understood as entities which have
an existence within language consciousness. It might be added (without tam
pering with Rudnicki's thoughts) that these entities are formed on the basis of
the substantial as well as asubstantial properties of the reproduced images. Re
productive images thus fulfil a role, speaking somewhat metaphorically, as
patterns, matrices, or programs for reproduced images. They are entities of
consciousness (mental phenomena) which can never be empirical.
There are probably no grounds for doubting the interpretation given above
of the terms 'reproductive image' and 'reproduced image'. Besides, Rudnicki
leaves no room for doubt as he writes, "... every word, every phone, and ev
ery language phrase has two images: image w\ and image W2. Secondly, these
images are in a maximally intimate relationship with each other. Furthermore,
phones, words, phrases, etc., when they have no image wl, do not belong to
the language at all and they find themselves in the language as transitory phe
nomena which have no deeper relevance. Image w\ is the image of the pho
netic element, the phone, word, phrase, sentence, etc., which we store in our
consciousness or subconsciousness and which is the foundation for producing
iteratively the given phonetic element, phone, word, phrase, sentence, etc, Im
age w2 is just the newly enunciated image, i.e., the actual execution of the
phonetic element, phone, word, etc. It is clear that the direct connection be
tween these two images is a natural and necessary thing. They are joined as
closely as possible by the relative identity of these very elements phones,

words, etc." (1911:55; cf. Rudnicki 1925:39; 1972:49-50).
Language consciousness, in Rudnicki's approach, should be interpreted as
the space of reproductive images. This space might be seen as the mode of ex
istence of language consciousness which, as language knowledge simultane
ously is a form of epistemic ability. Language consciousness has limitations
(1927:69).
Between a reproductive image and the reproduced image built on its basis,
there is obtains a relation of precedence in time, i.e., the former is always prius
and the latter posterius. On the other hand, a relation of coexistence in time and
space holds between reproductive images themselves (1927:54).
Reproductive images differ in the degree to which they are brought to con
sciousness by languaging subjects. Rudnicki notes, for instance, that the de
gree of awareness (or cognitive salience) is greater for words than for phones
("... die Erkennbarkeit für das Wort wichtiger ist, weil das letztere viel inten
siver das menschliche Bewußtsein erregt als der Laut, der ja nur ein Bestandteil
des Wortes ist" [1912:119; 1913b:100]). This issue is intimately connected to
the problem of the psychological reality of linguistic units as discussed within
the framework of psycholinguistics proper. A word for Rudnicki is a psycho
logical whole not only from the semasiological point of view, but also from the
point of view of phonetics (1911:188). When attention is focussed on the word
itself, its initial phone manifests a greater degree of awareness than any of its
component phones. Word-medial phones display, in turn, a greater degree of
awareness than word-final phones (1911: 176, 193; 1913b:71-72). The degree
of awareness is strongly correlated with the degree of semasiological rele
vance.
4. Language reproduction
The selection of the terms 'reproductive' and 'reproduced' in the works of
Rudnicki is nothing accidental. He understood language performance (also
called language use) as a set of countless acts of language reproduction, in the
course of which individual language objects are repeatedly emitted and received
(1955a: 188). Language reproduction is characterized by a certain psycho-phys
iological parallelism. That is to say, a chain of images makes its way through
the consciousness, and correspondingly there is a chain of movements of the
speech organs (1913b: 109-110). In the context of psycho-physiological paral
lelism Rudnicki also considers psychophysiological disproportion. In this
context, it is worthwhile considering the following words of Rudnicki: "The
act of speaking follows two parallel courses: on the one hand, meaning ele
ments, in a stricter sense, proceed through the a focal point of consciousness
and, in principle, suitable means of expression are sought for them, while on
the, other hand, there proceeds a chain of phonic images (contours of sen
tences, of constructions, of words, and finally, of phones and their elements).
It is obvious that in this act of recollection and searching for the word (or
higher units, the sentences or constructions) most suitable for the rendering of
one's thoughts, the most important role is played by word-initial phones, and it
is precisely from this that their semasiological relevance derives, for after all it
is they which, before all others, render themselves available to consciousness
during this recollection process" (1911:193). At the same time, Rudnicki em
phasized that any speaking at all must have within it elements of reflection and
volition (1913b:63).
The term 'reproduce' as used by Rudnicki is close to one of the senses of
the term 'generate', i.e., 'to produce'. The term 'reproduce' is probably more
adequate for Rudnicki's purposes than is 'generate' since it specifically con
notes a capacity for repetition of the process of emitting and receiving individ
ual language objects on the basis of reproductive images and, besides, does not
exclude creativity.
Thus, at the foundation of all acts of language reproduction (that is, of acts
of language use) there lies language consciousness, which finds itself in a state
of unstable equilibrium. Language reproduction is an operation that continually
maps the space of reproductive images onto the space of reproduced images. In
the course of acts of reproduction certain forces are activated in image space.
These forces may not only disturb, but also destroy the state of equilibrium oc
curring in language consciousness and so lead the way to changes therein
(1927:55). Because of these forces, language entities (images) act upon each
other. The main forces in question are:
(i) identification,
(ii) differentiation.
They act, on the one hand, in the joint space of reproductive and repro
duced images, and on the other, in the space of reproductive images alone. As
a consequence we come to a specification of four forces:
(i) identification of reproductive images with the reproduced images created
on their basis;
(ii) differentiation between reproductive images and the reproduced images
created on their basis;
(iii) identification of reproductive images;
(iv) differentiation of reproductive images.
Force (i) lies at the foundation of synchronic stability and diachronic conti
nuity of a language. Forces (ii)-(iv), however, condition the synchronic vari
ability and diachronic mutability of language. Both the force of identification
and the force of differentiation have a gradational character in Rudnicki's

works. The identification force is a kind of force of attraction while the differ
entiation force a one of repulsion. As a result of the former, differences be
tween language entities are ignored and the entities succumb to assimilation,
but as a result of the latter, these differences are reinforced, and the entities un
dergo dissimilation.
The four types of force do not act in isolation but are intimately connected
with each other. Now let us consider somewhat more precisely these forces
which might just as well be interpreted as relations.
(i) For the correct understanding of the force of identification of reproduced
images with their respective reproductive images, Rudnicki's following state
ments, among others, are of importance:
1) A reproduced image stands in a certain fixed relationship to its reproductive
image, and 2) this relationship concerns their unity, that is, the acknowledgement of
their basic sameness. 3) The feeling of unity of these two images stands in an in
versely proportional relationship to the magnitude of change that arises between the
reproduced image and the reproductive one. In practice, then, the greater the change
arising in the reproduced image in comparison to the reproductive, the weaker the
feeling of identity or unity of these images, and vice versa. The very fact of the
differentiation, or better still of identification, of the two images may be called a
memory phenomenon. Yet in using this term, by no means do I want to take it for
granted that behind this fact of identification there inheres some psychic »power«.
Still, if the identification of these images obtains, that is, if the language subject
recognizes their sameness, it means that, by memory, he recognizes the reproduced
image as the same thing which already exists within his mind (the reproductive
image). (1927:53)
Rudnicki realizes that there is no absolute factual identification of the two
images. He states (p.54):
If, however, the reproduced image is identified by the language subject with the re
productive image — in spite of differences arising between them, the unquestionable
proof of which is language change - this shows that the attention of the language
subject, while recognizing the reproduced image and identifying it with the reproduc
tive one, either disregards or does not notice the difference or differences that may
arise between one image and the other.
Thus, this divergence interjecting itself between the reproductive image and the
reproduced cannot overstep a certain permitted quantum, namely, that which
still does not disfigure the reproduced image to such an extent it could no
longer be identified with the appropriate reproductive image (1954:20). These
imperceptible deflections at the time of acts of reproduction can eventually
transform themselves into perceptible, durable changes in image space.
(ii) During acts of language reproduction, reproduced images succumb to

divergence in relation to their corresponding reproductive images in phonetic,
semantic, or morphological respects. As a result of the action of the differen
tiation force, this divergence may proceed to such an extent that reproduced
images cease to be identified with the reproductive. Finally, the reproduced im
age takes the place of the reproductive image, i.e., new reproduced images be
come the basis for creating new reproductive images, which expel the old
ones. This process continually repeats itself, which conditions the perpetuity of
language change (1927:53-54), In this perpetual replacement of the reproduc
tive image by the reproduced, Rudnicki perceives various inherent possibilities
for change, A change becomes victorious at the time it achieves a social status
(throughout the language community) (1972:51). Language change is thus tied
to change in language consciousness, in other words, to the appearance of the
new reproductive image qua object of that consciousness.
The above deliberations indicate that the space of reproduced images and
language reproduction as well are not unambiguously specified by language
consciousness, which thus not only allows for variability in acts of reproduc
tion, but also allows for language change. What is more, language change is
inevitable.
(iii) As the force of identification operates in the space of reproductive im
ages (i.e., it causes coexistent reproductive images to be attracted to each
other), this may lead to the obliteration or elimination of differences between
certain images and consequently to partial or total assimilation (absorption).
Yet the condition required for such an identification would be the same as that re
quired for the identification of reproductive and reproduced images, that is, that there
be such a small difference between the given, simultaneously (spatially) existing im
ages that the language consciousness could disregard it or fail to notice it, just as it
is not noticed in the space of time-sequential images (reproductive and reproduced).
Undoubtedly, this is one of the roads along which homonyms and synonyms
develop: the first thanks to the formal (material-phonic) identification of initially
phonically and semantically differing roots, the second on the basis of semantic
proximations, finally reaching full identity, while sufficiently strong formal
(material-phonic) differences are maintained.
In the field of morphology it is possible to observe this law functioning in nu
merous cases of the process of so-called analogical levelling. (1927:53-54)
In this way, excessively small differences (nimis parvae differentiae) between
reproductive images may disappear.
These images are composed of certain substantial and asubstantial proper
ties. Identification may concern both kinds of properties. In the case of partial
identification, images assimilate with respect to certain properties, but in the
case of total identification, complete assimilation is achieved, appealing as ei

ther a mixing, a merger (fusion), or an elimination (absorption) of images.
Rudnicki saw one of the most glaring examples of identification to be the mix
ing or fusion of certain sound classes in Lekhitic dialects (belonging to the
Western group of Slavonic languages) (1971a:213). This phenomenon is
known under the names of Mazuration, Kashubiation, Chelminskiation, etc.
(iv) The force of differentiation acting on reproductive images repels them
from each other, which may consequently lead to a strengthening of difference
between them (1927:69). Rudnicki saw the effect of this force's action in,
among other things, dissimilation processes.
The above discussion directly indicates that the synchronic variability of
language reproduction and the historic mutability of language consciousness
belong among the fundamental properties of language, together reflecting its
dynamics. Language consciousness is revealed in individual acts of language
reproduction, at which time the forces of identification and differentiation are
activated. As a result of the first force's action, excessively small differences
between images may disappear, and as a result of the second force's action,
they may undergo strengthening.
The action of the identification force is expressed by Rudnicki in the form
of a law known as 'the law of identification of insufficiently distinct images'. It
is formulated in the following way:
The tendency towards identifying two (or more) distinct images is stronger, the
smaller the differences between these images are; or, more theoretically, the force of
the tendency towards identifying two or more distinct images stands in an inversely
proportional relationship to the magnitude of differences obtaining between them
(that is, between the images succumbing to the identification tendency). (1927:55;
cf. Rudnicki 1972:50)
Although Rudnicki does not formulate a corresponding law that refers to
the differentiation of insufficiently distinct images, he is nevertheless clearly
aware of the existence of such a law, stating that the law of identification of in
sufficiently distinct images is joined with, or is rather the reverse side of, the
second law by the effect of which excessively small differences between im
ages are reinforced (1927:69).
It is worth emphasizing that Rudnicki extends the application of the law of
identification of insufficiently distinct images to such cultural phenomena as
folk, legendary, and literary motives (1972:51). Thus, for example, the mech
anism for transforming prehistoric or historical events into legends would be
similar to that of language change.
5. Theory of structural phonetics

In his works, Rudnicki developed two types of structural phonetics: an ar-
ticulatory type and an auditory type. The latter he presented in quite a system
atic form. In these deliberations, he started with the assumption (accepted at
that time by such linguists as Meringer, Mayer, Grammont, and Meillet) that
the phones of every language differ from each other on the one hand, and ex
hibit certain common features on the other. Rudnicki distinctly relativizes these
differences and similarities as well both to the articulatory plane and to the
auditory plane.
Rudnicki's following statements have a fundamental significance for his
theory of articulatory structural phonetics:
(i) The psychophonetic system of each language forms a certain whole.
The phones condition each other reciprocally: d : t,b : p, g : k,t : t, p : ƒ.
This reciprocal relationship of phones lays the groundwork for the so-
called articulatory bases of languages (1925:65). This relationship could
be interpreted as a relation of phonetic opposition connecting phones;
(ii) Phones possess a different articulatory energy (1913b: 16). The most
necessary element for closure and localization is, of course, a certain de
gree of muscular tension (1913b:35);
(iii) Various degrees of similarity among phones may be distinguished
(1913b: 18, 19). Thus, phones may be articulatorily similar (related) to
varying extents.
(iv) In linear structures, phones can be combinatorily reinforced by other
phones which happen to be to a large extent similar to them (1913b: 16-
18, 21, 35). Consequently, some phone clusters are more compact than
others;
(v) The sound system of each language lends itself to division into phone
classes distinguishing themselves articulatorily by the degree of aperture
of the oral cavity, the degree of duration in time, the degree of activity of
the vocal cords, the degree of sonority, and the degree of muscular ten
sion (1913b: 31, 40-42);
(vi) Each phone belongs to several classes simultaneously (1913b:l 10);
(vii) The phone is a psychological whole. Every phonetic element (feature)
partaking in the make-up of the phone itself possesses a certain degree of
independent psychological reality (1913b:63).
6. Frameworks of the theory of language diacrisis and phonology

From Rudnicki's works, a theory of diacrisis and phonology emerges in
quite an advanced form. It should be remembered here that this was back in
1911. In order to avoid misunderstandings, it is necessary to point out that by
'features of words' Rudnicki understood phones and phonetic elements. These
latter elements are quite simply articulatory and acoustic features in our under
standing today. Instead of the term 'phonetic element', we will generally be
using the term 'phonetic feature', unless we are concerned with a quotation. It
should be emphasized, however, that Rudnicki himself occasionally uses the
terms 'phonetic feature' and 'phonetic element' interchangeably (1913b: 110).
Inherently connected with the theory of diacrisis is the notion of the sema-
siological meaning of a phone, also called its semantic value or relevance.
Rudnicki understood it in the following way: 'The semasiological meaning of
the phone, and of virtually each phonetic element, derives from the fact that
each phonetic element constitutes one of the features which distinguish a given
word from all other similar words' (1912:119; cf. Rudnicki 1913b:5). Thus, a
given word is distinguished from all other similar words by phones and phon
etic features. A phone fulfilling the role of distinguishing a word from other
words constitutes one of the word's distinctive features. We might say of
words which are phonetically differentiated that they stand in a relation of di-
acrisis with respect to each other.
Words are thus set in opposition to each other with the help of phones. In
stead of the term 'semasiological meaning of a phone' introduced by Rudnicki,
it would be possible rather to use such terms as 'diacritic value of a phone',
'diacritic range of a phone', or 'diacritic load of a phone'. It seems that this
concept could then be defined as the number of words in which the phone ap
pears and differentiates them from all other words.
The notion of the semasiological meaning of a phone has a gradational
character, that is, two phones X and Y may be differentiated by the degree of
diacrisis in a given language. A series of linguistic laws results from the sema
siological differentiation of phones (1913b: 109). By differentiating words,
phones are set in opposition to each other or, as we would say today, they
stand in a relation of phonological opposition.
The following statements by Rudnicki are of importance for the theory of
phonology:
(i) The psychophonetic system of every language forms a certain whole
(1925:65). Phones may be psychophonetically equivalent or non-equiva
lent (1913b:58ff).
(ii) Every phone makes sense if it constitutes a feature of a given word
(1925:39). In this way, the existence of phones is justified on the plane
of units of a higher language level.
(iii) Phonetic features exhibit various degrees of semasiological relevance.
This gradation depends most of all on other simultaneously existing
words which are more or less similar, predominantly with respect to
phonetic shape, but also with respect to meaning and syntax. If, for in
stance, through the changing of one of its elements, a word were to be
come phonetically identical to a word semantically and syntactically close
to it, the semasiological relevance of this element would then certainly be
considerable. This is especially true when an element of this kind distin

guishes a whole sequence of words from each other. Thus, in Polish for
instance, the substitution of tenuis for media would provoke a great revo
lution in the reciprocal relations of the semasiological system of the lan
guage and the phonetic complexes symbolizing it, because very many
words would become identical, for instance tama, : dama, hura : góra,
grzywa : krzywa, etc. Thus, the psychic force maintaining the tenuis /
media distinction is considerable in Polish (1913b: 25, 63-64).
(iv) Certain classes of phonic images are foregrounded in the language
consciousness of a given community, and by virtue of that dominance in
the image sphere, they assign a dominant role to certain phonetic features
and to the relationships between phonetic features in the language's pho
netic system and its phonic development (1913b:43).
(v) The longer a word is, that is, the greater the number of phones making
up its phonetic mass, the lesser semasiological relevance each phone (or
phonetic element) has for the word (1913b: 108).
(vi) another basis for differentiating the semasiological relevance of the
phones in a word is their membership in the various morphemes entering
into the composition of the word. The degree of semantic relevance of
such morphemes varies (1913b:73).
(vii) Phones and phonetic features possess actual and absolute semasiolog
ical relevance. The actual relevance results from their appearance in par
ticular words, the absolute from their position in the language as a whole.
The actual relevance is thus relative and may fluctuate in accordance with
the word and the position in the word (1913b:68-70).
(viii) The phone possesses greater semasiological relevance than the pho
netic feature (1913b:69).
The above assertions clearly point to a certain hierarchy in the semasiologi
cal relevance of phones, phonetic features, and relations in the psychophonetic
system of language. They also seek to specify the factors determining this hier
archy.
7. Auditory (perceptual) phonetics

The deliberations upon auditory phonetics in Rudnicki's works are inti
mately bound up with his phonological inquiries. The phones of a language are
auditively differentiated and, what is more, may be recognizable to varying de
grees. The degree of recognizability is a category within the language con
sciousness. The recognition or apperception of phones, according to Rudnicki,
is an operation accomplished through the participation of the consciousness of
language subjects. The act of recognition embraces the comparison of a heard
or pronounced phone with its image fixed in the language consciousness
(1913b:99). Theoretically, the duration of a phone must be at least sufficiently
long to enable its perception, that is, a phone may not be shorter than the time
required to become aware of it and to effect suitable articulatory movements

(1925:39).
For Rudnicki, the notion of a phone's recognizability is a consequence of
the notion of the phone's semasiological meaning (1913b:5). Although it
should be noted that the reciprocal relationship between these two notions is
not entirely clear, Rudnicki's writings point rather toward a sort of feedback
mechanism between them.
The ascertainment of factors determining the recognizability of phones is a
problem of first order significance for several of Rudnicki's conceptions. For
he considered the formulation of a phonetic law (and a language law in general)
to define nothing other than just those conditions which enhance the clarity of'
phone apperception (1913b:5). A phone's recognizability must finally be re
duced to the conditions of apperception and to the specifics which each phone
renders on command to the attention of the speaking or listening subject, and
on the basis of which he can recognize the phone as identical to its image
stored in his consciousness. Of apperception nothing can be stated in advance
other than that it is singular and has limitations (1913b: 101).
Clarity of apperception depends in the final analysis only on the volition of
the language subject. Conditions or causes for greater concentration of atten
tion to certain phones are, in Rudnicki's view, generally constant, and thus
certain phones and their combinations are constantly more clearly apperceived.
He thus arrives at the conclusion that the so-called regularity ('exceptionless-
ness') of sound laws is a consequence of the constancy of phonic features and
combinatory conditions (1913b:5; cf. also Rudnicki 1911:253).
A phone's recognitive value is, in Rudnicki's opinion, directly proportional
to its semasiological relevance. The easier a phone is to recognize, the greater
must be its semasiological relevance, because the word of which it forms a part
is then easier to recognize on account of its presence. And conversely, the
more difficult a phone is to recognize, the less its semasiological relevance, for
it is thereby also more difficult to recognize a word in which the phone appears
— more difficult, anyhow, than when a phone more easily recognizable ap
pears there (1913b:99).
The more a heard or pronounced phone differs from its (reproductive) im
age, the more difficult it is to recognize as identical to the image, and vice
versa. The law of relative variability of reproduced images with respect to re
productive ones comes into force here (1913b:99-100; 1911:239).
A phone possesses a recognitive value (i) for itself, (ii) for the word it
constitutes a feature of, and (iii) for a grammatical or semantic category. Theo
retically, the following contingencies may arise in this context:
1) a phone's recognitive value for itself goes hand in hand with its value
for the word, that is, the more easily a phone is recognized, the easier it
is to recognize a word in which it appears as a feature;
2) these recognitive values are in disagreement with each other; a phone
which is by nature less recognizable may have greater recognitive value
for a word or a category than does a phone which is by nature more eas
ily recognizable.
Apperception (1913b: 111-112), in Rudnicki's view, pays the highest de
gree of attention to just one image at a time. If, however, there exists in con
sciousness an element not in a relationship of sufficient opposition to just a
perceived image, this element may then also assume a clarity at least similar to
that of the main image, for, on the whole, it is more weakly opposed. Apper
ception becomes more widely aware of those images whose changes are more
readily noticed. Observation of change depends on the concentration of atten
tion on the phone as well as the change. A greater concentration of attention, in
turn, ensues when certain phones
(i) yield to language consciousness better external conditions for becoming
aware of their nature;
(ii) more effectively return to it their image content;
(iii) are more suitable to the means of externalizing phonetic images
possessed by the consciousness;
(iv) induce an interest in their affective novelty (1913b: 109) — this rule can
be interpreted in terms of information theory;
(v) are connected (more than other phones) to elements possessing a higher
degree of cognitive salience than phones or phonetic features generally
do.
The clarity of an image, according to Rudnicki, depends on the following
conditions:
(i) on the intensity of the nervous energy consumed in the apperception (of
the image);
(ii) on the length of time for which attention is directed onto the image;
(iii) on the degree of 'alienity' (otherness, unfamiliarity) which elements of
the image have for the consciousness;
(iv) on the frequency with which a given image absorbs the consciousness;
(v) on the interest the image induces by its own affective freshness;
(vi) on the purposes for which the image serves or is able to serve the con
sciousness.
Rudnicki's considerations clearly show that the auditory differentiation of
phones and the degree (the force) of their recognizability connected therewith
are determined, approaching the matter in a most general way by two kinds of
properties (cf. 1971a:211):
(i) substantial properties (that is, articulatory-acoustic and distributional);

(ii) asubstantial or functional properties (that is, diacritic-distinctive).
The first kind of property results from such factors as articulatory energy,
stress, duration, sonority, the linear arrangement of the phones in a word while
the second kind results from their semasiological relevance. Referring to
sonority, for instance, Rudnicki states,
The dominant, element of a phone (or a class of phones) is the phonetic feature
which most forcibly obtrudes upon the consciousness at the time of enunciation of
the given phone [...]. The most striking feature of a phone, and therefore most often
its dominant element, is the degree of sonority. (1913b: 110-111)
The following statement is important in reference to the position of phones in
lineai' structures: 'A following phone always has decisively more psychic force
than an antecedent phone' (1913b:62).
The dependency of the recognizability of phones upon their asubstantial
properties also causes the recognition of phones to be, in a certain measure, an
operation specific to the language, that is, an operation which must to some
extent be relativized to the given language.
Besides the recognizability of phones, Rudnicki also raises the question of
the recognizability of other language objects, such as words. He reaches the
conclusion that objects having a higher degree of cognitive salience are more
easily recognizable than objects having a lower degree of salience. That is why
words are more easily recognizable than phones (1913b: 100; 1912:119).
8. The historical mutability of language consciousness

Relatively speaking, Rudnicki devoted a great deal of attention to lan
guage's susceptibility to historical change, which is comprehended as a muta
bility of the language consciousness, that is, as a temporal mutability of the
space of reproductive images. In his writings, he placed emphasis on the vari
ability of acts of language reproduction and on the historical mutability of the
consciousness of language subjects. Nonetheless, alongside this mutability he
assumed, at the same time, the continuation of the essential features of that
consciousness (1927:56). Unquestionably, he was concerned here with an
explanation for the fact that language changes are not noticed by the individual
consciousness. This means, for instance, that the Polish language, in spite of
changes, will still remain the Polish language.
Rudnicki, referring to the demarcation between synchrony and diachrony
introduced by Saussure, wrote,
In the face of the law of reproductive and reproduced images, the term 'synchrony'
does not really lend itself to use in an entirely strict manner. For instance, thirty two
million Poles are speaking Polish at probably every moment, every second of each
day. This means that at every moment, they reproduce language images which imme
diately become the basis for subsequent reproduction. In every such act, certain im
perceptible changes and hesitations arise. As a result, only momentary cross-sections
could be called synchronic, for they are immediately absorbed into the past and, turn
into diachrony. (1971a:213)
Rudnicki thus saw limitations with regards to the use of the term 'syn
chrony'. This term refers to language consciousness, that is, to the space of
reproductive images, rather than to the space of reproduced images.
Worthy of special attention are Rudnicki's outlooks on language change,
which occur, in his view, through the generalizations of innovations initiated
by some language subjects, that is, through the acceptance of the innovation by
the social language consciousness (1972:51). We will quote his words on
these matters in extenso here because they are quite noteworthy.
For every language change has its ultimate source in the consciousness of indi
vidual language subjects, in the consciousness of particular co-linguators. Actually,
this by no means denies that in the final resort, the body sanctioning all language
change is the whole community of co-linguating members, but this community is
made possible, and is conditioned by, the existence of particular co-linguators. It is
clear, after all, that if there were none of these, it would be necessary to part with the
whole language community.
Already in the preface to my Slovincian texts (MPKJ VI, 130-131 [1913a]) I set
forth and explicated the view that even so-called regular phonetic changes, displaying
the consistency and 'exceptionlessness' of so-called sound laws, proceed along a path
of selection, the path of the slow emergence into the foreground of one form and, of
the gradual fading away of another form. A similar course of alterations is all the
more necessary when such cases arise as metathesis or dissimilation or other similar
phonetic processes.
It is difficult even to conceive of the process in another light, for certainly each
co-linguator makes use of a given word, but it is hard to believe that each one carries
out identically the same change in the word. And what is even more important and
should be accepted as axiomatic is that one and the same member of the language
community definitely does not use a given word in always the same form, with al
ways exactly the same change, in all stages of his language ontogenesis. (1915: 262-
263; cf. also Rudnicki 1954:20)
Therefore, 'sound processes are protracted, [...] sound changes emerge spo
radically and are then ever more widely propagated until they finally become
exceptionless' (1955a: 189-190).
In the light of the above considerations, sources of language mutability in
here in the structure of language consciousness and in the variability of lan
guage use as well. At this point it is worth considering Rudnicki's statement
that 'the most general source of assimilation processes (and of all other lan
guage changes) is the semasiological structure of language' (1913b:98). (To-
day we would refer to a functional or language-internal plane rather than a se

masiological structure.) Elsewhere Rudnicki states, 'that the entire phonic de
velopment of a language is actually based on the phone's value to a word as its
recognitive feature, that is, on the phone's semasiological relevance' (1913b:
105).
The language subject is not aware of variability in acts of language repro
duction because reproduced images diverging from their respective reproduc
tive images do not go beyond a certain quantum which still does not disfigure
the reproduced image to the extent that it could no longer be identified with the
reproductive image. This is a condition for the universality of sound changes in
a certain domain (1954:20; cf. Rudnicki 1971a:212-213).
Rudnicki distinguished between phonetic and phonological changes, al
though in his opinion it is not possible to establish a strict boundary between
phonetic and phonological phenomena in the history of languages. In his view,
every phonological phenomenon is simultaneously phonetic, but not vice
versa. If historical changes concern the phoneme as a whole, then we are
dealing with historical phonology, but when changes concern phonetic ele
ments (features), we are dealing with historical phonetics. Descriptive phonol
ogy is a superstructure imposed upon descriptive phonetics. The reason for
this is that the focus in phonology is the idea of the phone-phoneme, while the
focus in phonetics is the phonetic element (feature) (1952/54:57).
Sound processes, such as palatalization, during which one phonetic feature
is added to or replaced by another, belong to historical phonetics. However,
such processes as 'derailment' (replacement of a weakly established phone by
a better established one), dissimilation, and sometimes assimilation, metathe
sis, contamination, and finally, fusion of series of phones, all of which operate
on phones or phonemes as whole entities in the sense that one phone or
phoneme is replaced, respectively, by another phone or phoneme — all belong
to historical phonology (1952/54:57-61; cf. Rudnicki 1954:20-21).
Rudnicki formulates the general principle of phonetic development in the
following way: independent (spontaneous) phonetic development, to a large
extent, is a correlate of dependent development (1954:24).
Also of interest are Rudnicki's remarks concerning the development of vo
cabulary, In reference to lexical items, he states that the shorter the semantic
distance between phonetically identical words, the more easily and quickly one
word can expel the other. However, the more distant they are, the slower the
tempo at which this expulsion may transpire (1913b: 107). Referring to recon
structed forms of Proto-Indo-European, he states that reconstructed PIE words
are symbols of the relations between IE languages, rather than words which
once actually existed (1955a: 192).
Within the framework of his theoretical interests in historical linguistics,
Rudnicki tried to discover and, formulate laws governing language processes,
such as assimilation, dissimilation, metathesis, and palatalization (1913b: 43ff.;
113ff.). These processes, in his view, are merely various manifestations of the
action of the identification-differentiation forces operating as causa movens in
the space of language images (cf. 1972:50). In the results of these processes
Rudnicki sought empirical confirmation of the language laws he had estab
lished.
9. Rudnicki's theory of assimilation

Rudnicki considered assimilation and dissimilation to be visible results of
one and, the same basic process (1912:124), which consequently, led him to
postulating a common source for both of them. He looked for this source in the
reciprocal relationship between assimilating or dissimilating phones and in their
relation to the entire phonetic mass of the word (1913b:6-7). Both assimilation
and dissimilation may concern phones qua reproductive images and qua com
ponents in linear structures (cf. 1925:23ff.). We will consider only some of the
aspects of assimilation below, and even these in summary, since an exhaustive
presentation of the theory of assimilation in Rudnicki's approach would require
not only more space, but also deeper analysis.
Assimilation is a process, which, according to Rudnicki, does not essen
tially distinguish itself from all other sound changes (1913b: 108-109). The
most general basis for assimilatory processes (as for all language changes) is
the semasiological structure of language (1913b:98). Therefore, the behavior
of phones in a process of assimilation is dependent upon their semasiological
relevance, which is tied, in turn, to their degree of recognizability.
That phone always assimilates (exerts an assimilating attraction) which possesses the
greater semasiological relevance in a given combination, that is, the one which pre
sents the apperception of the speaking subject with better information and better fea
tures to ensure the focusing of awareness upon its nature. (1913b:101)
The idea of a phone's recognizability, which as we recall, was, for Rud
nicki, just, a consequence of the idea of the phone's semasiological relevance,
allowed him to subordinate so-called assimilation laws to conditions of apper
ception. That is, it allowed him to state the fact that the formulation of a pho
netic law (or language law in general) determines nothing other than those con
ditions which enhance clarity of apperception (1913b:5).
Knowing the laws governing the recognizability of phones, we can thus

define laws of assimilation. These laws depend both on substantial and on
asubstantial properties of phones. It should be remembered though, that the
degree of recognizability of phones is a category of the language consciousness
not accessible to direct observation. Only in language processes such as as
similation or dissimilation does the degree of recognizability manifest itself,
that is, as Rudnicki says, assimilation laws cast a certain light on the features
of apperception (1913b:111). Language changes are thus instrumental in the
establishment of a phone's degree of recognizability. In other words, historical
changes in language consciousness project upon previous synchronic states of
that consciousness.
10. Rudnicki's theory offusion of phones

The force of identification acting in the space of reproductive images may
lead, as has already been stated, to the elimination of certain images, often by
way of absorption into other images (1971a:213). Such an absorption appeal's
in Lekhitic dialects in the form of a mixing or a fusion of two of the following
three phone series (1928, 1934):
š(š) : ś(s') : s
ž(ž) : ź(z') : z
č(č) : ć(c') : c
: 3(3') :3
This absorption, being a particular case of assimilation and remaining
bound to processes of palatalization and depalatalization, is manifested in the
mentioned dialects in diverse ways, such as
1) Kashubiation (substitution of series s for series s');
2) Chelminskiation (substitution of series ś for series s' and ś);
3) Mazuration (substitution of series s for series ś);
4) Jablonkovation (substitution of series ś for series ś and ś;
5) Shadzenje (substitution of series ś for series s);
6) Tsekanje (substitution of c for ć).
Thus, the ternary phonetic opposition of type ([ś, ś, s]), which was prob
ably a phonological opposition only to a small extent, became reduced to op
positions of the type ([ś, s]), ([ś, s]) or ([s, ś]). Theoretically, the type ([ś, s])
is also possible. In effect, we have to deal in particular dialects with an elimi
nation of one series, ś, s or s, or with the emergence of a new series in place of
two series existing previously.
In explaining this phenomenon, Rudnicki assumes that the difference be
tween some pair of the three phone series under consideration, let us say, be-
tween c, z. c, and, š, ž, č, respectively, was not brought to conscious

ness or even if it was, then it did not seem sufficiently important in the com
municative system of the language (1954:20). The differences between
phones, as we recall, are determined by their substantial and asubstantial prop
erties. If a phone has little or no semasiological relevance, then there is no rea
son, according to Rudnicki, for maintaining it as an independent psychological
entity (1913b:23). In the case of the fusion processes considered here, sub
stantial and asubstantial differences between respective phones were too small
to prevent total assimilation, that is, identification (1927:62; cf Rudnicki 1954:
23, 1955a:185ff., 1955b:231). These phones were too similar to each other to
be distinguished. An image with weak psychological individuality undergoes
absorption by the closest image stronger than it (1927:57). We might say then
that the explanation of phonetic changes discussed here is to a significant extent
a functional, language-internal one.
The replacement of series š, ž, č, by series s, z, c,3,respectively, has, in
Rudnicki's view, a spontaneous, independent character. One phone becomes
replaced by another phone. It is not then a process in which series š, ž , č,
slowly transits to series s, z, c,3,respectively, as in the case of the palataliza
tion k + i > k' + i > ć + i > č + y, but rather it is a process in which sporadi
cally, and then ever more regularly, one series of phones is replaced by another
series. It is thus a process substitutional in character. One phone as a whole is
replaced by another phone, first in individual words and then universally
(1954:20). The starting point for the fusion of the series of phones which has
been discussed earlier is certain combinatorial conditions in which assimilation,
dissimilation or analogical influences operate, Dependent phonetic development
initiated independent phonetic development (1954:23-24). The fusion at first
appeared sporadically in particularly favorable positions, from which it spread
over the entirety of a given dialect (1955a:190-191). The speaker identifies in
sufficiently distinct images firstly in positions especially prone to such an iden
tification, and later across an ever wider range 1955a:190).
11. Rudnickïs theory of metathesis

Rudnicki did not share the opinion of many linguists for whom it was a
hopeless enterprise to seek some persistent and definite causes for the purpose
of explaining metathetic processes. In his view, such causes — astonishingly
precise in nature and inherent in the structure of all languages — may be easily
demonstrated. He saw, in metathesis, an almost conscious linear ordering of
the phones of a word in agreement with general anthropophonic norms (1911:
173-260; 1915:269; 1921a:85-117; 1921b:l 17-120). Hisresearch in metathe-
sis indicates that to achieve an adequate explanation for this phenomenon, one
should start with, among others, the following assumptions:
(i) Phone clusters possess an independent psychological reality and are
thus able to influence the formation of other phone clusters (1911:208;
1915:253-254). That is to say, some phone clusters may be rebuilt under
the analogical influence of others existing in the language which are par
tially similar to them, but which appeal' more frequently;
(ii) Some phone clusters may have a more established status in a given lan
guage than others do; consequently, certain linear orderings of phones
may be preferred over others;
(iii) Phones may bear various degrees of similarity to each other. Certain
phone clusters as well as certain sets of phones may display stronger
similarity than do, respectively, other phone clusters or sets of phones.
Phones with a high enough degree of mutual similarity may be called
affined phones. Affined phones constitute independent psychological en
tities in the language consciousness. Affined phones, mutually separated
within linear structures, attract each other (1915:260);
(iv) A phone X which separates two affined phones Y and Z without being
affined to them itself is susceptible, in that position, to elimination ten
dencies (1915:260);
(v) A phone which does not possess sufficiently independent psychological
reality in a given language, that is which does not play a role in the
recognition of words, is susceptible to elimination tendencies (1971b:70);
(vi) A phone succumbing to elimination in a given word position may be
compensated by the appearance of a corresponding phone in the same or
in a different position.
The relevance of the above assumptions for the explication of metathesis is
illustrated by the following examples.
The metathesis of Old Polish gzło "shirt" into Modern Polish zgło (žgło)
arose as a result of the action of auditory assimilation, in other words, of pho
netic analogy. Influence is exerted here by such words as zgtosic, zgladzic,
zglupiec, and others (1911:208ff; 1915:253-254; 1952/54: 59).
These same causative forces may be evidenced in the metamorphosis which
the Slavonic kopriva ("nettle") underwent, finally yielding pokrzywa in Polish.
That is, the development koprzywa 3 pokrzywa is provoked by auditory anal
ogy to the structure of words of the type po + krz-, which are richly repre
sented in the lexicon, whereas the configuration ko + prz- is either scarce or
altogether missing (1911:210ff.; 1952/54:60).
The metathesis of Old Polish plcha "flea" into Modem Polish pchta resulted
from the tendency towards grouping affined phones next to each other. The ef
fect is that voiceless, less open phones cluster together into the combination
pch-, and voiced, more open phones into the combination -ła. The voiceless ł
occurring in picha, which did not possess a sufficiently independent psycho

logical reality, became eliminated in that position. Concurrently, this elimina
tion was recompensed through the appearance of the voiced ł in pchła. In the
final reckoning, the linear arrangement of phones became such that the closer
to word-initial position, the greater obstruence and the less sonority we find.
However, the closer to the end of the word we get, the greater the sonority and
the less the obstruence (1915:268).
The following metatheses are best explained in a similar way:
in Czech: hmla # mhla "fog";
in Old Icelandic: huls # húsl "sacrament";
in Danish: vand # Old Norse vatn "water";
in Anglo-Saxon: tanc # tcácn "token".
12, Final remarks

The above presentation of the general linguistic conceptions of Mikolaj
Rudnicki certainly does not lay claim to completeness. Nevertheless, a sense of
the breadth and depth of his theoretical inquiries emerges from the matters
herein presented. Several of his original theories deserve to enter permanently
into world linguistics as a genuine contribution of Polish linguistic thought.
In spite of his unquestionable achievements and lucid, perspectives, Rud
nicki gradually withdrew from problems of general linguistics sensu stricto.
After arriving in Poznan in 1919, he reached the conclusion that it was more
important to contribute to the establishment of a reborn Poland than to continue
with general theoretical research (1971a:219). With this in mind he turned to
the Slavonic world, more specifically, to West Slavic studies. One of his aims
was to present scientific evidence, mainly based on linguistic and onomastic
sources, confirming the Polishness of the Western territories severed from
Poland in the course of the tragic events of history. No-one else could have
succeeded better in this field. No-one could have more effectively converted
his mental capacity into visible scientific results of permanent value.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF MIKOLAJ RUDNICKI'S WORKS ON

THE TOPICS COVERED IN THE PRESENT CHAPTER*
1911. "Z zagadnień psycho-fonetycznych. (Na tle konkretnych wypadków pols-

kich i slowiańskich)". Materyaly i Prace Komisyi Językowej Akademii Umie-
jętn ości 5.173-260.
* For a complete bibliography of Rudnicki's writings, see the list in Slavia Occidentalis
(Poznan) 20:2.19-27 (1960), supplemented by Zygmunt Brocki in Slavia Occidentalis
32.119-123 (1975) and 36.9-14 (1979).
1912. "Psychophonetische Studien. I: Assimilation". Bulletin de l' cadémie des

Sciences de Cracovie, juin-juillet et octobre 1911, 111-124. Cracow.
1913a. "Przedmowa do tekstów sîowinskich". Materyaly i Prace Komisji Języ-
kowej Akademii Umiejętnosci w Krakowie 6.130-131.
1913b. Studya psychofonetyczne. I. Assymilacya". Rozprawy Wydzialu Filo-
logicznego Akademii Umiejętnosci 3:5(50).98-214.
1915. "Jedna z ogólnoantropofonicznych przyczyn metatezy". Materyaly i
Prace Komisyi Językowej Akademii Umiejętnosci 7.253-270.
1921a. "Metateza w językach zachodnioslowianskich, przede wszystkim lechic-
kich". SIavia Occidentalis 1.85-117.
1921b. "Ekskurs o ogólnoslowiañskiej przestawce płynnych". Slavia Occiden
talis 1.117-120.
1925. Fonetyka Opisowa wedtug wykladów Prof, dr M. Rudnickiego. (Część 2).
Poznań: Wydawnictwo Akademickiego Kola Językowego Uniwersytetu Poz-
nańskiego.
1927. "Język jako zjawisko pamięciowe (Prawo identyfikacji wyobrazeñ niedo-
statecznie róznych)". Symbolae grammaticae in honorem loannis Rozwa-
dowski, vol.I.53-69. Krakow: Gebetnner & Wolff.
1928. "Mieszanie szeregów, s, z, c, (dz), s, z, c, (dz) oraz ś, ź, ć, (dz) w
języku literackim". Język Polski 13.45-48.
1934. "Nowe materjaly do mieszania szeregów s..., ś..., š...: Prawo identyfikacji i
dyfferencjacji 'wyobrazeñ niedostatecznie róznych'". Prace Filologiczne 16.
175-197.
1952/54. "O historycznej fonologii i fonetyce". Sprawozdania Poznanskiego
Towarzystwa Przyjaciól Nauk 1 (43).57-61.
1954. "Rola wielkosci artykulacyjno-słuchowych w rozwoju fonetycznym w
związku z mazurowaniem". Poradnik Językowy 3,19-25.
1955a. "Najnowsze prace o mazurzeniu i wlasne uwagi. (Z historii metod badań
dialektologicznych w Polsce)". Poradnik językowy 5.185-193.
1955b. "Najnowsze prace o pochodzeniu polskiego języka literackiego". Prze-
glqd Zachodni 9:1/2.209-232.
1971a. "Językoznawstwo polskie w dobie uzyskiwania niepodległosci". Slavia
Occidentalis 28/29.209-220.
1971b. "Metateza". Lingua Posnaniensis 15.69-71.
1972. "Wyobrazenia reprodukujące i reprodukowane". Lingua Posnaniensis
16.49-51.
CHAPTER 9
JERZY KURYŁOWICZ AS INDO-EUROPEANIST
AND THEORIST OF LANGUAGE*
WOJCIECH SMOCZYŃSKI
Jagiellonian University, Cracow
1. Early life and career

Jerzy (Wladysław) Kurylowicz was born on 26 August 1895 in Stanisia-
wow, a city which then belonged to the Austro-Hungarian Empire (Stanislau)
and now is part of the Ukraine (Ivano-Frankivs'k). His father, Roman, was a
merchant by trade. His mother, Flora née Kleczeñska (the daughter of a high
school principal), took care of their six children. Jerzy had two brothers and
three sisters. His brothers in time became, like him, university professors (one
of electrical engineering, the other of bacteriology), while his sisters took up
schoolteaching. He attended school in 1901-1913 in Lwow (Lemberg, L'viv),
the capital of the province, first going to the German ('Evangelical') elementary
school. In the classical Gymnasium, where the language of instruction was
German, he took equal interest in Greek and Latin and in mathematics. He
even thought of studying mathematics in Göttingen or Paris, but his father per
suaded him to choose a 'more practical' profession. In the end he went to Vi
enna and entered the Hochschule für Welthandel in the autumn of 1913.
Apart from economics and commerce, correspondence in foreign languages
was taught: Kurylowicz took examinations in six; English, French, Italian,
Spanish, Portuguese, and Russian. As if this were not enough, he also studied
Arabic and Persian at the Lehranstalt für orientalische Sprachen of the Univers
ity of Vienna and attended lectures in law at the Juridische Fakultät. Scarcely
had he finished his first year at the three different Faculties when the First
World War broke out. He entered the Austrian army and went to the front with
* The original version of this article, translated into English by Wayles Browne (Cornell
University, Ithaca, N.Y.), appeared as "Jerzy Kurylowicz 1895-1978: On the hundredth anni
versary of his birth" introducing the Kurylowicz Memorial Volume, Part I ed. by Wojciech
Smoczynski (Cracow: Universitas, 1995), xi-xxiv. For the present purposes a number of
minor changes have been introduced, including the addition of a select bibliography of Kury-
lowicz's writings, thus also reducing the number of bibliographical footnotes. To round out
the picture of Kurylowicz the scholar, readers may wish to consult the contributions by Jerzy
Rusek, Jan Safarewicz, and Adam Heinz to Historiographia Linguistica 25:1/2 (1998), pp.
141-146, 147-152, and 153-160.
the rank of lieutenant. Twice wounded, he spent a year and a half in Russian
captivity.1 After the war he finished his studies at the Institut für Welthandel
and the Lehranstalt (1920), but did not take up a 'practical' profession. He had
realized that the languages he had been studying for purely practical reasons
were interesting in their own right. Hence he undertook further studies at the
age of 25. Officially he was enrolled in Romance and Germanic Philology at
the Faculty of Philosophy of the Jan Kazimierz University in Lwów. In addi
tion to this he pursued Indic studies with Andrzej Gawroñski (1885-1927) and
Semitic studies with Zygmunt Smogorzewski (1884-1931) and Mojzesz
Schorr (1874-1943). He completed his doctorate in three years (1923)2 and
married, subsequently travelling to Paris on a scholarship from the French
Government, intending to continue with Romance languages. When he learned
of Antoine Meillet's (1866-1936) lectures, and then at the Collège de France
encountered this scholar who moved with equal ease in Greek, Sanskrit,
Slavic, and Armenian, he decided to leave Romance studies for Indo-European
liguistics.3 His two years of study under Meillet, as well as under Joseph
Vendryes (1875-1960) and Jules Bloch (1880-1953), the Semitist Marcel Co
hen (1884-1974), and the Romance scholar Mario Roques (1875-1961), con
cluded with a diploma from the École Pratique des Hautes Études for his work
Traces de la place du ton en gatique (Kurylowicz 1925b). The same work
gained him the Habilitation in Indo-European linguistics (Lwow, 1926). For a
while, he was a Privat-Dozent, working as a lecturer of German, When An
drzej Gawroñski died prematurely in 1927, Kurylowicz took over the chair of
Indo-European Linguistics. He became an 'extraordinary' in 1928 and 'ordi
nary' professor in 1934. One of his students during his Lwow period was
Zygmunt Rysiewicz (1911-1954), who later held the chair of Indo-European
at Warsaw University (from 1949). During the 1930s Kurylowicz spent much
time abroad. A stipend from the Rockefeller Foundation took him first to the
U.S.A. (Yale, 1931/32), then to Vienna (1932) and London (1935/36). He
was active in international linguistic life, giving papers at all the Linguistic
Congresses held before World War II: The Hague 1928, Geneva 1931, Rome
1
While in military hospital, he perfected his knowledge of Russian. At that time, too, as
we know from his memoirs, he turned his attention to aphasia resulting from head injuries,
particularly because he noted that manifestations of aphasia were different in German speakers
than in native speakers of Polish or Russian.
2
His dissertation, written under Edward Porębowicz (1862-1937), bore the title Étymologies
romanes, but it did not appear in book form. His first two articles (Kurylowicz 1925[1919-
1924], 1925a) recall these studies; see also Kurylowicz (1926).
3
Before long Meillet was quoted as saying: 'I see that you are turning from the new to the
old?' See "Rozmowa z prof dr. Jerzym Kurylowiczem: Od nowego ku staremu", ITD; Tygod-
nik studencki, p.8 (Warsaw, 1977).
JERZY KURYŁOWICZ: A SKETCH OF HIS LIFE AND WORK 257
1933, Copenhagen 1936, though not for the one scheduled for Brussels in
1939, which had to be cancelled because of the outbreak of the Second World
War. During these year his scholarly achievements were appreciated in Poland,
too: he was chosen a corresponding member of the Polish Academy of Arts in
Krakow in 1931, and a regular member in 1938. In 1937 he was made a Com
mander of the order 'Polonia Restituía'. But his flourishing career was soon
experience a downturn because of the war and its political after-effects.
2. The Second World War and the years until 1956

In view of his age, Kurylowicz was not drafted. He spent the Second
World War in Lwow, where he witnessed first the Soviet occupation and then
the German. He taught general linguistics at the University of Lwow in 1939-
1941 and again at the newly renamed Ivan Franko Ukrainian University in
1944-1946. During the German occupation (1941-1944) he was officially em
ployed as a teacher at the Polish Commercial School, but simultaneously took
part in the underground Polish university.
The political after-effects of the war, sketched out in Teheran (1943), were
made definitive at the Potsdam Conference of summer 1945. Poland found it
self under the control of Soviet Russia, and the new borders drawn for it by
Stalin and Churchill shifted its borders 200 km farther to the west, leaving the
eastern borderlands together with Vilnius (Wilna) and Lvov (Lwow) in the
USSR. The result was a great exodus of millions of people and lasting several
years. In June 1946 Kurylowicz had to leave Lwow and move westward in
order to live on the territories which official propaganda termed 'recovered'.
The inhabitants of Lwow were to live in Wroclaw, a city left empty by the ex
pulsion of the Germans and heavily destroyed (Festung Breslau).
1946 marked a curious episode, illustrating his uncompromising attitude in
judging questions where scholarship bordered on ideology. Shortly before
leaving Lwow (27 March), Kurylowicz gave a lecture on the so-called 'stadial
theory' of language development. It was in fact a broadside criticism of the of
ficial Soviet linguistic line, Marrism. N. J. Marr (1865-1934), a noted special
ist on Caucasian languages, had held the unfortunate view that the Indo-Euro
pean languages represented a younger, more advanced state of development
than the Caucasian languages, which he termed the 'Japhetic family'. One of
the central claims of this hypothesis was that the nominative structure charac
teristic for Indo-European languages had developed from an older ergative
construction. Man's pupils built up a theory of stages of development through
which all languages supposedly passed as a result of changes in social struc
ture (not due to their belonging to a particular family, tenitory, or period). De
spite the risks, Kurylowicz subjected the theses of Manism to detailed analysis
and criticism from a strictly linguistic point of view, that of the general theory
of syntax. The appearance of this criticism in the annual of the Academy in
Moscow (Izvestija AN SSSR 1946:5, 387-393),4 and its reprint in Polish in a
more polemic version (Kurylowicz 1947b)5 contributed to the rapid rejection
of this doctrine, the signal for which was given by Stalin himself in his famous
"Pravda" articles in 1950.
In September 1946 Kurylowicz began to lecture at the newly founded Uni
versity in Wroclaw. First he was an assistant to the professor of Romance
Philology. Not until the following year was a chair of Indo-European created
for him. Among his students from this period were the general linguist Leon
Zawadowski (b.1914) and the Anglicist and general phonetician Wiktor Jas-
sem (b.1922). Immediately before the start of the Cold War Kurylowicz was
elected a foreign member of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Copenhagen
(1947). This was surely a sign of solidarity from Hjelmslev and a recognition
of Kurylowicz's intellectual connection with Glossematics.
After two years in Wroclaw he was appointed Professor of General Lin
guistics in Kraków (1948). This city, unlike Warsaw and Wroclaw, had mirac
ulously escaped destruction in the war. Further, it recalled Lwów, both in
architecture and in its intellectual and artistic atmosphere. From then until his
death Kurylowicz remained connected with the Jagellonian University and the
Polish Academy of Scinces and Arts6 of which he had been a member since
4
A French translation of this article appeared in Italy (Kurylowicz 1949d). We will cite one
of its characteristic paragraphs: "La pensée ne se reflète que partiellement dans la langue. Les
diffrences existant dans la langue existent nécessairement dans la pensée. Au contraire du
manque d'une distinction linguistique on ne peut conclure à l'absence de la catégorie cor
respondante de la pensée. Ainsi tout le monde distingue les sexes sans que toutes les langues
connaissent le genre grammatical [...]".
5
Here are a few sentences illustrating the tone of the criticism: The scheme of stadiality is
a conglomerate of a-priori Hegelian dialectic and a series of concrete traits wrongly regarded as
characteristic for certain 'primitive' or archaic languages. Modern linguistics knows of no
languages whose structure would be built on principles more primitive than that of others.'
Further: 'According to Marr's school it was collective (organized) labor which played the
fundamental role in the origin of language. Such an explanation has nothing in common
with the exact methods of contemporary linguistics, not because of its speculative character
[author's emphasis], but because it does not remain within language but goes beyond its
bounds' (p.5). Any linkages to current social or political slogans (cf. the "language-race"
question in the Third Reich) deforms the direction of objective scholarly investigation from
the very beginning' (p.6. Kurylowicz contrasts Marrism with the work of I. I. Mescaninov
(1883-1967), whose general linguistic doctrine is based on morphological typology and the
priority of the sentence, and hence 'occupies a place of honor alongside Western European
linguistics' (p.7). — Years later Kurylowicz recalled, in a humorous tone, that it was criticiz
ing Marrism that lost him a place in the Soviet Academy of Sciences.
6
Abbreviated to PAU. In 1953 the centralist state took control of this previously self-
governing society of scholars and gave it a status modelled after the Soviet academy. The
change in name (from then on, the Polish Academy of Sciences, PAN) and its move to
JERZY KURYLOWICZ: A SKETCH OF HIS LIFE AND WORK 259
1931. Thanks to the surviving students of a number of outstanding pre-war

scholars, like Jan Rozwadowski (comparative grammar), Kazimierz Nitsch
and Jan Los (Polish studies), Tadeusz Lehr-Spławiński (Slavic), Adam Klecz-
kowski (Germanic) and Tadeusz Kowalski (Oriental studies, including
Turkish), Kraków after the war was the strongest linguistic centre in Poland.
Linguistics here was primarily historical, mostly oriented to factual material,
but in spirit was close to the Junggrammatiker. What Kurylowicz brought to
Kraków in 1948 was something new and something of his own; we can call it
the structurally-oriented theory of language,7 No such discipline had existed at
the university before, and therefore, alongside the Chair of Indo-European (oc
cupied since 1937 by Jan Safarewicz), a new Chair of General Linguistics was
created. Kurylowicz was to occupy it until his retirement. Here, as well as in
the Linguistic Committee of the Academy of Sciences and the "Bulletin of the
Polish Linguistic Society", he would indefatigably disseminate the theoretical
aspects of the study of language. The flourishing of such study in Poland,
beginning in the 1960s is largely due to Kurylowicz's inspiration and backing.
We should not skip over 1949-1956, the years of Stalinization, when
scholarship, teaching, and culture in general went through a period of chaos
and degradation. This was the result of efforts to bend Polish scholarly tradi
tions to suit Soviet organizational patterns. The value of science was to be
measured by "social demand", i.e., its usefulness for rebuilding social relation
ships, for such was the ambitious task the new State had set itself, ruled by a
'Marxist-Leninist' monoparty. For humanistic disciplines like philosophy, so
ciology and linguistics, the 'reorganization' sought to harness them in the ser
vice of ideology and propaganda. Hand in hand with this went the imposed
primacy of Soviet science, a stifling of the freedom of research and even of the
freedom of scholarly discussion, the removal of the freedom to travel, etc. A
consequence in university philological studies witnessed the closing of English
and Germanic departments (Romance somehow remained). But Russian stu
dies were privileged. Though weak in scholarship, they were useful, since
they provided schoolteachers for schools in which Russian had been made
obligatory. As for Indo-European comparative linguistics, it was eliminated as
a separate field of study by a special decision of the Minister of Education. The
Warsaw were both the result of this. In 1989 following the political turnaround, the PAU
was reactivated in Cracow as a social institution.
7
In Kurylowicz's work from 1945 to 1950 there is a clear turn towards theoretical and
methodological questions. Compare the following chronology: criticism of the stadial theory,
discussing in turn poetic language, the nature of consonant shifts, the theory of the syllable,
the syntactic group and the sentence, the classification of cases, linguistics and the theory of
the sign, the concept of isomorphism, the nature of so-called analogical processes. The rel
evant articles were collected in Esquisses linguistiques (Kurylowicz 1960).
reason for this was that it suddenly found itself in conflict with the new version
of historical linguistics, propagated in Soviet Russia under the name of Mar
xism. As a result, Kurylowicz taught mainly general linguistics. He lectured on
historical linguistic topics only to the modest extent that they were required for
students of modern languages and Orientalists. This is also why he had no
Kraków students at that time in comparative linguistics in the strict sense. But
among the students specializing in general linguistics under his direction were
Adam Heinz (1914-1984), Witold Mańczak (b.1924), Zbigniew Gołąb (1923-
1994), Tadeusz Pobozniak (b.1916) and others, particularly Anglicists, whose
numbers were not replenished, since new admissions had been halted in 1949.
In these times, marked by a planned and intrusive ideologization of university
teaching, Kurylowicz remained unbowed, and naturally presented linguistics in
the same style as he practiced it himself.8 Cut off from foreign contacts, but
constantly communing with 'bourgeois doctrines' through his private library,
Kurylowicz devoted himself to intensive writing. This surely alleviated his per
ceptions of chaos and of his own powerlessness against it. His monographs on
accent (1952) and apophony (1956), of unchallenged stature, are the fruits of
these dismal years.
3. Rejoining the West and the American experience

After the political 'thaw' of 1956 Kurylowicz immediately took up new
projects seeking to build Western European philological studies up again. He
put particularly great efforts into reactivating English studies at the University,
and watched over them for many years (his students included Claire Grece-
Dąbrowska, Ruta Sikorzanka [Nagucka], Alfred Reszkiewicz, and Jerzy Strze-
telski).9 When travel in the West became possible again after 1956, he renewed
his scholarly journeys.10 He attended the Linguistic Congresses in Oslo (1957)
8
Kurylowicz's character as a teacher and a human being is described by his student from the
1950s, Wojciech Skalmowski, "Remembering Professor Kurylowicz", in Kurylowicz Memo
rial Volume, Part l td. by Wojciech Smoczyński (Cracow: Universitas, 1995), pp. xxv-xxx.
9
Cf. Jacek Fisiak, "Professor Kurylowicz's Contribution to Research and Teaching in the
Area of Modern Languages", in Jerzy Kurylowicz (1895-1978): Materials from the scientific
session ... (Wroclaw, etc: Ossolineum, 1980), 47-52,
10
The archives of the Jagellonian University preserve Kurylowicz's application, dated 11
March 1957, asking the Rector for leave until the end of the semester for the purpose of his
first scholarly travel to the West since the War. He enumerated the institutions where he
planned to lecture: the Institut de Linguistique at the Sorbonne, the School of Slavonic and
Oriental Studies in London, Brasenose College in Oxford, and the Institute of Linguistics in
Ann Arbor, Mich.; however, remarkably, the most important information is missing: that at
least part of the purpose of his trip to Paris was to receive an honorary doctorate from the
Sorbonne. We do not know why. Did he not want to tempt fate? Or perhaps he did not yet
know of the honour awaiting him?
and Cambridge, Mass. (1962), and accepted invitations to lecture as a visiting

professor in Ann Arbor, Michigan (1957), Hamburg (1960), Stanford (1961),
Cambridge, Mass. (MIT, 1962, Harvard, 1964, 1965) and Innsbruck (1967).
Proofs of recognition continued to come to him. His first honorary doctorate,
in 1957, was from the Sorbonne, the next from the University College Dublin
(1959), then the Universities of Vienna (1965), Chicago and Michigan (1967),
Edinburgh (1970), Liège (1973) and, finally, Krakow (1975). He was a mem
ber of ten foreign Academies of Sciences and the recipient of many prizes,
among them the Prix Volney (1956).
In 1964 the Jagiellonian University celebrated its 600th anniversary, On
Kuryiowicz's initiative, a symposium "The notion of law in linguistics" was
organized in Kraków for the occasion. He himself spoke on the laws of
'isomorphism'; other speakers included students of his (Leon Zawadowski,
Adam Heinz, Wojciech Skalmowski) and guests (Josef Vachek, Karl Ammer).
A written questionnaire was distributed beforehand, asking the following ques
tion (among others): 'If one accepts the possibility of prediction (causality) as
the main characteristic of laws in the natural sciences, can this notion be ap
plied {mutatis mutandis) to: (a) the synchrony of a given language, (b) the di-
achrony of a given language, (c) general linguistics?' Another question con
cerned the permissibility of deduction in addition to induction in linguistic re
search. At this point one must recall the discussion about the laws of analogy,
begun by Kuryiowicz (1947a) and taken up by his student Witold Mańczak.11
Kuryiowicz, referring to such theoretical concepts as the hierarchical status of
function vs. form and formal polarization, expressed analogical changes as a
series of formulae. Central among them was the one stating "Les actions dites
'analogiques' suivent la direction: formes de fondation → formes fondées."
Mariczak objects to the deductive and hypothetical nature of Kurylowicz's for
mulae, and contrasts them with his own scheme of nine 'tendencies' which he
discovers by inductive analysis, checking his conclusions by statistical data.12
This controversy, which unfortunately set the two scholars at loggerheads,13
became a significant benchmark for later research. It has been examined in an
11
W. Mańczak, ''Tendances générales des changements analogiques", Lingua 7.298-325,
387-420 (1958-1959).
12
More recently Mañczak has reduced his scheme to five laws; see his "Laws of Analogy",
Historical Morphology ed. by Jacek Fisiak (The Hague: Mouton, 1980), 283-288.
13
At times the discussion verged on sharp polemics; cf. Mañczak, "Odpowiedz Prof. J.
Kurylowiczowi", Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawzego (Cracow) 19.191-201
(1960) and Kuryiowicz, "Odpowiedz jezykoznawstwa", ibid., 203-210.
Jerzy Kurylowicz
(Comtesy of Universitas, Cracow)
unprejudiced manner in the dissertation of K.-H. Best,14 and has become a

mainstay in historical linguistics textbooks.15
As Paris had before the war, America in the 1960s became a source of in
spiration for him: here he associated with Roman Jakobson and Monis Halle,
and here he wrote Inflectional Categories (Kurylowicz 1964b). He granted
American linguistics a 'leading place on the international scale' (Kurylowicz
1963b), popularized its achievements in Poland, and arranged for translations
and reviews to appear'. Well acquainted with the tradition of S apir, he followed
closely the reorientations after World War II, and could not help reacting to de
velopments which seemed not to agree with his concept of professionalism.16
His multiple guest lectureships in America brought him a lasting group of
pupils there (the most prominent is Calvert Watkins, professor at Harvard Uni
versity). His openness and sociability gained him many friends, as can be seen
from his honorary membership in the Linguistic Society of America (1957),
his election to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in Boston (1965)
and two honorary doctorates (1967).17
In 1965 he reached the age of 70 and retired from the University. The fine
Festschrift published for the occasion had many contributors from Poland as
well as those of friends from his Paris and London days (Émile Benveniste,
Pierre Chantraine, Jean Fourquet, Louis Renou; C. E. Bazell, C. S. Stang)
and colleagues from America (Roman Jakobson, Monis Halle, I. J. Gelb,
14
K.-H. Best, Probleme der Analogieforschung (Munich: Hueber, 1973).
15
Cf., for instance, Hans Henrich Hock, Principles of Historical Linguistics (Berlin & New
York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1986), 210-237.
16
At the celebration of his own 80th birthday, which coincided with the 50th congress of
the Polish Linguistic Society in Cracow, Kurylowicz gave a speech sketching the present
state of linguistics in the world, in America, and in Poland (Biuletyn PTJ 34.3-6 [1975]). He
criticized American structuralism for shying away from semantic considerations, asking with
Spang-Hansen: 'How can one abstract away from something that is the whole point? Avoid
ing semantic analysis with the aid of formal equivalences, which supposedly leave function
untouched, was for Kurylowicz a break with the European linguistic tradition resulting from
the Second World War. 'Hand in hand with this went a certain intellectual arrogance,
identifying conclusions drawn from English data with those of general linguistics, as seen in
the expression Take any language, take English!' (ibid.). He finished with the words: The
methods applied in generative-transformational grammar should for the present be treated with
caution' (ibid.). In his oral presentation, which is still remembered, we heard him add the in
structions in English: Shake well before using! His love of jokes served him well on all oc
casions that arose; on that day, 29th October 1975, he had before him practically all the
Polish linguists.
17
That he is still remembered is clear from Eric P. Hamp's memoir on pp.395-395 of his
contribution "Albanian dha 'gave"' in Kurylowicz Memorial Volume, Part I ed. by Wojciech
Smoczynski (Cracow: Universitas, 1995), pp.395-398.
Joseph H. Greenberg).18 Retiring from his post at the University did not upset
the rhythm of his productive and wide-ranging scholarly work: in the thirteen
years that followed, he wrote four books (one on Semitic) and about 80 arti
cles. Freed from didactic concerns, he concentrated on a planned new Indo-Eu
ropean grammar. Based on the principles of structural linguistics and standing
in opposition to the German comparative tradition, it was nevertheless to be
written in German and published by Carl Winter's Universitätsverlag in Hei
delberg. Calvert Watkins, Warren Cowgill, and Vjaceslav Vs. Ivanov were
among those invited to contribute. The project leader himself quickly produced
a treatment of accent and ablaut (1968), and although Watkins' volume on ver
bal inflection followed soon after (1969), the plan for the Indogermanische
Grammatik came to a standstill in the following years. Kuryłowicz accordingly
decided to write his own views on the topics still left untreated. The methodol
ogy of morphological studies, verbs, nominals, and main questions of Indo-
European phonology formed the four sections of his Problèmes de linguistique
indo-européenne (1977), a book crowning his oeuvre and serving as a sort of
scholarly testament.19 Two months after its appearance, Kuryiowicz died in
Cracow at the age of 83 (on 28 January 1978). The last text he had worked on
was "Lecture du Mémoire en 1978: Un commentaire" (Kuryiowicz 1978); it
was intended for the conference in Geneva planned for May 1978, commemo
rating the 100th anniversary of the appearance of Saussure's precocious work.
4. Kuryłowicz's legacy
Kuryiowicz's oeuvre has not yet been the subject of a monograph, though
it well deserves one, both for the new research methods he created and for the
scope of his work, not met with in other linguists: the general theory of lan
guage, phonology, the theory of syntax, metrics, onomastics, broad and de
manding areas of Indo-European and Semitic studies. For the present article
we will limit ourselves to summarizing Kuryiowicz's views from before World
War II, as reflected in his monograph Etudes indoeuropéennes (1935).20
18
Symbolae linguisticae in honorem Georgii Kuryiowicz. ed. by Adam Heinz et al. (=
Polska Akademia Nauk, Oddzial w Krakowie; Prace Komisji Językoznawstwa, 5.) Wroclaw,
etc,: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolinskich, 1965.
19
"Il paraît que les collaborateurs engagés en 1965 à continuer ce qui en a paru jusqu'ici
(vol. II et III, 1) ont abandonné le projet pour des raisons différentes, soit à cause de devoirs
didactiques trop lourds, soit divertis par des changements d'interêts scientifiques" (Kuryiowicz
1977:5). - Fortunately, the publication has recently been resumed by Manfred Mayrhofer, see
Indogermanische Grammatik, vol.1:1: Einleitung by Warren Cowgill; vol.I:2: Lautlehre
[Segmentale Phonologie des Indogermanischen] by M. Mayrhofer (Heidelberg: Carl Winter,
1986).
20
It is labelled Part I, but no continuation ever appeared.
The first impression from reading the Études is that their author was not a
comparativist of the Meillet type, far less of the Brugmann type. They show
him, rather, as a general linguist. He looked at the building of Indo-European
studies from the outside and tried — like an architect — to decipher its struc
ture. Although he knew its timbers perfectly (and was a noted polyglot), he
had no enthusiasm for material qua material. He was decidedly theory-minded,
with a rationalist, Gallic mind-set. He was also stirred by the challenge of the
new linguistics which was born in Prague in 1926 and first gained broader
recognition at the International Congress of Linguists held in The Hague in
1928. It called for looking at language as a functional and goal-directed system
('un système de moyens d'expression appropriés à un but'). 21 Kurylowicz,
who had witnessed the birth of functionalism, first in Europe and then in
America, must have clearly seen the deepening gap between the general theory
of language and Indo-European comparative grammar.22 Everything suggests
that he had a bold plan to change this state of affairs: moving functional analy
sis, the gain of the previous decade, onto the plane of diachrony, in particular
of comparative grammar.
Études begin with considerations of the classical questions of the Indo-Eu
ropean sound system (the status of the labiovelars, the relations among the
guttural consonants, including the schwa), which the author diagnoses from
the standpoint of phonology. Turning next to morphological questions, he
sketches the subtle boundary which he feels separates morpho(pho)nological
alternation (apophony) from phonetic alternation. The last to be dealt with is
accent with its morphological involvements: here he seeks to discover the
phonological condi-ions which permit the morphologization of prosodemes.23
With Saussure, he sees accent as a characteristic of a morpheme which func
tions within a word belonging to a particular inflectional or derivational cate
gory.
Kurylowicz's detailed methodological postulates can be summarized as
follows. The point of research is not the genealogy of elements, but the ge
nealogy of particular systems (phonemic, inflectional, derivational). The first
step must be the definition of an element's functional role within the system of
contiguous elements. But the elements being compared within a system must
21
Cf. Adam Heinz, Dzieje językoznawstwa w zarysie [An outline history of linguistics]
(Warsaw: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1978), p.286.
22
The criticism of previous methods is aimed particularly at Herman Hirt's Indogermanische
Grammatik (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1927-1934), which sought to compete with Brug
mann's Grundriss.
23
Accent is discussed in the chapter on inflection, "Accentuation et vocalisme des para
digmes nominaux" (Kurylowicz 1977:136ff.)
belong together in some objectively definable manner. Membership in a system

is recognizable by the opposition relationships which the forms of a language
are involved in. Discovering such oppositions and stating their functional do
mains (including their area of neutralization) is the key to any analytical work.
With respect to morphology, one should further take into account that opposi
tions can be formal-semantic (e.g., that between the basis and the derivative),
or purely formal (as between forms of the same paradigm). The hierarchical
principle miming through language requires one to keep the relation of determ
ination constantly in view, a unidirectional and irreflexive relation which holds
between the members of an opposition. It is this which decides the various
statuses of language forms in synchrony; since historical change is a change of
oppositions, the determination relationship can sometimes also indicate the di
rection for diachronic research. Morphological change is differentiation closely
associated with previous identification. Identification can be semantic (the
merger of two morphological categories into one) or phonological (phono
logical ambiguity of several forms of one category).
All this taken together serves to demonstrate a method which gives primacy
to synchronic diagnosis over diachronic deduction (a reply to the challenge of
Baudouin de Courtenay and Saussure). This method of drawing historical con
clusions without, or prior to, external comparison is called 'language-internal
analysis'.24 The goal of such analysis is to establish a chronology, a relative
chronology of changes recognized as belonging to the system. The greatest de
gree of probability is assigned to the chronology of changes immediately pre
ceding the oldest attested data.25 The significance of the book is that it points
out a new method in a very broad area and on almost all levels of language
(apart from syntax), taking language to be a structure of relatively autonomous
subsystems. A student of Kurylowicz's, a historian of linguistics, calls the
Études 'something like a theoretical outline of the structural basis of Indo-Eu
ropean grammar '.26
24
He will later on call it 'internal reconstruction', in agreement with the term established by
Pisani and Hoenigswald (Kurylowicz 1964 a).
25
In the first sentence of the preface to Études, we read: "Il paraît clair qu'une chronologie
relative de faits aussi bien phonétiques que morphologiques doit former le problème central de
toute recherche qui se pose le but de décrire la langue-mère indoeuropéenne" (p.iii). It is note
worthy that when the author states that he will use certain new formulations of phonetic and
morphological differentiation, he cites discussions found in Edward Sapir, Karl Bühler, and
N. S. Trubetzkoy as having helped to shape his views. No other names are mentioned.
26
Cf. Adam Heinz, "Professor Jerzy Kurylowicz as a Theorist of Language", in Jerzy Kury
lowicz (1895-1978): Materials from the scientific session ... (Wroclaw, etc.: Ossolineum,
1980), p.16.
We note further that neither the preface to Études nor the title indicate its
precise subject. But anyone who looks at Études today with the rest of Kury
lowicz's bibliography in mind can scarcely avoid seeing in it a plan for the
scholar's whole later life. Its chapters touch on problems which will intrigue
him for the rest of his life. Some will develop into large monographs (accen
tuation, apophony, inflectional categories). Others will come back as articles,
often refined two or even three times. And so on untiringly until the Problèmes
(Kurylowicz 1977), in which the now venerable author sums up his life's plan
and does not hesitate to tell us what still remains to be done. At a time when
Indo-European morphonology is flourishing, references to the Études are not
infrequent. Particularly often cited in present-day literature is Chapter II, "Sur
les éléments consonantiques disparus en indoeuropéen" (27-76). This some
what enigmatic title covers all that was then known of ' a consonantique': on
the one hand, Albert Cuny's (1869-1947) results gained from criticizing cer
tain contradictions in Saussure's theory; on the other, the conclusions drawn
from Kurylowicz's own brilliant discoveries during 1927-1930. Contempo
rary laryngealists cite this chapter as a sign of affirmation of the "young Kury
lowicz".27 The doctrine of consonantal schwa gives rise to a new theory of the
root: it is monosyllabic, always consonant-initial, and in morphological struc
tures realized in one of two shapes. As we know, Benveniste announced a
similar conception of the root ('monosyllabique, trilitère') independently in the
same year, 1935. The fact that his theory agrees with Kurylowicz's on several
important points28 irresistibly leads us to think of a Zeitgeist governing the in
terests of linguists. Such coincidences are important in principle because they
favour the more rapid objectivization of new scholarly results. The Études are a
concise book, highly difficult to read. But the reader is struck by the author's
sense for construction. The careful selection of material from many languages
and the internal logic of the arguments are impressive, occasionally thrilling.
The author has many opportunities to criticize but always stays within schol
arly bounds. Études saw ten reviews, by Meillet and Sturtevant among others,
27
Cf., e.g., Manfred Mayrhofer, Indogermanische Grammatik, vol.I (Heidelberg: Carl
Winter, 1986), p.l25n.ll3; p.l47n.200.
28
Cf. Émile Benveniste, Origines de la formation des noms en indo-européen (Paris: Adrien
Maisonneuve, 1935), chapter IX: ''Esquisse d'une théorie de la racine". - In "Additions et
corrections" (p.211) Benveniste writes: "La plus grande partie de cette étude était imprimée
quand nous avons reçu en septembre 1935 l'ouvrage important de J. Kurylowicz. Il nous plaît
de relever entre maintes de nos analyses — dont le détail ne saurait être indiqué ici — des
concordances qui semblent en garantir le bien-fondé. Mais l'objet de M. Kurylowicz étant
beaucoup plus large que le nôtre, son ouvrage est tout autrement orienté [...]. Il en résulte
entre nous des divergences notables dans la définition des structures et dans le classement
génétique des différents types nominaux. Nous tenons d'autant plus à souligner les mérites de
l'œuvre neuve, riche et brillante que sont les Études indo-européennes".
and brought Kuryiowicz his first foreign award — membership in the Acadé
mie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (Paris, 1939).
5. Kuryiowicz's contribution to the theory of Indo-European laryngeals

Finally, let us return to 1927, after which Kuryiowicz's name became
widely known in historical linguistics. In his Paris years he was one of the few
Indo-Europeanists who familiarized himself thoroughly with the newly avail
able Cuneiform Hittite texts. Further, his Semitic studies made him competent
to follow the discussion of Saussure's 'coefficients sonantiques' (they also
played a certain role in the context of the hypothesized Semitic-IE relationship).
Thanks to the history carefully worked out by Oswald Szemerényi (1913—
1996), 29 we now know that the discussion gained impetus after the contribu
tion of Hermann Möller (1850-1923) of 1879, who added a third phoneme, E,
to Saussure's A and 0 and interpreted this triad as consonants; in the end he
called them phonemes 'corresponding to the Semitic laryngeals' (1911). Möl
ler's theses gained the support of Cuny (1912), who further argued the conso
nantal nature of these phonemes by the criterion of distribution, and was the
first to express the thought that the Balto-Slavic acute intonation is often moti
vated by a length of laryngeal origin. Kuryiowicz joined in the discussion in
1927 with his 10-page article, 'ə indoeuropen et hittite' (Kuryiowicz 1927b).
The most important innovation in this article is the proof that the PIE phoneme
*A (= Hi) is empirically confirmed by the Hittite material, where it corre
sponds to the consonant transcribed as Let us recall the sentences announc
ing this discovery (p. 101):
La question du initial résolue affirmativement, il s'en pose tout de suite une autre.
Est-ce que \ et 2 sont l'origine tous les deux des coups de glotte? En quoi consis
terait alors leur attitude différente en face de la voyelle suivante? Cette question
serait insoluble dans l'état actuel de la grammaire comparée si, par suite d'un
accident presque invraisemblable, le hittite ne semblait pas avoir conservé le
caractère consonantique de 2 Il s'agit du son noté h. On n'a qu'à comparer: ...
There follow the famous examples antezzi, uis, ark ... initial position and
is. iia, pa š, pa ur ... for medial position, It is true that Kuryiowicz over
looked the fact that the same sign renders Saussure's phoneme *O (= H3, cf.
astai "bone"), but he correctly observed that the so-called first laryngeal
(Möller's and Cuny's E=H1) left no trace in the Hittite material, at least ini
tially. The identification of the IE laryngeal with the Hittite consonant was
29
Cf. Oswald Szereményi, "La théorie des laryngales de Saussure à Kuryiowicz et Ben-
veniste: Essai de réévaluation", Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 68.1-25 (1973).
called a "découverte qui transforma l'hypothèse en vérité démontré".30 It meant

a triumph for phonological reconstruction based on the analysis of ablaut rela
tionships between morphemes within the same morphological category. It was
at the same time a posthumous triumph for Saussure, who was the first to use
such a method. The article on Hittite and Benveniste's theory of roots opened
new horizons for laryngeal theory. Thanks to greatly increased efforts in the
last decades, the theory's material base is much broader, and it has finally be
come a topic for university teaching.31 It is noteworthy that the theory as in
Saussure's time still meets the skepticism of 'broad masses' of our linguistic
community. These are in part conservative representatives of particular phil
ologies, in part those who find the use of a deductive method in linguistics dif
ficult to accept.32
1978, the year Kurylowicz died was also the centenary of the publication
of Saussure's Mémoire. The coincidence of dates seems symbolic, recalling
the intellectual kinship of these two scholars and of the problems they worked
on. In hindsight we see clearly that the mainstream of 20th-century Indo-Euro
pean studies took the path of developing and perfecting the method of investi
gation which Saussure had first demonstrated in his Mémoire. This method
was later dubbed structuralism. There can be no doubt that Kurylowicz's writ
ings, with their felicitous synthesis of theoretical framework, methodological
rigor, and mastery of the material, did much to establish the approach to histor
ical linguistic studies perhaps best characterized as 'diachronic structuralism'.
It is interesting to note that Kurylowicz also managed to graft this methodology
onto the trunk of Semitic studies.33
30
Szereményi, op cit., p. 15. - Let us add that the same author gives a detailed discussion of
Kurylowicz's work in Richtungen der modernen Sprachwissenschaft, Part 2: Die fünfziger
Jahre (1950-1960) (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1982), 127-137.
31
Cf. the treatment of phonology in Vol.1 of Mayrhofer's Indogermanische Grammatik
(Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1985), Helmut Rix's Historische Grammatik des Griechischen
(Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1976,21992). Frederik Otto Lindeman's In
troduction to the "Laryngeal Theory" (Oslo: Norwegian University Press, 1987) has played a
useful role in both popularizing and criticizing the theory.
32
The critics have recently been joined by a one-time pupil of Kurylowicz's; cf. Witold
Mańczak, "Critique de la théorie des laryngales", Analecta Indoeuropaea Cracoviensia Ioannis
Safarewicz memoriae dedicata (Cracow: Universitas, 1995), 237-247.
33
Cf. Andrzej Zaborski, "Professor Kurylowicz and Semitic Linguistics", Jerzv Kurylowicz
(1895-1978): Materials [...] (Wroclaw, etc.: Ossolineum, 1980), 53-56. The" author there
cites Gene Schramm (Current Trends in Linguistics ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok, vol.VI, p.
260. The Hague: Mouton, 1970), who, speaking of L'Apophonie en sémitique (Kurylowicz
1961), voices the opinion that the only truly great work in comparative Semitic grammar is
from the pen of an Indo-Europeanist and not a Semiticist. Kurylowicz himself used to say
that L'Apophonie was only 'leaving his visiting-card with the Semiticists'; as we know,
however, it was followed by Studies in Semitic Grammar and Metrics (Kurylowicz 1972).
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY OF
JERZY KURYLOWICZ'S WRITINGS34
1925[1919—1924]. "Quelques mots romans d'origine orientale". Rocznik
Orjentalistyczny 2.251-259.
1925a. "Sur quelques mots pre-romans. A propos de Va celtique". Melanges J.
Vendry es, 203-215. Paris: H. Champion.
1925b. Traces de la place du ton en gathique. (= Bibliothèque de l' École des
Hautes Études, 244.) Paris: H. Champion.
1926. "Notes d'etymologie romane". Prace Filologiczne 10.322-336.
1927a. "Les effets du ə en indoiranien". Prace Filologiczne 11.201-243.
1927b. "a indo-européen et h hittite". Symbolae grammaticae in honorem
Ioannis Rozwadowski ed. by Andrzej Gawronski et al., vol.I, 95-104. Cracow:
Gebethner & Wolff.
1935. Études indoeuropéennes. Vol.I. (= Polska Akademia Umiejętności; Prace
Komisji J ęzykowej, 21.) Cracow: Gebethner & Wolff.
1936. "Dérivation lexicale et dérivation syntaxique: Contribution à la théorie des
parties du discours". Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 37:1.79-92.
1938. "Struktura morfemu". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego
7.10-28.
1947a. "La nature des procès dits 'analogiques'". Acta Linguistica 5. 17-34.
(Repr. in Readings in Linguistics II ed. by Eric P. Hamp, Fred W. Householder
& Robert Austerlitz, 158-174. Chicago & London: University of Chicago
Press, 1966. — English transl, by Margaret E. Winters, "The So-Called Laws
of Analogy", Diachronica 12:1.122-144 [1995].)
1947b. "Językoznawstwo rosyjskie ostatniej doby". Język Polski 27.1-7.
1948a. "Le sens des mutations consonantiques". Lingua 1:1.77-85.
1948b. "Contribution à la théorie de la syllabe". Biuletyn Polskiego Towa
rzystwa Jçzykoznawczego 8.80-114.
1948c. "Les structures fondamentales de la langue: Groupe et proposition".
Studia Philosophica 3.203-209.
1949a. "Linguistique et théorie du signe". Journal de Psychologie 42.170-180.
(Repr. in Readings in Linguistics II ed. by Eric P. Hamp et al., 227-233.
Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press, 1966.)
1949b. "Le problème du classement des cas". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa
1949c. "La notion de l'isomorphisme". Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de
Copenhague 5.48-60.
1949d. "La construction ergative et le développement 'stadial' du langage".
Annali delia Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Serie 11, vol. 18:1/2.1-9.
1952. L'accentuation des langues indo-européennes. (= Polska Akademia
Umiejętności, Prace Komisji Językowej, 37.) Kraków: Nakładem PAU. (2nd ed.,
as Prace Jçzykoznawcze No. 17 of Polska Akademia Nauk, Komitet Języko-
znawczy, Wroclaw & Krakow: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolinskich & Wyda-
wnictwo PAN, 1958.)
1955. "Zametki o znacenii slova". Voprosy Jazykoznanija 4:3.73-81.
34
For a much more substantial listing, see "A Selected Bibliography of the Works by Jerzy
Kuryiowicz", which also includes reviews of his major works, see Kurylowicz Memorial
Volume, Part One (Cracow: Universitas, 1995), pp.xxxv-xlv.
1956. L'apophonie en indo-européen. (= Polska Akademia Nauk, Komitet Języ-

koznawczy; Prace Jçzykoznawcze, 9.) Wroclaw: Zaklad im. Ossoliñskich; War-
szawa: Wydawnictwo PAN.
1958a. "Alofony i alomorfy". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznaw-
czego 18.3-10.
1958b. "Le hittite". Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Lin
guists ed. by Eva Sivertsen, Carl Hj. Borgstr0m, Arne Gallis & Alf Sommerfeit,
216-243. Oslo: Oslo University Press.
1960. Esquissess Linguistiques. (= Polska Akademia Nauk; Komitet Języko-
znawczy, Prace Językoznawcze, 19.) Wroclaw-Warsaw-Cracow: Zaklad Naro-
dowy im. Ossoliñskich & Wydawnictwo PAN. (2nd ed., Munich: Wilhelm Fink,
1973.)
1961. L'Apophonie en sémitique. (= Polska Akademia Nauk; Komitet Języko-
znawczy, Prace Jçzykoznawcze, 24.) Wroclaw-Warszawa-Kraków: Zaklad Na-
rodowy im. Ossoliñskich & Wydawnictwo PAN.
1963a. "Le mécanisme différenciateur de la langue". Cahiers Ferdinand de
Saussure 20.47-54.
1963b. "Kilka uwag o językoznawstwie amerykańskim [Some remarks on
American linguistics]". Nauka Polska 11:4.161-164.
1964a. "On the Methods of Internal Reconstruction". Proceedings of the Ninth
International Congress of Linguists, Cambridge, Mass., August 27-31, 1962
ed. by Horace G. Lunt, 9-36. The Hague: Mouton.
1964b. The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. (= Indogermanische Bi
bliothek, Dritte Reihe: Untersuchungen, [unnumbered].) Heidelberg: Carl
Winter.
1968. Indogermanische Grammatik. Band II: Akzent. Ablaut. (= Indogerma
nische Bibliothek, Erste Reihe: Lehr- u. Handbücher, [unnumbered].) Heidel
berg: Carl Winter.
1972. Studies in Semitic Grammar and Metrics. (= Polska Akademia Nauk; Ko
mitet Językoznawczy, Prace Jçzykoznawcze, 67.) Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków:
Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich & Wydawnictwo PAN.
1975. Metrik und Sprachgeschichte. (= Polska Akademia Nauk; Komitet Języ-
koznawstwa, Prace Językoznawcze, 83.) Wroclaw-Warszawa-Kraków-Gdañsk:
Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich & Wydawnictwo PAN.
1977. Problèmes de linguistique indo-européenne. (= Polska Akademia Nauk;
Komitet Językoznawstwa, Prace Językoznawcze, 90.) Wrocław-Warszawa-Kra
ków-Gdañsk: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossoliñskich & Wydawnictwo PAN.
1978. "Lecture du Mémoire en 1978: Un commentaire". Cahiers Ferdinand de
Saussure 32.7-26.
CHAPTER 10
ASPECTS OF LUDWIK ZABROCKI'S
LINGUISTIC WORLD*
JERZY B AÑCZEROWSKI
The achievements of Ludwik Zabrocki (1907-1977) place him among the
most prominent scholars of linguistic science in the 20th century. His ideas
have exerted a profound impact on the development of linguistics in Poland,
for not only did he initiate important research movements, but he also con
tributed a great deal to the organization of language education. Zabrocki's
scholarly activity came at a time when Polish linguistic thought was in the as
cendant. An exceptional person, he was highly influential both among his col
leagues and linguists of younger generations and he possessed a rare gift for
shaping the linguistic imagination of his students.
The linguistic legacy of Zabrocki is a creative continuation of the Polish
linguistic tradition which reaches back to the ideas of Baudouin de Courtenay,
which he learnt about under the supervision of one of his teachers, Henryk
Ułaszyn (1874-1956), another eminent Polish linguist. Zabrocki created a
wide range of original theories which constitute a lasting achievement in vari
ous fields of linguistics. He devoted himself to both data-oriented, empirical,
and theoretical research. With time, however, he put more and more emphasis
on theory construction in accordance with his conviction that without a
widened theoretical perspective linguistics could not securely progress. Yet it
should be added without hesitation that he never shunned efforts to look for
confirmation of his hypotheses by testing them against empirical evidence. The
inseparable combination of theory with practice can be viewed as a characteris
tic trait of the linguistic inquiries of Zabrocki, a man intensely committed to the
academic discipline of his choice, who put forth a number of compelling theo
ries. He combined the qualities of an enthusiastic researcher with those of an
indefatigable propagator of new linguistic ideas.
The author would like to take this opportunity to thank Michael A. Farris, who kindly re
vised the English of this study. My thanks are as intense as were his labours.
Ludwik Zabrocki
It is far from easy to make an exhaustive characterization of his contribution

to linguistics as it was multifaceted and covered a wide range of topics; more
over, it has often been presented in condensed form. Nevertheless, there is a
thread which is traceable through nearly all his theories, indicating a sui generis
continuity of his general linguistic conceptions. It seems that that thread is lan
guage codematics, in which Zabrocki's peculiar views of the dynamics of lan
guage and language communication are reflected.
THE LINGUISTIC WORLD OF LUDWIK ZABROCKI 275
Among the areas of linguistics to which Zabrocki's contribution is of rele

vance, the following should be listed:
(i) general linguistics,
(ii) comparative (historical, typological, contrastive, confrontative)
linguistics,
(iii) psycho- and sociolinguistics,
(iv) cybernetic linguistics,
(v) Indo-European linguistics, and
(vi) applied linguistics (glottodidactics).
Subsequently, we shall endeavor to characterize some of Zabrocki's ideas,
which mainly concern the first four of the fields enumerated above, and which
will be presented here in terms of
(i) linguistic codematics,
(ii) synchronic structural phonetics,
(iii) diachronic structural phonetics,
(iv) diacritology,
(v) communicative and language communities,
(vi) aspects of language comparison,
(vii) cybernetic systems of language communication.
Regretfully, our survey will not be exhaustive, even as regards the four
fields selected by us for consideration. Thus, for example, Zabrocki's concep
tions concerning proper names, onomastic transpositions, or the category of
person will be omitted from our current inquiry.
In approaching the presentation of Zabrocki's linguistic legacy, we face a
variety of difficult problems, finding solutions to which is not always feasible
or possible. Sometimes one has the impression that some of his thoughts have
not always been developed explicitly enough; rather it is often as though they
were written down in a hurry, as if he trusted the reader to find an adequate
interpretation himself. Besides, Zabrocki's conceptions evolved throughout his
lifetime, and this is mirrored in the different approaches to or different formu
lations of the same problems, not to mention certain inconsistencies which
arise occasionally in his statements.
Most of Zabrocki's works were written in Polish or German. We have en
deavored to render the terminology he used into English as faithfully as possi
ble. Sometimes, however, we have added certain concepts which seemed to us
to be implicitly present in his considerations, and we hope that they will not
change the spirit of his original theories.
2. Linguistic codematics1
The science of codes was referred to by Zabrocki as codematics. Conse
quently, linguistic codematics, the subject matter of which are codes operating
in language and language communication, forms only a subdiscipline of code
matics in general It would probably also be appropriate to say that linguistic
codematics describes the code knowledge of language users as a part of their
language knowledge.
It is extremely important to understand the principles of Zabrocki's code
matics since it influenced many of his general linguistic, psycholinguistic and
glottodidactic ideas to a considerable extent.
By virtue of the concept of code Zabrocki intended to capture the dynamic
aspect of language and language communication. Thus, this aspect finds re
flection in dynamic as opposed to static linguistic models. He also postulated
the existence of both these models at the level of langue as well as at the level
of parole. In language communication not only are units of various kinds in
operation but so too are various processes transposing units of a certain kind
into units of another kind.
The concept of code itself underwent an evolution in Zabrocki's theories.
Originally, he claimed that "the essence of the code is the ability to transpose
certain signs into others. This ability includes a law according to which the
transposition is applied, in addition to the process of transposition itself'
(1961a: 23). However, it follows from the various contexts in which this term
was used that he understood it in a somewhat broader sense. Thus, when he
says that the sound structure k-o-t, consisting of three sounds, namely, k, o,
and t, is transposed into a unit of a higher level, namely the word kot (cat), by
speakers of Polish, he certainly does not mean a transposition of some signs
into others. Finally, under language code he understood the rules of conver
sion of certain language units into others, and of certain information carriers
into others (1966:6).
In addition to the term 'code', the following concepts (among others) play a
fundamental role in Zabrocki's codematics:
(i) code chain (Kodefüge, uktad kodowy),
(ii) code unit (Kode-Einheit),
(iii) code symbol (Kode-Zeichen, znak kodu),
(iv) codal chain (Kodal-Gefüge, uklad kodalny),
(v) acodal chain (Akodal-Gefüge, uklad akodalny).
1
The following works of Zabrocki's listed at the end of this chapter are devoted to this sub
ject: 1960, 1961a, 1961c, 1966, 1967b, 1967c, 1969, 1975b, and 1980.
A code chain is a linearly ordered string (arrangement) of language objects

which, if taken as a whole, constitutes a unit of a higher language level. Illus
trating this with the example already quoted above, Zabrocki says that the
sound chain k-o-t, consisting of three sounds, is transformed by speakers of
Polish into a higher level unit, a certain phonic and semantic whole, namely,
the word kot "cat". A person, who does not master Polish, will treat the phonic
object k-o-t merely as a certain string of sounds, without being able to convert
it into a sign, that is, to associate it with an appropriate meaning; in other
words, such a person will not be able to use the Polish word-code. Thus, the
sound chain or graphic chain k-o-t is a code chain only for those who know
how to use the Polish word-code.
In a similar way, the word chain kot-biegnie-przez-pole "cat-runs-across-
field", which consists of four words, is transposed by users of Polish into a
higher level unit, namely, the sentence Kot biegnie przez pole "The cat is run
ning across the field". This word chain is thus converted by virtue of a sen
tence-code into a certain phonic whole and is associated with a sentential mean
ing or sentential semanteme.
Consequently, a code chain is more than just a string of randomly juxta
posed objects, since it is convertible into a whole, that is, a higher level unit,
which fulfills a different function in comparison to its constituent objects.
The higher level units resulting from the conversion of code chains are
called code units. A word is thus a code unit which results from the corre
sponding sound chain as is a sentence which results from the corresponding
word chain. The objects, which code chains consist of, are referred to as code
symbols. Thus, we can say that a code chain is transformed by virtue of a
code into the corresponding code unit. We could also say that a code unit is en
coded as a code chain, that is, a certain linear arrangement of objects. Conse
quently, the word kot is encoded as the sound chain k-o-t.
Apart from code chains, Zabrocki distinguished structures of the following
two kinds:
(i) codal chains, and
(ii) acodal chains.
The former are founded upon the asubstantial properties of objects, and the
latter upon their substantial properties. It should be stressed, however, that
objects acquire asubstantial properties due to their occurrence in code chains,
while their substantial properties are independent of this occurrence.
Sounds as members of a code sound chain are not only
(i) in contrast to their neighboring sounds, but they are also
(ii) in opposition to sounds in other code sound chains.
It is by virtue of contrast that they acquire distributional properties and by

virtue of opposition that they acquire distinctive properties. The properties of
both these kinds form, in turn, a basis for the corresponding relations and
make it possible to arrive at phonemes. Thus, sounds within code sound
chains acquire asubstantial, that is, distributional and distinctive properties, in
addition to their substantial properties, which, as has already been mentioned,
are independent of code chains. Zabrocki referred to phonemes as cross-prod
ucts of substantial and asubstantial relations, which he divided into linear and
lateral and, consequently, considered phonemes as originating from the func-
tionalization of substance in linear and lateral projection.
Sound chains can be transposed into phoneme chains by means of replac
ing sounds by their corresponding phonemes. In a similar way word chains
can also be transposed into semantic-categorial or syntactic-categorial chains.
Both phoneme chains and word-categorial chains are already kinds of codal
chains. Generally speaking, codal chains are derived from code chains by
means of replacing the constituent objects in the latter by corresponding objects
which are based upon the asubstantial properties of the objects being replaced.
More attention will be devoted to acodal chains subsequently.
Zabrocki made a clear distinction between code and cipher, Under the latter
he understood certain signs which, by virtue of a code, can be transposed into
usual language signs. In other words, the cipher is a code chain of a certain
kind, into which the usual language signs are transposed, but the code of this
transposition is, for some reason, kept secret.
Various kinds of codes were distinguished by Zabrocki, and among them
the following can be found:
(i) transposition and transformation codes,
(ii) synthetic and analytic codes,
(iii) intra- and interlingual codes.
Generally speaking, the transposition code is applied if a code chain is
converted into another code chain by means of replacing the objects in the for
mer by other objects, equivalent in certain relevant respects. If this condition is
not satisfied during the conversion of code chains, the transformation code is
used.
In interdialectal communication within the same language, speakers of
neighboring dialects avail themselves of the transposition code. They are usu
ally able to make themselves quickly understood due to the mutual transposi
tion of sounds exhibiting nearly equivalent distribution in the corresponding
words, Thus, for example, the Gemían word Zeit "time" has in Low German
tîd as its translative equivalent. Since the corresponding sounds display equiva-
lent distribution, the sound ts is transposed into t, as is ei into î, and t into d. In

a similar manner hess "hot" is transposed into hît, and weiss "white" into wît.
The transposition code develops in the course of transposition practice, and
subsequently the transposition operation becomes automatic. Zabrocki adds,
that not only sounds but also desinentail morphemes can be transposed.
Codes which enable code chains to be converted into code units are called
synthetic codes, and those whose application effects the inverse conversion are
called analytic codes. In the former case, we are dealing with a kind of synthe
sis, since a chain of smaller objects results in a larger unit of a higher level; in
the latter case, on the other hand, what is in question is a kind of analysis,
since an inverse operation is performed. Thus, for example, by virtue of the
synthetic word code a sound chain may be converted into a word, and by
virtue of the analytic code a word may be decomposed into its constituent
sounds. Both the synthetic and the analytic code are clearly transformation
codes, and both belong to intralingual codes. The translation code used be
tween two languages is clearly an interlingual code.
The interlingual translation code is, according to Zabrocki, a transposition-
transformation code. In translation practice, the word is the minimal unit with
which the translation code operates. In literal translation each word is replaced
by another. To put it more precisely, a word chain forming a sentence in one
language is transposed word for word into a corresponding word chain form
ing a sentence in another language. The translative transposition presupposes
the translative equivalence of the words being translated. However, the words
appealing in such sentences as translative equivalents may:
(i) categorially coincide, or
(ii) categorially differ to a certain extent.
In the former case, the translation is also structurally adequate. Not only
is word translated for word, but also, for example, genitive is rendered by
genitive, substantive by substantive, adjective by adjective, and so forth. In the
latter case the translation cannot be structurally adequate. Thus, for example,
the Polish sentence Nie widzę kamienia "I do not see the stone" can be trans
lated into German as Ich sehe den Stein nicht. The words kamienia and den
Stein, appealing here as translative equivalents, differ categorially in that the
former is genitive and the latter accusative, not to mention the differences in
definiteness. The situation is similar when a certain category is grammaticalized
in one language but not in the other. Thus, for example, the category mascu
line/human, which is grammaticalized in Polish but not in German, cannot be
rendered in the same way in the latter as it is the case in the former. If the
translative transposition code cannot be applied, we have to resort to translative
transformation code, that is, to interlingual paraphrasis. This is often the ease if
two languages differ in the signification of the same content which has
(i) a word-significator in one language, and
(ii) a phrasal or sentential significator in the other.
Of course the missing word can be replaced by a loanword.
Zabrocki's codematics seems to lend itself to formalization, including ax-
iomatization. However, such an approach would of necessity require a refor
mulation of some aspects of his conception. Both the synthetic as well as the
analytic code could be conceived of as operations (functions) mapping sets of
objects of a certain kind onto sets of objects of another kind. For the sake of
illustrating a possible formal approach to codematics, albeit in a simplified
manner, let us consider some operations involved in articulation and percep
tion. For this purpose let us avail ourselves of the following symbols, which,
of course, should be relativized to any particular language:
(i) Fon - the set of all sounds,
(ii) pot (Fon) - the set of all subsets of sounds,
(iii) Fnu - the set of all sound units,
(iv) Wrd - the set of all words,
(v) Fch - the set of all sound chains,
(vi) FCH - the set of all phone chains,
(vii) FPT - the set of all phone pattern chains or phone form chains.
A sound (i.e., an element of the set Fon) will be treated here as an individ
ual, spatio-temporal physical object, produced by a definite speaker in a defi
nite place and time. Consequently, it exists only once. Sound units may consist
of one or more sounds as their parts. Words only form a subset of sound
units, formally: Wrd c Fnu. A sound chain is a sequence of sounds such
that its consecutive members are also temporally consecutive parts in the corre
sponding sound unit. A phone chain in turn is a sequence of phones. More
over, a phone could be conceived of as a set of homophonous sounds. Conse
quently, to each sound there corresponds exactly one phone. And, since a
phone is represented by the corresponding sounds, a phone chain is repre
sented by the corresponding sound chains. Each phone can be associated with
the set of all properties shared by all sounds belonging to this phone. Such a
set of properties could be viewed as the pattern of the phone in question. And,
since to each phone there corresponds exactly one phone pattern, the phone
chain can be converted into the phone pattern chain by replacing the phones
which are members in the former by their corresponding phone patterns. Con
sequently, sound chains represent phone chains, as well as phone pattern
chains.
THE LINGUISTIC WORLD OF LUD WIK ZABROCKI 281
Both the speaker and the hearer possess language knowledge, which de
termines the properties of empirical language objects being articulated and per
ceived during language communication. Let us suppose that the speaker in
tends to articulate a word w having certain phonic and semantic properties. In
order to do so, he activates some necessary part of his language knowledge,
and stalls with what could be called a mental image of w, which certainly con
tains semantic and phonic information about w, and which has a counterpart in
the hearer's language knowledge as well. The phonic information for the in
tended word w could be represented as a phone pattern chain C. The intention
of the speaker is thus to produce a sound chain c, which as an empirical object
should become a representation of the phone pattern C. Some of the opera
tions, which the speaker performs, could be represented in symbols as fol
lows:
so1 : pot (Fon) —> Fch,
so2 : Fch -> Fnu,
s03 : Fnu -> Fch,
s04 : Fch -> FPT,
s05 : Fnu ->Wrd
Thus, a subset of sounds X (e pot (Fon)) is selected and sequentialized
during articulation to assume the shape of a given sound chain c (e Fch). This
chain appeal's as a sequence of sounds, which are elements of X and such that
the consecutive sounds which are members of this sequence are also tempo
rally consecutive. What is more, this chain is simultaneously converted into a
certain whole, namely, a sound unit u (G Fnu). This unit is identified as the
intended word w, if the sound chain c, from which u resulted, turns out to be
the representation of the phone pattern chain C. The identification of u as w
presupposes the operation of checking auditorily u for its sound structure (i.e.,
it requires that it be associated with its sound chain, which must be then asso
ciated with the corresponding phone pattern chain Ci). If Ci happens to be
identical with C, that is, C\ - C, then the articulation has been effective, and
the word w which is sought turns out to be IL The operations so1 - so5 are not
performed consecutively but rather simultaneously or nearly so.
All the operations performed by the speaker qualify as code operations,
since each of them converts objects of one kind into objects of another kind. In
particular, the operation so2, which converts a sound chain into a sound unit,
is clearly a synthetic code. A sound chain does not consist of randomly chosen
sounds, but of sounds selected intentionally to form a whole, that is, a word
which has to differ from other words phonetically and semantically. However,
the speaker avails himself also of an analytic code, while performing operation
so3, which is inverse to so2, and which enables him to auditorily monitor his
articulatory output. While speaking we have the impression that we articulate
sound units as successions of sounds, that is, sound by sound, and at the same
time we treat these units as certain wholes by opposing them to other lingual
units.
Some of the operations which the hearer performs could be represented in
symbols as follows:
ho1 : Fnu -> Fch,
ho2 : Fch -> Fnu,
ho3 : Fch -> FPT,
ho4 : Fnu -> Wrd
Thus, listening to the speaker, the hearer perceives the sound unit u, while
recoding an acoustic into an auditory object, immediately sequentializes it into a
sound chain c, and converts it into a sound unit u, while checking it articula-
torily, in silent articulation, for its sound structure. The unit u is identified as
the word w, intended by the speaker, if its sound chain c happens to represent
a phone pattern chain Ci, which is identical with C. Consequently, the word
received auditorily and that produced articulatorily coincide in their phonic
properties. Hence, communication in this respect has been effective.
The operation ho1, by virtue of which a sound unit u is associated with its
sound chain c, is clearly an analytic code. Listening to speech is similar to ar
ticulation because it gives the interlocutor the impression of hearing succes
sions of sounds,and this impression is so definite that we can easily say what
these sounds are. The hearer also applies the synthetic code, while performing
operation ho2, integrating a sound chain into a sound unit, which is inverse to
ho1, and which enables him to articulatorily monitor his auditory output.
Zabrocki did not consider it correct to view language as a code, and we
cannot disagree with him, If language is conceived of as language knowledge,
then the code knowledge is certainly only a part, although a considerable part,
of the former.
3. Synchronic structural phonetics2

Zabrocki's inquiry into the organization of sound substance appealing in
phonetic space resulted in the formulation of the principles of a subdiscipline,
which he called synchronic structural phonetics. This branch of phonetics deals
with the properties of acodal chains which may be constructed for ethnic lan
guages, and are based entirely upon the substantial (material), that is, articula
tory and acoustic properties of phonetic objects such as sounds, phones, phone
2
Cf. Zabrocki (1959a, 1960, 1961a, 1980).
clusters, etc. Although phonetic objects as members of the acodal chains ulti
mately originate from code sound chains, the internal structure of the former is
independent from that of the latter. In other words, the internal characteristics
of the acodal chains are specified immanently in that only the differences in the
substantial make-ups of the objects involved are taken into consideration and
their functional differences exhibited in the code chains are completely disre
garded.
The entire phonetic substance does not possess in itself, according to
Zabrocki, any justification for its existence. Such a justification is phonetic-
external, that is, it is delivered only at the semantic level, due to the interference
of which code sound chains are convertible into signs as well as into codal
sound chains.
Each sound, according to Zabrocki, has a specific phonic substance of a
physiological (articulatory) and acoustic nature. He concentrated primarily
upon the former, while constructing acodal sound chains of various kinds.
Both codal and acodal chains have their bases in the codal and acodal fields, re
spectively. However, instead of the term 'field' we prefer to use the term
'space' as being more appropriate.
In acodal space the properties of the phonic substance of sounds, in
particular their physiological substance, is specified. Zabrocki distinguished
various kinds of physiological substances. The magnitude of a substance is
determined by him by means of the magnitude of a corresponding mass, in
order to arrive at a uniform measure for various substances. Among other
masses he operated with the following:
(i) the mass of aperture/closure,
(ii) the mass of articulator,
(iii) the mass of articulator's path,
(iv) the mass of time of articulation,
(v) the mass of the air path.
As may be noticed, the kinds of physiological substance correspond to the
following articulatory dimensions:
(i) the supraglottal aperture/closure,
(ii) the articulator,
(iii) the length of the articulator path,
(iv) the time of articulation,
(v) the place of articulation.
However, by conceiving of the qualitative articulatory dimensions in terms of
mass, Zabrocki intended to quantitatively capture the properties of sounds ap
pealing in the articulatory space, in order to be able to construct corresponding
acodal sound chains. Every dimension consists of homogeneous properties
and each particular sound must be characterized with respect to each dimen
sion. The particular properties or, more correctly, the carriers of particular
properties within a sound, form the elementary constituents of this sound. In
other words, the sound is thus decomposed into elementary substantial con
stituents, the mass of which is measurable. Thus, based on the differences in
the magnitude of the mass of these constituents, the substantial or acodal sound
chains are established. These chains depend exclusively upon the substantial
mass of sounds, which are ultimately gained from code sound chains.
Acodal sound chains can be constructed with respect to each articulatory
dimension. Thus, for example, the degree of supraglottal aperture specifies the
following acodal sound (phone) chain:
k X n
p— c— s — ƒ — m — / — r — h — i — u — e — o — a
t Ө n
In this chain the degree of aperture increases from left to right. Stop conso
nants occur at one point, and fricatives are together at another point. The for
mer are indistinguishable or neutralized with respect to the dimension in ques
tion as are the latter. Needless to say, the degree of aperture of each sound
should be determined by experimental phonetics.
The dimension of the mass of the articulator, that is, of the movable organ,
specifies, among other chains, the following:
k—p — t
g—b—d
X— f — è
n— m — n
In each of these chains, each consecutive sound displays a smaller mass of
the articulator than its predecessors. Thus, the back of the tongue has the great
est mass and is followed by the lips and the front of the tongue. The vocal
cords have the smallest mass. Incidentally, complicated articulatory movements
can be executed more easily with an organ of a smaller physiological mass.
Therefore it is not surprising that most affricates in the languages of the world
are articulated with the front of the tongue, which is the most mobile supraglot
tal organ.
The neutralization points in the chain based upon the dimension of the de
gree of supraglottal aperture can be eliminated if we utilize the dimension of the
mass of articulator and establish an acodal sound chain which rests simultane
ously on these two dimensions. Such a chain will assume the following shape:
k—p—t—c—s—x—ƒ—Ө— n — m — I — r — h — i — u — e — o — a
Thus, depending on the number of dimensions involved, acodal sound

chains can be mono- or polydimensional. What is more, primary chains serve
as a basis for constructing secondary chains. The members of the latter are
sound combinations, in particular, bi- or triconsonantal clusters. Thus, for ex
ample, from the last adduced chain, if the consonant k is taken as constant and
if it is combined with all other consonants starting from r, the following sec
ondary chain can be derived:
rk—Ik—nk—mk—nk— Өk—fk—%k—sk—ck—tk—pk—kk
Also various other principles can be applied, while constructing secondary
acodal chains. These chains are in no case accidental, since the primary chains
serve as a foundation for them.
Consonant clusters display various degrees of articulatory compactness de
pending on the degree of phonetic similarity of their constituent sounds. Thus,
for example, within the considered secondary chain, since n has a greater mass
of closure than l,and l is greater than r, the cluster nk is more compact than the
cluster lk, and lk is more compact than rk. The summation of aperture / closure
mass, also takes place to a certain degree between consonants and vowels.
And, since articulatory compactness depends upon phonetic similarity, the
combination ku is more compact than the combination ka.
However, the more compact a given sound is articulatorily, the more its
constituent sounds lose their individuality. Putting it differently, excessive ar
ticulatory similarity of two sounds in a cluster reduces their auditory conspicu-
ity. Thus, the articulatory properties of a cluster influence its auditory proper
ties.
Acodal sound chains mirror the substantial organization of sounds appear
ing in articulatory space. On the basis of a comparative analysis of code sound
chains, from the perspective of acodal sound chains, a classification of lan
guages into phonetic types can be established.
Structural phonetics as conceived of by Zabrocki also deals with the rela
tionships between acodal sound chains and phonetic processes. It aims to ex
plain the course of these processes in these chains and their substantial results.
However, since this aspect of structural phonetics is of special importance for
language diachrony, it will be discussed in the next section.
4. Diachronic structural phonetics3

Both the description and explanation of sound changes occurring in the
languages of the world are among the tasks of diachronic phonetics and pho-
3
Cf. Zabrocki (1947, 1950, 1951a, b, c, d, 1957a, b, 1960, 1961b, d, e, 1962a, b, 1963a, c,
1963f, 1964, 1965c, 1974, 1980).
nology. The principles of synchronic structural phonetics, as established by

Zabrocki, turn out to be instrumental in explaining both the mechanics of the
course of phonetic processes in acodal sound chains and their substantial re
sults, that is, the changes caused by them in the sound substance of various
languages. Within the framework of his diversified investigation he managed
to formulate a number of laws or regularities operating within diachronic pho
netics and universal to all languages. They concern, among other aspects of
sound development, the following:
(i) the general nature of sound processes,
(ii) fortition and lenition,
(iii) syllabic nucleation,
(iv) nasal preservation and denasalization,
(v) voicing,
(vi) assimilation.
Let us now discuss the enumerated points above in more detail.
4.1 The general nature of sound processes

Zabrocki's ideas regarding this problem will be formulated in terms of the
following postulates, the contents of which will be additionally elucidated as
the need arises.
Po 1 There are two kinds of sound processes:
(i) purely phonetic (physiological-phonetic) processes, and
(ii) phonetic processes initiated and controlled by a particular
phonological system.
Po 2 The purely phonetic processes are universal. They proceed mechani
cally in acodal sound chains, that is, they affect the sound substance ac
cording to the degree of its susceptibility to them.
Po 3 The phonetic processes having their source in a phonological system
ought to be understood as a reaction to mechanical changes caused by
purely phonetic processes, which occasionally lead to the functioning of
the phonological system being threatened.
Po 4 Phonetic processes are not merely external manifestations of changes
which have occurred previously in the phonological system.
Po 5 Phonetic processes should be considered with respect to those acodal
sound chains with which they are congruent. Consequently, for each pho
netic process, those sound chains which are congruent with it should be
determined.
Po 6 The susceptibility of sounds and sound combinations to a given pho
netic process can be determined within acodal sound chains, which are
congruent with this process.
Po 7 Every phonetic process operates on masses of sounds and it is more ef

fective in the case of a smaller rather than larger masses.
Po 8 Every purely phonetic process affects the whole substance of a given
language, that is, it is not limited to an isolated case. However, substantial
manifestation of a process, that is, the observable changes it leaves in the
sound substance, may vary in various sound classes.
Thus, the process of monophthongization affects all biphonic sound com
binations, while the process of diphthongization affects all monophonic
sounds. However, the former will yield observable results firstly within
vowel diphthongs, since they are more susceptible to it than other combi
nations, and for the same reason, the latter will yield observable results
within vowels.
Po 9 Phonetic processes proceed linearly in acodal sound chains; they have a
stalling point and they leave no gaps. If, however, a gap does occur, it
means that either:
(i) the process is not congruent with a given acodal sound chain,
or
(ii) it proceeds simultaneously in several sound chains,
or
(iii) its course has been modified by the phonological system,
Po 10 Every phonetic process is bipolar.
4.2 Fortition and lenition

The process of fortition/lenition is congruent with acodal sound chains
constructed on the basis of
(i) the degree of the supraglottal aperture/closure, and
(ii) the mass of the articulator.
Scanning the course of this process in the chain specified by the former di
mension it can be stated that the more open a sound is, the greater the relief of
the tension of the reinforced air stream coming from the lungs. As a result, the
sound substance of less open sounds is susceptible to a higher degree to forti
tion/lenition than that of more open sounds. Consequently the sound substance
of less open sounds is changed more strongly and/or earlier than that of more
open sounds. In accordance with this, stops are affected by fortition/lenition
more strongly and/or earlier than spirants, spirants more strongly and/or earlier
than nasals, consonants more strongly and/or earlier than vowels, and so on.
Scanning the course of fortition/lenition in the sound chain specified by the
dimension of the mass of the articulator it can be stated that:
(i) sounds produced by the front part of the tongue are more susceptible
to this process than labial sounds, and
(ii) labial sounds are more susceptible than sounds made with the back
part of the tongue.
Consequently, dentals are affected by fortition/lenition more strongly
and/or earlier than labials, and labials more strongly and/or earlier than velars.
The differentiation in the degree of susceptibility for fortition/lenition also
concerns consonant clusters. Generally speaking, more compact consonant
clusters are more resistant to this process than are less compact ones. Thus, for
example, since the clusters of the type liquid + stop are less compact than the
clusters of the type nasal + stop, the stops in the former clusters are affected
more strongly than stops in the latter ones. And, obviously, stops in clusters of
the type spirant + stop are affected less strongly than stops in clusters of the
type nasal + stop.
In light of his theory of fortition/lenition Zabrocki analyzed Indo-European
and Finno-Ugric languages and came to the conclusion that the consonant
shifts which occurred in these languages can be convincingly explained in
terms of this theory. Thus, for example, in Proto-Germanic the PIE stops in
the following positions: initially, intervocalically, after liquid, and after nasal,
underwent a process of fortition, but after spirant s, and after another stop they
remained intact. In contradistinction to stops, the spirant s, the nasals, and the
liquids were not affected by fortition at all. Thus, the different results this pro
cess achieved in Proto-Germanic in various classes of sounds and in various
consonant clusters seem to confirm the theory in question to its full extent.
Also, the further development of consonants in Germanic languages proceeds
in agreement with Zabrocki's theory. Thus, for example, this theory makes
clear why in Middle High Franconian k shifted to a spirant%,after r and /, but,
after n only to an affricate k%. Therefore we have here nk% as well asr%and lx-
It is also understandable why in East Franconian mpf besides nk is found, that
is, p was shifted here to pf after m, but k after n remained intact. It is also un
derstandable why the High German consonant shift affected t stronger than/?,
and p stronger than k, also in territorial spread.
4.3 Syllabic nucleation

The formation of the nucleus of a syllable will be referred to here as syl
labic nucleation. The nucleus of a syllable is usually formed by a vowel. How
ever, some consonants may nucleate as well, and among these the sonants
especially likely to take on this function. In various IE languages,
sonants developed from the tautosyllabic combinations of m, n, l} r with
preceding or succeeding vowels, due to the reduction and subsequent loss of
these vowels. What is more, the sonants did not prove phonetically stable, and
they often underwent either
(i) denucleation, that is, they ceased to function as syllable nuclei,
by virtue of the development of pre- or postsonantal vowels, or
(ii) vocalization, that is, they became vowels.
These processes can be exemplified as follows:
Latin: ager "field" * agerz * agrs = PIE * agyros
Old Indic: śatam "hundred" PIE * ky mtόn In order to explain the
Zabrocki uses synchronic structural phonetics, in particular the acodal sound
chain established on the basis of supraglottal aperture, and the principles un
derlying the syllable. These latter can be expressed in terms of the following
postulates:
Po 1 The syllable is a functional unit which rests upon a certain substan

tial (articulatory, physiological, acoustic) basis.
Po 2 The more open a sound is, the more advantageous a basis it forms
for syllable nucleus.
Po 3 The natural tendency within the syllable as such is to base its nucleus
upon more open rather than more closed sounds.
Po 4 Although the syllable rests upon a substantial basis, it is not identical
with its basis.
Po 5 The syllable results from the co-action of two language planes:
(i) the phonic plane; and
(ii) the semantic plane.
Hence, it is clear why the boundaries of the syllable cannot be determined
in an objective manner, that is, experimentally, since they are co-determined by
semantics.
In agreement with the above postulates the vowels form the most advanta
geous basis for nucleation, while the stop consonants form the most disadvan
tageous. The majority of the world's languages employ vowels as syllable nu
clei. In cases in which the vowel becomes reduced and disappears in the sylla
ble closed by a liquid or nasal consonant, this latter can turn into a sonant in
order to take over the function of the nucleus. However, since it is less open
than vowels, it forms a less favorable basis for nucleation. Therefore the syl
lable tends to broaden its material basis and develop a vowel again. Thus, the
syllabic function is the driving force behind the reappearance of a vowel. The
tension between the material basis and the syllabic function causes the repeti
tive formation of vowels in the immediate vicinity of sonants.
If the influence of the syllabic function upon the formation of new vowels
is investigated, one can easily predict that this process should concern the
sonants, the syllabic basis of which is the narrowest, that is, the nasals and
The liquid sonants and exhibit a larger aperture than and and by
virtue of this they form a better material basis for forming a syllable. The his
torical evolution of languages confirms this hypothesis to its full extent, In Old
Indian the PIE nasal sonants were vocalized, while the liquid sonants were pre
served intact (cf. matá "thought" = * m to-; y kas "wolf = w qwos). How
ever, in the course of posterior evolution, the liquid sonants also developed a
vowel in the Prakrits, and subsequently the resulting combination changed into
a diphthong. The situation was similar in Slavic languages, where a vowel
developed before m; and This vowel subsequently became nasalized and the
nasal disappeared. However, and were not denucleated everywhere. The
latter is preserved in Czech and Serbo-Croatian, and the former only in certain
Serbo-Croatian dialects and partially also in Czech.
Thus, recapitulating, it can be said that under the influence of syllabic func
tion, the sonants tend to develop new vowels, since their substantial basis is
too narrow for syllable nuclei. However, the sounds from s to k, in the acodal
chain based upon the degree of supraglottal aperture, are unable to assume the
syllabic function, and this is why the disappearance of a vowel here may lead
to syllable disappearance, if the phonological plane or other factors do not
intervene (cf. Old Indic upa-bdás "sounds made by footsteps" —pad "foot").
The regularities established by Zabrocki, concerning the diachronic aspect
of syllabic nucleation, can be formulated in terms of the following postulates:
Po 1 The disappearance of a vowel between two consonants, which are
neither liquids nor nasals usually leads to the disappearance of the
syllable.
Po 2 The disappearance of vowels in the immediate vicinity of liquid or
nasal consonants does not cause the disappearance of a syllable, since
these consonants may become sonants and thereby form its nucleus.
Po 3 Sonants may develop new vowels due to the tension operating
between the syllabic function and the material basis of the syllable.
Po 4 The tendency to develop a vowel should concern nasal sonants to a
stronger degree than liquid sonants.
Po 5 Among the sonants, it is the liquid which, as the most open, can
remain without a vowel for the longest time.
Zabrocki emphasizes that the regularities he established do not have an
absolute character like the laws of physics. Phonetic phenomena are complex,
and the interplay of various physiological, psychological and intellectual fac
tors determines their diachronic course. Language structures are founded upon
the semantic function of the phonic plane. Taking all this into account he con-
sidered it appropriate to speak solely of the degree of probability for phonetic

changes.
4.4 Nasal preservation and denasalization

The process of denasalization is congruent with the acodal sound chain
built on the basis of the degree of supraglottal aperture/closure. Before Za-
brocki was able to explain the results of denasalization in this chain, he in
vestigated the phonetic stability of nasal sounds both individually and in com
bination with other consonants. His inquiry takes into account the following
observations:
(i) Not all oral sounds have nasal counterparts in the languages of the
world,
(ii) Nasal consonants occur in most languages of the world and they can be
considered as nasalized voiced oral stops. Thus, , d, and g have
their corresponding nasalized counterparts in m, n, and .
(iii) The nasal spirants and liquids only rarely occur in the languages of the
world,
(iv) Nasal vowels are not unusual sounds and occur fairly often.
These preferences for certain classes of nasal sounds have their source in
the nature of nasal articulation and its acoustic effects. These effects depend on
the ratio between the phonic substance produced by the oral resonator, and that
produced by the nasal resonator. In the case of spirants this ratio is not advan
tageous for the oral resonator, since the quantity of air flowing through the
nasal cavity is too high in relation to that flowing through the oral cavity and,
in consequence, the acoustic effect of the nasal resonator drowns out the
acoustic effect of the oral resonator. Nasal spirants may come into existence as
transitory sounds during lenition, which changes m, n, and into the oral
voiced spirants , , and , respectively. Nasal vowels are in a better situation
since the aperture of the oral cavity is sufficiently large in relation to the nasal
resonator. However, nasal vowels are not uniform sounds but actually consist
of two components, which may be articulated synchronically or asynchroni-
cally. In consequence, they are less stable than nasal stops, which appear as
uniform sounds. Their stability is, however, differentiated, and depends on the
mass of the moving organ with which they are articulated, which decreases in
the following order: , m, and n. Nasal vowels are also differentiated with re
spect to their susceptibility to nasalization in the sense that a more open vowel
forms a more advantageous basis than a less open one. An even still less ad
vantageous basis is held by the liquids r and /.
The degree of susceptibility for nasal resonance can be represented graphi
cally as follows:
Fig.l: The degrees of susceptibility to nasal resonance
Thus, there are two poles favorable for nasality: voiced stops and vowels.
The higher degree of susceptibility of the former is marked by the double +
following sign. Vowels are followed by the liquids r and /, and the least
susceptible are spirants. As a consequence, three susceptibility areas A, B, and
C may be distinguished. Thus, the degree of stability of nasal sounds de
creases in the order: (i) stops, (ii) vowels, (iii) liquids, and (iv) spirants.
In sound combinations the stability of nasal stops and vowels depends
upon the succeeding oral consonants. Spirants exert the most disadvantageous
influence upon the preservation of preceding nasals, both stops and vowels.
The position of the nasals before oral stops is more favorable. What is more,
voiced consonants create a more favorable position for the preceding nasals
than do voiceless ones, and heteroarticulation with respect to the place of
articulation is more favorable than homoarticulation. Consequently, n is more
stable before ƒ than before s, but m is more stable before s than before/.
Summarizing Zabrocki states that: (i) occlusivity, (ii) voicedness, and (iii)
heteroarticulation with respect to the place of articulation are all factors con
ducive to the stability of nasals, while (i) spirantity, (ii) voicelessness, and (iii)
homo articulation with respect to place of articulation are factors non-conducive
to the stability of nasals.
The differentiation of sounds with respect to their degree of susceptibility to
nasalization established within synchronic structural phonetics finds confir
mation in the diachronic development of these sounds in quite a large number
of IE languages examined by Zabrocki. Thus, nasal stops are also diachron-
ically more stable than nasal vowels. The latter are more likely to disappear
than the former. In sound combinations nasals disappear more easily before
oral spirants than before oral stops.
Based on the principles of synchronic structural phonetics, it cannot be
predicted with certainty whether nasal preservation or denasalization will fol
low exactly their corresponding susceptibility chains. Thus, for example, there
is no necessity that a given change will actually occur earlier than the other, as
is expected. Synchronic structural phonetics merely establishes the degree of
probability of a given change with respect to others. Consequently, its laws are
of a probabilistic nature.
4.5 Voicing
The process of voicing is congruent with the acodal sound chain specified
by the dimension of the degree of supraglottal aperture. A wider supraglottal
opening forms a more favorable basis for voicedness, and thereby makes a
sound more susceptible to becoming voiced. Consequently, the stops form the
least advantageous basis for voicedness, and the open vowels the best such
basis.
The susceptibility for voicedness increases thus with the increase of the
supraglottal aperture. This law of synchronic structural phonetics is confirmed
by both:
(i) the distribution of the voiced phones in the world's languages in
acodal chains based on the supraglottal aperture; and,
(ii) the processes of voicing operating in the diachrony.
The results of the synchronic phonetic analysis of voicedness thus prove to
be valid for diachronic phonetics.
4.6 Assimilation
Assimilation is a sound change, by virtue of which a sound becomes
similar to another sound, that is, one sound adopts features from another. The
sounds bound by the relation of assimilation may be in direct or indirect
(distant) contact.
According to Zabrocki, the assimilation process, in contradistinction to for-
tition / lenition, manifests itself more intensively in more compact consonant
clusters than it does in less compact ones. And, it can be said that the com
pactness of a consonant cluster depends on the number of articulatory dimen
sions in which two sounds are homoarticulatory, that is, in which they assume
identical features.
Zabrocki established the acodal sound chains with which assimilation is

congruent. Thus, for example, for the consonant clusters in which nasal or
liquid is followed by voiced spirants, the following chain was constructed:
Susceptibility to assimilation decreases in this chain from left to right.

Concerning the assimilation of the nasals n and m to the following consonants,
he observed that n will be assimilated easier in the cluster np than m in the
cluster mt on account of the smaller mass of the articulator.
5. Diacritology4
A theory concerning word diacrisis or word distinction in any language
grew out of Zabrocki's inquiry into the concept of the phoneme, which, as has
been previously mentioned, he considered to be a component of a codal
system. The point of departure for his diacritological considerations was a
critique of the Prague School concept of the phoneme, which defined it mainly
in terms of distinctive function, that is, the function of distinguishing mean
ingful segments. Zabrocki came to the conclusion that this distinctive function
is performed in language by segments not necessarily corresponding to single
sound segments but to units which are sequences of such segments.
The words in the universe each ethnic language must cope with are
numerous, and the problem of how particular words are kept distinct from each
other amidst this vast number of elements is cognitively interesting as well as
intellectually fascinating. This universe is not a universe of chaos but it is
systematically organized and this finds its reflection in various relations bind
ing words and their constituents. These relations may be subdivided according
to various criteria. One of these criteria will provide for:
(i) intra-word relations; and
(ii) inter-word relations;
another for:
(iii) syntagmatic (linear, segmental) relations, and
(iv) paradigmatic (asequential) relations;
and still another for:
(v) the relation of heterophony, and
(vi) the relation of homophony.
Heterophony can be conceived of as a phonetic (material, substantial) dis
tinction or opposition, while homophony can be understood as phonetic indis-
4
Cf. Zabrocki (1962c, 1963d, 1965b, 1967a, 1967b, 1980).
tinguishability. All of these relations are relevant to the theory to be surveyed

here.
Constituents of different words as well as constituents of the same word
may be heterophonous or homophonous. Clearly, by virtue of their con
stituents the words themselves become heterophonous or homophonous. It
should also be added that both heterophony and homophony may be total or
partial Heterophony, if restricted to meaningful units such as words, and
combined with the difference in meaning, that is, heterosignification, could be
called word diacrisis.
Zabrocki inquired into how words phonetically differ from each other or,
more precisely, what the structure is of these differences, which may be total
or partial However, in dealing with phonetic distinctions between words he
also had to concern himself with phonetic indistinguishability, which may also
be total or partial In short, he dealt with the structure of words in respect to
both their hetero- and homophonous constituents assuming various lengths.
The particular subdiscipline of linguistics or of semiotics created by
Zabrocki and the subject matter of which is diacrisis in ethnic languages, may
be called diacritology. However, he himself did not use this term. Never
theless, we consider it to more adequately characterize his contribution in this
field than the term 'distinctive morphology', which he himself coined.
Some principles of diacritology will be formulated subsequently in terms of
postulates. However, before this can be done, some terms must first be
introduced. As has already been mentioned, Zabrocki limited his approach to
diacrisis in words. Thus, in addition to the set of words, the following terms
are necessary to lay the foundation for a diacritological theory:
(i) the relation of diacrisis,
(ii) the diacritic pak,
(iii) diffusivum and confusivum,
(iv) phonetic diffusion,
(v) diffusive range (load),
(vi) diacritic paradigm,
(vii) diffusive type.
The relation of diacrisis binds words which are heterophonous and signify
different meanings. Thus, for example, in Polish the following pairs of words
belong to this relation:
(dom "house", tom "volume"),
(dom, tam "there"),
(dom, dym "smoke"),
(dom, tak "yes")
The relation of diacrisis as conceived of here thus belongs to inter-word

paradigmatic relations.
Any two words bound by the relation of diacrisis form a diacritic pair.
What is more, such words obligatorily display heterophonous constituent seg
ments and may display homophonous segments as well. The maximal heter
ophonous segments of the words forming a diacritic pair are referred to by
Zabrocki as diffusive segments, paradigmatic distinctive units, distinctive
morphemes or, simply, diffusiva. And, the maximal homophonous segments
of the words forming a diacritic pair he calls confusive segments or, simply,
confusiva. Thus, for example, the diacritic pair (dom, torn) displays d- and t-
as diffusiva and -om and -om as confusiva. And, the diacritic pair (dom, tam)
displays do- and ta- as diffusiva and -m and -m as confusiva.
The function of distinguishing words which form a diacritic pair, fulfilled
by diffusiva of these words, could be understood as phonetic diffusion, or as
the relation of phonetic diffusion binding the diffusiva in question.
The minimal pair, that is, a pair of words differing in meaning and hetero
phonous in exactly one sound or minimal segment occurring in the same po
sition in both these words, is but a particular case of a diacritic pair. As ex
amples of minimal pairs in Polish, the following diacritic pairs can be given:
(kot "cat", pot "sweat")
(kot, kos "blackbird")
(kot, kat "executioner")
The relation of diacrisis, if restricted to homolexical words, which share a
non-zero confusivum, could be called the relation of diacritic flection. Ob
viously, this would not concern words which are totally diffusive.
The diffusive range or load of a confusivum is the set of all diffusiva, with
which this confusivum can combine to form a word. Thus, for example, the
following diffusiva belong to the diffusive range of the confusivum -om in
Polish: at-, br-, d-,fant-, gr-, I-, ogr-,pr-, zt-.
The relation of diacrisis can be subclassified into diffusive types. The
diffusive type is a subset of diacritic pairs, the diffusiva of which exhibit the
same proportion in the number of their constituent sounds. Thus, a diffusive
type is based upon the relation of diffusive analogy binding diacritic pairs.
Some examples of this in German are as follows:
Type 0 ~ 1 : Eis ~ Greis, leiten ~ gleiten,
Type 1 ~ 1 : Fisch ~ Tisch, leiten ~ reiten,
Type 1 - 2 : leiten ~ schreiten, weiss ~ Kreis,
Type 2 ~ 2 : gleiten ~ streiten, Gleis ~ Kreis.
These types will differ with regard to the number of their elements.
The diffusive / confusive dichotomy of words is instrumental in establish

ing diacritic paradigms. A diacritic paradigm can be defined as the set of all
words sharing the same confusivum in the same position. The following Pol
ish words belong to the diacritic paradigm specified by the confusivum -om:
atom "atom"
brom "bromine"
dom "house,home"
fantom "phantom"
grom "thunder"
lorn "crowbar"
ogrom "enormity, vastness, multitude"
poziom "level"
prom "ferry"
zlom "scrap".
Some of the fundamental assumptions of diacritology, as conceived of by
Zabrocki, can be expressed in terms of the following postulates:
Po 1 The function of phonetic diffusion in diacritic pairs may be performed by
(i) monophonie as well as by
(ii) polyphonic diffusiva.
The former consist of one sound, and the latter of a sequence of sounds.
Thus, monophonie or minimal diffusiva are but a particular case of
diffusiva.
Po 2 Both diffusivum and confusivum may be continuous or discontinuous.
Po 3 The diffusive / confusive dichotomization of a word depends on other
words with which this word enters into a relation of diacrisis. Poly
phonic words, excepting biphonic ones, will usually exhibit more than
one such dichotomization.
Po 4 The polyphonic diffusiva of certain words cannot be reduced completely
to monophonie diffusiva within diacritic pairs. Thus, for example, in the
German word streiten "contend, fight" the segment st- already functions
as minimal diffusivum, since there is no such word
(i) as *treiten, which would enter with streiten into a diacrisis of type
0-1,
(ii) nor is there such a word, which would share with streiten into a con
fusivum -treiten, and thereby enter with it into a diacrisis of type
1-1.
Po 5 Each minimal pair belongs to the diffusive type 1-1.
Po 6 The number of minimal pairs in the languages of the world is rather
limited, and there are decidedly more diacritic pairs displaying poly
phonic diffusiva.
Po 7 Homonymie words are not bound by the relation of diacrisis since, being
totally confusive, their diffusiva are zero-segments.
Po 8 The length of a confusivum and its diffusive range are inversely propor
tional, that is, the longer the confusivum the smaller its diffusive range.
Consequently, the longer a confusivum, the less numerous the diacritic

paradigm specified by it. Thus, for example, in German the confusivum
-ten (cf. gleiten ~ bieten) specifies a larger diacritic paradigm than the
confusivum -eiten ( cf. gleiten ~ breiten ).
Po 9 The boundaries between diffusivum and confusivum are independent of
intermorphemic boundaries within words. What is more, a certain
boundary between diffusivum and confusivum may be morphologized to
become a new intermorphemic boundary (cf. the origin of derivational
suffix -ling in German).
Po 10 Words sharing a common confusivum may be contaminated, which
leads to the formation of a blend, a word made by putting components of
these words together (cf. English dandle - dance and handle; German
brausen - brauen and sausen, tippeln - tippen and trippeln).
Zabrocki's diacritological theory sheds light on some neglected aspects of
the distinctions operating in the universe of words. He considered the inquiry
into the diffusive / confusive structure of words as well as other units of lan
guage to be the main goal of distinctive morphology or diacritology.
6. Communicative community and language communities5

The contribution of Zabrocki to sociolinguistics is in many respects unique.
He was the first to work out a comprehensive theory of communicative and
language communities. This theory, within which the mutual relationships
between both kinds of communities have been identified, and the processes
operating within and between them properly recognized, still preserves its
validity.
The fundamental notion as well as the starting point for Zabrocki's socio-
linguistic studies was the communicative community, which he defined as a
group of people in which there exist objective conditions for exchange of in
formation, regardless of the nature of the communication means being em
ployed. Thus, a communicative community may not necessarily have at its dis
posal a uniform means of communication, and this, in turn, implies that there
may exist various such means within one and the same community. Neither
does the concept of a communicative community exclude the possibility of
transmitting information by means of gestures, Consequently, the property
which establishes a communicative community is the very fact of information
transmission and not the manner in which this is accomplished.
A language community is a communicative community, which makes use
of a uniform means of communication, that is, a common language. Hence,
each language community is a communicative community, but not conversely.
5
Cf. Zabrocki (1959b, 1963b, 1963e, 1965a, 1965d, 1967b, 1970b, 1971, 1972a, 1980).
The latter is a basis for the former. The language community can be viewed as
a product of and a kind of superstructure imposed upon the corresponding
communicative community. The period of time that the latter lasts is also the
time of the duration of the former.
The development of language communities is, to a large extent, determined
by processes originating in their bases, namely, in the corresponding commu
nicative communities, However, language communities as superstructures also
influence their bases. The identification of the regularities of this interaction
allows for the recognition of significant aspects of language in close relation to
social structure. It also makes it possible to forecast language development in
communities differentiated by language.
Each communicative community is, in turn, determined by its extra-com
municative basis, which includes geographical, economic, political, religious,
ideological, and cultural factors. These factors are of a heterogeneous nature,
and the corresponding communities they specify may not coincide. Thus, for
example, religious communicative communities may have different territorial
extensions than those communicative communities specified by political or
economic factors. As a consequence, the extra-communicative factors form a
basis for the corresponding communicative community, and thereby also a ba
sis for the corresponding language community.
In modern society, every person is a member of various communicative
communities. The smallest natural community of this kind is usually the fam
ily. Thus, for example, a worker belongs at first to the communicative com
munity of his family, and then to such communities as his work place, the cir
cle of his friends, a political party which he may belong to, the city in which he
is living, and the state of which he is a citizen.
Communicative communities can be subdivided according to their various
properties. Among such subdivisions the following are worthy of considera
tion:
(i) active and passive,
(ii) durable and indurable,
(iii) loose and compact,
(iv) primary and secondary,
(v) superordinate and subordinate.
It is within the active community that the need for information exchange felt
by its members are actually carried out. If the needs for establishing mutual
communicative contact are not felt, we can speak of a passive communicative
community. As a matter of fact, a community can be active or passive to a dif
ferent degree.
In civilized societies the family usually forms a relatively durable commu

nicative community, while, for example, an excursion group is rather tempo
rary, and thereby indurable. The degree of compactness of a communicative
community depends upon the number of the communicative contacts which are
accomplished in a certain period of time. In this respect feudal state communi
ties were looser than modem state communities.
The primary communicative community forms in the first place a basis for
language acquisition. Thus, for example, school and playground communities
are the primary communicative communities for children. Therefore the chil
dren of Polish emigrants to America speak English among themselves, even if
at home only Polish is used. Often these children know Polish only passively.
What is more, Zabrocki pointed to a certain hierarchy of primary and sec
ondary communicative communities, a hierarchy which presupposes a relative
meaning of these two terms. Consequently, a community can be primary with
respect to one group of people, and secondary with respect to another.
Finally, superordinate and subordinate communicative communities are
distinguished, which, similar to primary and secondary ones, also enter into
hierarchical dependences. Zabrocki also speaks of optimal superordinate com
munities, and considers the state communicative community as being optimal
in comparison to all other communicative communities which may function
within the state. In a multilingual state this language community is superordi
nate: the communicative community on which it is based has the political
power.
Zabrocki also formulated laws governing communicative and language
communities. They mirror the internal structure of, and the mutual depen
dences between, these communities. Each communicative community, for eco
nomical reasons, tends towards a uniform means of communication, that is, a
uniform language. The more compact this community is, the quicker and easier
the homogenization of the means in question is brought about.As a rule, the
language which prevails will be that which represents a communicative com
munity within which communicative contact is established. In other words, the
language which is used by the superordinate communicative community be
comes dominant. In light of this assumption, a Swede speaks Swedish within
the Swedish communicative community, but with Englishmen or the persons
of other language communities he will shift to English, since the English com
municative community is superordinate with respect to the Swedish one. No
communicative community can function optimally unless a relatively uniform
language serving the whole community is available. The following belong to
the main processes operating within communicative and language communities:
THE LINGUISTIC WORLD OF LUD WIK Z ABROCKI 301
(i) integrational (unifying), and

(ii) disintegrational (differentiating).
The former lead to the creation of larger communities out of smaller ones,
whereas the latter cause the division of larger communities into smaller ones,
and thereby facilitate language differentiation. The extra-communicative factors
determining communicative communities may act, in different periods of time,
to a different degree in an integrating or disintegrating manner. Thus, for ex
ample, space is today less disintegrational than it was in the past. Also political
or religious factors may in various situations differently influence the processes
in question. The economy is the primary integrational force, which is ex
tremely conducive to the formation of a global community, that is, a commu
nity embracing the whole world.
The multilingualism of a communicative community, without a common
language serving the whole community, is uneconomical, and as a result this
usually leads to lingual unification, in the course of which the language of the
optimal superordinate community wins out. The subordinate communities
simply take up the language of the superordinate one.
Over the course of history, the number of relatively subordinate commu
nicative communities increases as does, at the same time, the number of the ab
solute optimal world-wide communicative communities. Since the number of
communities to which modern humans belong constantly increases (and this
applies particularly to world-wide communicative communities), these com
munities cannot develop new languages for themselves. Consequently, this
development acts towards the reduction of the number of languages.
The dependence of language and communicative communities upon their
bases is not unidirectional but rather is mutual. Thus, both communicative and
(in particular) language communities try not only to resist the forces operating
in their bases but even to determine the development of these bases. The su
perstructure exerts itself to dominate its basis. It could even be said that lan
guage communities constitute insurmountable barriers in the world-wide inte
gration process of communicative communities, and in this respect they must
be considered as conservative. No communicative community can function
normally unless it has at its disposal a uniform means of communication. Lan
guage communities do not develop and change as quickly as communicative
communities, and therefore they are historical relics. They have simply lost the
natural basis, which once brought them into existence but which itself ceased
to exist. Moreover, the current extra-communicative factors already produce
different communicative communities, Thus, language communities are not
stable, static entities but change over time and depend upon factors which also
change over time.
However, language communities are something more than just commu
nicative communities possessing a uniform means of communication. Every
people or nation identifies itself through the language in which it has stored its
unique historical, spiritual, and material development. History stores in lan
guages the reflection of extralingual reality, which in turn is uniquely mirrored
by particular language communities.
One of the ways language barriers can be overcome is certainly bi- or mul-
tilingualism. The members of the present day mother tongue communities be
come multilingual and thus they become members of extra-mother-tongue com
munities. The multilingualism of these communities is today a necessity and it
is determined by the general integrational effects of the operation of world
wide communicative communities. Another alternative would mean an obstruc
tion to scientific and economic progress, and this is something no mother
tongue community can allow.
7. Aspects of language comparison6

Following ideas held by another Polish linguist Tadeusz Milewski (1906-
1966), Zabrocki held the conviction that descriptive linguistics investigates
particular languages independently, that is, as if each language were the only
one in the world. Consequently, it delivers a set of isolated monolingual des
criptions of the languages of the world. However, the science of linguistics
strives for a comparative synthesis from which the justification for comparative
linguistics may be derived, and comparative enterprise presupposes descriptive
linguistics, since the former is based upon the results of the latter.
Within comparative linguistics Zabrocki distinguished four subdisciplines:
(i) genetic-comparative or historical-comparative,
(ii) typological-comparative,
(iii) confrontative, and
(iv) contrastive.
Zabrocki's interest in confrontative linguistics arose from his inquiry into
applied linguistics and language teaching methodology. This soon became a
search for a general theory of this discipline and for a definition of its status
with regard to the remaining three branches of comparative linguistics.
Confrontative linguistics is conceived of by Zabrocki as a synchronic com
parative linguistics oriented towards the description of similarities and distinc
tions between any particular languages. On the other hand, contrastive linguis-
6
Cf. Zabrocki (1970a, 1975a, 1976, 1980).
tics should only deal with distinctions. Viewed in this theoretical framework
the domain of the former is more comprehensive and embraces that of the lat
ter. In contradistinction to genetic-comparative linguistics, confrontative lin
guistics disregards the common origin of languages and compares those which
are genetically related as well as those which are not genetically related. More
precisely, it analyses and describes comparatively homogeneous units and ho
mogeneous subsystems of any given languages.
Typological-comparative linguistics is interested mainly in the similarities
between and among the languages compared, and it uses these similarities to
determine the degree of their structural affinity. It also makes a typological
classification based upon common properties.
Confrontative linguistics, by comparing languages with respect to both
their similarities and differences, emerges as a foundation for both typological
and contrastive linguistics. Further, Zabrocki subdivided confrontative linguis
tics into pure and applied, and consequently viewed this latter as an integral
part of applied linguistics. For language teaching practice the results of bilateral
confrontative studies, that is, of bilateral confrontative grammars and seman
tics, are, according to him, the most important.
The goal of confrontative linguistics is an exhaustive comparative descrip
tion of languages and the determination of their confrontative statuses. This
kind of description will differ from the monolingual description of a language,
that is, a description elaborated in isolation from other languages. Certain lin
gual entities, such as conventional (fixed) syntagmas, cannot be identified
within a given language except by virtue of comparison with another language.
In order to illustrate this aspect of confrontative analysis, Zabrocki avails him
self of the German syntagma die Mücken stechen "(the) mosquitoes sting",
which is a conventional syntagma with respect to its Polish translative equiva
lent komary gryzq "the mosquitoes bite". The literal translation in German
would be *die Mücken beißen. It is just with regard to conventional syntagmas
that the principle of creativity in foreign language learning, according to
Zabrocki, fails to work.
The confrontative status of a given language must be characterized by
(i) all the properties of this language which it has in common with other
languages,
(ii) all the properties, which distinguish it from other languages, and
(iii) all the properties, which other languages have but which it does not
have, and which are referred to by Zabrocki as negative properties,
and viewed by him as an integral component of the confrontative
status of a given language.
Confrontative grammar should also describe, in a comparative fashion, all

types of polysemantic or polyfunctional formalization of grammatical and lexi
cal information at the level of the signal. Each comparative analysis enriches
the linguistic perspective on a given language, also by identifying its negative
properties, the status of which has thus far been neglected by linguistic analy
sis.
The confrontative description of languages presupposes the availability of a
kind of synchronous universal reservoir {Urspeicher), which has an hierarchi
cal or stratified structure. The higher the stratum, the more abstract the entities
it consists of. The most abstract entities, such as phonetic, semantic, and gram
matical minimally distinctive information, are located at the highest stratum.
The aredundant abstract nuclear sentence structure, which encodes no sec
ondary information and which functions as a basis for the generation of vari
ous concrete sentence structures, also resides there.
The stratum of Urspeicher may be called the level of universals because it
is at this level that those lingual informational entities reside which exhibit the
highest entropy value. The entities of this level are shared by all or most lan
guages of the world, and they are considered to be primary. All other entities,
according to their entropy value, are secondary to varying degrees.
The Urspeicher of all languages of the world is referred to as the language
universe {Sprachuniversum) by Zabrocki. All languages of the world can be
derived from a properly established language universe.
8. Cy berneticsy stems of language communication1

Zabrocki's cybernetic approach to systems of language communication is
relevant to general linguistics, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, and indeed
to glottodidactics and language teaching methodology. The concept of a com
munication system ultimately became an integral part of his studies and it had a
decisive influence on the formulation of many of his linguistic ideas.
Cybernetics was defined by Zabrocki as the science of abstract optimal
information systems. According to him, every cybernetic system must have at
least:
(i) two knots processing information (transformational knots), and
(ii) one tricircuital information channel (tract), within which the
following should operate:
(a) the circuit of nuclear (basic) information,
(b) the circuit of monitor information, and
(c) the circuit of control information.
7
Cf. Zabrocki (1962d, 1966, 1967c, 1967d, 1972b, 1975b, 1980).
TEE LINGUISTIC WORLD OF LUD WIK ZABROCKI 305
The monitor and control information function as meta-information with re

spect to the basic information which they concern. Each of these three circuits
may be blocked under certain conditions. The signal is conceived of as a
physical process conveying information, and it is clearly kept distinct from the
sign, which results from the association of the signal with the corresponding
contents of extralingual reality.
Apart from general cybernetics Zabrocki also distinguished applied cyber
netics, resulting, among other things, from the technical applications of the
former.
Language communication presupposes information transmission. And,
since cybernetics deals with informational systems, its principles must also be
applicable to the analysis of both:
(i) human communication systems; and
(ii) language utterances,
which function as vehicles of information and which mirror the
structure of this system. Consequently, systems of language com
munication appear as a sub-class of communication systems in
general.
Next, we shall briefly survey Zabrocki's approach to the analysis of human
communication and subsequently of language utterances in terms of cyber
netics.
The recognition of the cybernetic nature of human communication thus al
lowed Zabrocki to approach its structure on a cybernetic basis. Consequently,
every act of language communication appeared as a manifestation of a cyber
netic system, in which a human sender and receiver accomplish the role of
main transformational knots, and which is usually referred to as the speaker-
hearer system. Speaker and hearer are being bound by an information channel,
which extends from the speaker's brain back to the speaker's brain through the
following transformation knots:
(i) the language center in the speaker's brain,
(ii) the articulatory knot of the speaker,
(iii) the acoustic/optical knot,
(iv) the auditory/visual knot of the hearer,
(v) the language center in the hearer's brain,
(vi) the auditory/visual knot of the speaker.
As a cybernetic system, the speaker-hearer system also avails itself of a tri-
circuital information channel, whereby it ensures the execution of the following
three tasks:
(i) transmission of information,
(ii) monitoring by the speaker of the reception of information, and
(iii) appropriate control of the whole process of language communication.

The interaction of the three circuits is clearly observable during conversa
tion. The hearer reacts directly to the message sent by the speaker and vice
versa. From the verbal and non-verbal answers which the speaker receives and
which convey monitory information, he is able to infer whether communication
is effective or not with respect to the intended goal. In the case of com
munication ineffectivity, the speaker resorts to the control of information trans
mission in such a way that the intended content is communicated to the hearer.
An extremely important property of the circuit of nuclear information in the
speaker-hearer system is that it also functions as the circuit of creation of lan
guage matrices, (i.e., signal matrices as well as grammatico-semantic matrices)
due to which it is possible to produce and comprehend language utterances.
This second function of the circuit in question lasts as long as the structures of
a given language have been acquired completely. The child acquires closed
structures until approximately the age of 15. The acquisition of the vocabulary,
however, continues for the rest of the learner's life. Thus, the circuit for the
creation of language matrices terminates its activity while a person is still
young, and subsequently atrophies.
Within the speaker-hearer system certain subsystems can be distinguished,
the operation ranges of which are limited to either the speaker or the hearer.
Thus, within the speaker, two systems operate which avail themselves of in
formation channels and these channels may be referred to respectively as:
(i) acoustic-auditory, and
(ii) articulatory-kinesthetic.
The former channel connects the acoustic knot with the speaker's language
center in the brain, It extends thus from the speaker's lips through his ear and
auditory knot. Although all three circuits work in this channel, its main func
tion is to monitor the emitted information, since it allows the speaker to hear
his own utterances. However, the circuit for the creation of language matrices
is blocked at this point. We do not acquire language, native or foreign, based
on our own pronunciation. This hypothesis has far-reaching consequences for
glottodidactics. The articulatory-kinesthetic channel, which might also be called
speaker-internal, connects his articulatory tract with the language center in the
brain. In this channel only the monitory circuit is active.
Zabrocki emphasizes the distinction between the central transformation
knot, that is, the language center in the brain, and all other transformation
knots. The latter are capable of converting only the physical substance of the
signal without changing the content of the sign. The former performs both of
these operations, and it functions as an internal store. However, it does not
store concrete sentences or texts but rather their contents, that is, sentential and
textual semantemes. The internal store also records the paradigmatic systems of
language in a direct manner. On the contrary, concrete sentences and texts are
recorded in the external store. The invention of script meant a revolution in
storing language signs. This additional language store became the foundation
of cultural and scientific progress.
In the transformation knots processing information, an operation of con
verting systems of entities of one kind into systems of entities of another kind
takes place. Thus, a thought is transformed into a lexico-syntactic structure, the
vehicle of which consecutively undergoes the transformation into articulatory,
acoustic, and auditory (perceptive) substances. The transformation in question
is effected by virtue of the corresponding codes, which, as we recall, were
conceived of by Zabrocki as rules of conversion of certain objects into others,
and which he divided into synthetic and analytic. The speaker and hearer avail
themselves of both these codes but for different purposes. The speaker, in
constructing his utterances, uses the synthetic code as basic, and at the same
time he resorts to the analytic code as the monitory one. On the other hand, the
hearer in understanding the utterances uses the analytic code as basic, and uti
lizes the synthetic code as the monitory one.
Zabrocki dealt with the functioning of the communication system not only
in speaking and hearing but also in reading and writing. The execution of these
two latter operations is closely bound up with the system of phonic language
communication, within which speaking and hearing take place. Consequently,
according to him, there does not exist an independent graphic communication
system which would not feed back to the phonic one. In emitting a written text,
the sender initially converts auditory signs into visual signs, and then repro
duces them materially as graphic signals, Thus, the internal auditory store is
primary in relation to the internal visual store. However, Zabrocki admits that
this may be different in those who are deaf from birth. In writing, nerve im
pulses coming from the brain are converted into movements of the hand, in
particular, into those of the fingers. This channel is active within all three cir
cuits, and includes the circuit of creating matrices as well. In addition to this,
the optic channel is also in operation, but it is active only in its monitory cir
cuit. Thus, in writing, two monitory circuits and one control circuit are at
work. In reading, graphic signals are converted into visual signs, and then into
auditory signs. Although articulatory movements are blocked in silent reading,
they nevertheless are often performed in reduced form.
Reading presupposes thus the use of the analytic code as basic, and of the
synthetic code as a monitory one. On the contrary, writing presupposes the use
of the synthetic codes, operating in the systems of phonic and graphic com
munication, as basic, and of analytic code as monitory.
Since cybernetics deals with information and systems of information trans
mission, then according to Zabrocki, language utterances as vehicles of infor
mation should also be analyzed in terms of cybernetic principles. The cyber
netic structuralism resulting from the cybernetic approach to language promises
to deliver the most exhaustive linguistic description, both in monolingual as
well as in confrontative perspectives. This type of structuralism avails itself of
the concept of information and it treats the nuclear sentence structure, under
which diathetic sentence structure could be understood, as a kind of communi
cation system in which the subject mirrors a sender and the object a receiver of
a message. This system, which Zabrocki called the basic communication sys
tem, is, in a certain sense, embedded within the human communication system,
and thus the latter becomes a metasystem with respect to the former. What is
more, in almost all languages of the world, information about the metasystem
is stored in the basic system. Thus, for example, the German sentence Ich
trinke Wasser "I drink water" contains information that the sender of the mes
sage in the metasystem identifies himself with the sender of the basic system.
On the contrary, the sentence Der Hund wird vom Knaben geschlagen "The
dog is beaten by the boy" informs us that the sender of the metasystem does
not identify himself with either sender or receiver of the basic system. Other
combinations of sender and receiver of the metasystem with the sender and the
receiver of the basic system result in other sentence structures.
Cybernetic structuralism strictly distinguishes between semantic and gram
matical information on the one hand, and the formalization or representation of
this information on the other. Consequently, grammar at the level of informa
tion must be kept distinct from grammar at the level of signal. Or, in other
words, the abstract grammatical level is opposed to the formalization level.
These two levels are bound by various relations, to which grammatical homo-
nymy also belongs. This kind of homonymy results from the neutralization of
the representation of different information.
Cybernetic structuralism also investigates concrete utterances from the
standpoint of known and unknown information. Thus, for example, in the
German sentence, Geben Sie mir die rote Rose, "Give me the red rose", the
sender assumes that the receiver of the message knows which roses are red,
and the sender simultaneously assumes that the receiver does not know that he
wants the red rose. Consequently, the sentence Das Haus ist hoch"Thehouse
is high" and the syntagma das hohe Haus "the high house" differ with respect
to the information content, if the sender and receiver are taken into considera-
tion. Cybernetic structuralism is thus oriented towards the informational struc

ture of sentences and texts.
Of course, the brevity of this presentation has not permitted us to touch
upon all the relevant problems posed by the cybernetic approach to language
communication. The conception of a 'cybernetic linguistics' is a result of
Zabrocki's extensive research into the nature of language and language com
munication. As the last and the most important stage in his linguistic career it
may be seen as a synthesis emerging from his linguistic deliberations and
quandaries and appeared as a complex harmonious whole. This is why we
have presented it last.
9. Not quite a conclusion

In the above, necessarily compact, survey, it has simply not been possible
to exhaustively cover all the important conceptual contributions of Zabrocki.
Our presentation is thus fragmentary and by no means complete. However, we
would like to draw attention to the wide range and variety of his linguistic
interests, as well as to the depth and originality of his ideas. What emerges
from his linguistic output is the figure of a scholar of wide intellectual horizons
who always aimed at the creative development of the Polish linguistic tradition,
and who succeeded without slavishly imitating foreign ways of thinking. He
was gifted with a most extraordinary ability to perceive coherent patterns
lurking behind the surface chaos of language facts, and was able to construct
theories, which inspire further explorations, and which should find their
permanent position in linguistic science. Zabrocki's passion for research, his
tenacity of purpose, and ever-present desire to penetrate into the unknown, can
hardly be equaled.
The presentation of Zabrocki's linguistic achievements as proposed above
is certainly not independent of the interpretation of the author of the present
survey. Approached by another investigator it would doubtless take on a
different shape. Being aware of this, I nevertheless hope that the reader has
obtained some idea about the linguistic world of my teacher and the spiritual
mentor of my own linguistic inquiries.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF LUDWIK ZABROCKI'S WORKS ON

THE TOPICS COVERED IN THE PRESENT CHAPTER*
1947. "Uwagi o rozwoju wyglosu w gockim i nordyjskim w zakresie samogiosek
dlugich i dyftongów", Sprawozdania Poznanskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciól
Nauk 37.146-154.
1950. Review of Jean Fourquet, Les mutations consonantiques du germanique
(Strasbourg: Publ. de l'Université de Strasbourg; Paris: Les Belles Lettres,
1948). Lingua Posnaniensis 2.296-311.
1951a. "Samogloski dlugie i dyftongi w wyglosie zachodnio-germańskim".
Sprawozdania Poznanskiego Towarzyswa Przyjaciól Nauk I/II 1949, 46-53.
1951b. Review of Jerzy Kurylowicz, "Le sens des mutations consonantiques".
Lingua Posnaniensis 3.344-352. [Comment on Kurylowicz's review of Four
quet (1948) in Lingua 2:1.77-81 (1949).]
1951c, Review of Tadeusz Milewski, "La mutation consonantique en hittite et
dans les autres langues indoeuropéennes" (Archiv Orientální 17:2.189-195).
Lingua Posnaniensis 3.359-366,
1951d. Usilnienie i lenicja w językach indoeuropejskich i w ugrofińskim. (=
Prace Komisji Filologicznej\ 13:3.) Poznan: Poznañskie Towarzystwo Przyja
ciól Nauk.
1957a. "Z historii monoftongizacji i dyftongizacji niemieckiej". Kwartalnik
Neofilologiczny 4.13-14.
1957b. "Uwagi o rozwoju konsonantyzmu germańskiego". Kwartalnik Neo
filologiczny 4:2.139-144.
1959a. "Systemy języka (Sprachsysteme)". Sprawozdania Poznańskiego To
warzystwa Przyjaciól Nauk I/II 1957, 52-56.
1959b, "Na marginesie problemów nauczania języków obcych, (jezykoznawcza
teoría nauczania jezyków obcych)". Języki Obce w Szkole 6.343-368.
1960. "Zagadnienia fonetyki strukturalnej". Sprawozdania Poznańskiego To
warzystwa Przyjaciól Nauk. Sesja naukowa Komisii Filologicznej 1958, 165-
185.
1961a. "Uklad kodowy i jego struktury pochodne". Sprawozdania Poznan
skiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciól Nauk 1960:1/2.23-26.
1961b."Prawa glosowe, procesy glosowe, onomastyka". Onomastica 7:1/2.1-20.
1961c. "Sprachkode". Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kom
munikationsforschung 14:1.64-73.
1961d. "Les sonantes à la lumière de la phonétique structurale", Biuletyn Fono-
graficzny 4.3-20.
1961e. "Zamecanija o razvitii armjanskogo konsonantizma". Voprosy Jazy-
koznanija 1961:5.34-45,
1962a. "Przesuwki spółgloskowe w dialektach ormiańskich", Sprawozdania
Poznanskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciól Nauk 1961:1.38-43.
* For a full bibliography of Zabriocki's works, see Kwartalnik Neofilologiczny (Warsaw) 24.
123-132(1977).
1962b. "Zur diachronischen strukturellen Phonetik", Proceedings of the Fourth

International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Helsinki, September 1961 ed. by
Antti Sovijärvi & Pentti Aalto, 805-815. The Hague: Mouton.
1962c. "Phon, Phonem und distinktives Morphem". Biuletyn Fonograficzny
5.59-87.
1962d. "Sprachkode in der Erlernung von Fremdsprachen". Preprints of
Papers for the IX International Congress of Linguistic Sciences ed. by Morris
Halle, 116-116. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.
1963a. "Stabilnoœć spółglosek nosowych w rozwoju historycznym". Lingua
Posnaniensis 9.44-97.
1963b. Wspólnoty komunikatywne w genezie i rozwoju języka niemieckiego, t. I:
Prehistoria języka niemieckiego. Wroclaw: Ossolineum.
1963c. "Die Stimmhaftigkeit der Laute (Versuch einer strukturell-phonetischen
Betrachtungsweise)". Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kom
munikationsforschung 16:1-3.261-275.
1963d. "Zagadnienie fonemu". Sprawozdania Poznańskiego Towarzystwa
Przyjaciól Nauk 1961:2/4.259-264.
1963e. "Theodiscus, diutisc". Studia linguistica in honorem Thaddaei Lehr-
Splawinski, 53-59. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
1963f. "Z rozwoju dyftongów IE. ai, au, ou w językach germaiiskich". Księga
Pamiπtkowa ku czci prof, W. Doroszewskiego {= Prace Filologiczne 18:1),
233-247. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe,
1964. "Die inneren Gesetze der dänischen Lautverschiebungen". Kwartalnik
Neofilologiczny 11:2.151-169.
1965a."Rozpad germañskiej wspólnoty językowej". Lingua Posnaniensis 10.
41-78.
1965b. "Aufbau und Funktion der phonologischen Einheiten". Proceedings of
the Fifth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Münster 1964 ed. by
Eberhard Zwirner & Wolfgang Bethge, 598-602. Basel: S. Karger.
1965c. "Die dritte Lautverschiebung im Deutschen". Symbolae linguisticae in
honorem Georgii Kurylowicz, 359-368. Wrocław-Warszawa-Krakow: Osso
lineum.
1965d. "Die Ausgliederung der germanischen Sprachen". III. Internationaler
Germanistenkongress: Tradition und Ursprünglichkeit. Amsterdam, 129-131.
1966. "Kodematische Grundlagen der Theorie des Fremdsprachen-unterrichts".
1967a. "Phonologie und distinktive Morphologie". Abstracts of Papers, Xth
International Congress of Linguists, 415-416. Bucharest. [See also entry 1969
below.]
1967b. "Verkehrsgemeinschaften und Mundarten in Geschichte und Gegen
wart". II Internationaler Dialektologenkongress, Marburg 1965, 14-18. Mar
burg: N. G. Elwert.
1970[1967c]. "Kybernetische Sprechmodelle". Proceedings of the Sixth
International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Prague, September 1967 ed. by
Bhuslav Hala, Milan Romportl &Premysl Janota, 1047-1050. Prague: Acad.
Publ. House of the Czech Academy of Sciences.
1967e. "Cybernetyczny układ komunikacji językowej", Logopedia 7.3-25.

1969. "Phonologie und distinktive Morphologie". Actes du Xe Congrès Inter
national des Linguistes ed. by Alexandria Graur et al., vol.I, 367-375. Bucharest:
Ed. de l'Acad. de la RSR.
1970a. "Grundfragen der konfrontativen Grammatik". Probleme der kontras
tiven Grammatik ed. by Hugo Moser, 31-52. Düsseldorf: Schwann.
1970b. "Kommunikative Gemeinschaften und Sprachgemeinschaften". Folia
Linguistica 4:1/2.2-23.
1971. "Lernschwierigkeiten mit sprachlichen Ursachen". Sprache und Gesell
schaft ed. by Hugo Moser, 245-257. Düsseldorf: Schwann.
1972a. "Z teorii socjolingwistyki". Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Języko-
znawczego 30.17-25.
1972b. "Kybernetische Lernmodelle und programmierter Fremdsprachen-un-
terricht". Active Methods and Modem Aids in the Teaching of Foreign Lan
guages ed. by Rudolf Filipovic & Gerhard Nickel, 15-35. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
1974. "Die Entwicklung der urgermanischen auu, all im Altsächsischen: Ver
such einer strukturell-phonetischen Analyse". Kwartalnik Neofilologiczny 21:
1.5-13.
1975a. "Zur Theorie der konfrontativen Sprachwissenschaft". Glottodidactica
7.3-9.
1975b. Kybernetische Modelle der sprachlichen Kommunikation. Wrocław-War-
szawa-Kraków-Gdañsk: Ossolineum.
1976. "O tak zwanych 'studiach kontrastywnych': Problem językoznawstwa
konfrontatywnego". Lingua Posnaniensis 19.9-29.
1980. U podstaw struktury i rozwoju języka [At the foundation of language
structure and development]. Edited by Jerzy Bańczerowski with a Foreword by
Władyslaw Kuraszkiewicz & Jerzy Bańczerowski. Warszawa & Poznan: Państ-
Z HISTORII JĘZYKOZNAWSTWA W POLSCE
STRESZCZENIA
1. "Rozwój językoznawstwa ogónego w historii nauk o języku w Polsce"

(Zdzislaw Wąsik)
Przedmiotem niniejszej pracy jest wkiad polskich językoznawców do roz-
woju jçzykoznawstwa ogólnego od lat 70-tych dziewiętnastego vvieku do lat
70-tych wieku dwudziestego. Na tle spuścizny naukowego jçzykoznawstwa
europejskiego tych czasów w perspektywie epistemologicznej, zanalizowane
zostało dziedzictwo nauczycieli akademickich przeszłości, którzy rozwijali
swoje wlasne propozycje teorii jçzyka. Podział na poszczególne okresy roz-
woju uwzględnia nie tyłko uwarunkowania polityczne, które przyczyniły się
do powstania osrodków lingwistycznych, ale takze profesjonalne punkty
zwrotne poszczególnych językoznawców, które charakteryzowaly ich nau-
kowe zyciorysy poprzez daty ich publikacji lub daty zajmowania stanowisk
na uniwersytetach.
2. "Zródia i rozwój jçzykoznawstwa stosowanego w Polsce" (Franciszek

Grucza)
Chociaz stosowane aspekty nauki o jçzyku były obecne od najstarszych
czasów, historia swiadomego (naukowego) oddzielenia jçzykoznawstwa sto
sowanego od jçzykoznawstwa 'czystego' ma dopiero ok. 200 lat. Podzial taki
zostal najpierw wprowadzony przez niemieckiego uczonego A. F. Bern-
hardiego w 1801, a w Polsce przez J. Baudouina de Courtenay w 1870. Języ-
koznawstwo stosowane stało się dyscypliną bardzo zlozoną; z jednej strony
poprzez rozwiniçcie takich galęzi jak jçzykoznawstwo kontrastywne, głoto-
dydaktyka i translatoryka, a z drugiej strony, rozwijając w kazdej z tych sub-
dyscyplin tak badania podstawowe, jak i ich odpowiedniki stosowane. Arty-
kuł niniejszy przedstawia rozwój historyczny i podstawy wszystkich tych as-
pektów w Polsce.
3. "Leksykografia w Polsce: Wczesne początki - 1997" (Tadeusz Piotrowski)

Artykuł omawia dzieje leksykografii polskiej oraz najwazniejsze słowniki
jçzyka polskiego od początków, od wieku XV, do roku 1997. Przedstawiane
314 POLISH SUMMARIES
Są, przede wszystkim siowniki jednojęzyczne, zas dwu- i wielojęzyczne tylko

wówczas, gdy odegrały istotną. rolę, w rozwoju slowników jednojęzycznych.
Uwypuklona jest takze ciąglość rozwojowa pewnych tendencji, z których w
dziejach slownikarstwa polskiego najwazniejsza to zagadnienie normatywi-
zmu oraz liberalizmu. Poszczególne siowniki przedstawiane są na szerokim
tle kulturowym. Omawia się takze rozwój technik leksykograficznych stoso-
wanych do opisu materiału językowego. Wiele miejsca poświęcono sytuacji
po 1990 roku (po odzyskaniu niezawisłosci Polski), gdy takze w wydawnict-
wach słownikowych przywracane są, mechanizmy rynkowe. Autor omawia
zalety i wady obecnego pro-rynkowego nastawienia wydawców oraz podej-
muje probę, okreslenia najblizszej przyszlosci leksykografii w Polsce.
4. "Dialektologia w Polsce, 1873-1997" (Stanislaw Gogolewski)

Powstanie i pierwszy etap rozwoju polskiej dialektologii wiązą się z ru-
chem młodogramatyków. W roku 1873 Lucjan Malinowski (1839-1898)
opublikowal w Lipsku pierwszy naukowy opis gwary polskiej. Uczen Mali-
nowskiego (1839-1898) — Kazimierz Nitsch (1874-1958) objął swymi ba-
daniami cały obszar polszczyzny, a w roku 1915 opublikowal pierwszą syn-
tezę Dialekty języka polskiego, W okresie międzywojennym i później pow-
stało kilkadziesiąt opisów gwar pojedynczych wsi i większych regionów. W
roku 1973 ukazalo się nowe syntetyczne opracowanie przedmiotu Dialekty
polskie Karola Dejny (n.1911). Powstaly atlasy geolingwistyczne poszczegól-
nych dialektów, wyszedl tez obejmujący caly obszar kraju Mały atlas gwar
polskich. Wydano szereg slownikow dialektalnych, trwają prace nad obszer-
nym Słownikiem gwar polskich. Rozwija się specjalna dziedzina badan —
dialektologia historyczna, badająca problemy udzialu oddzielnych gwar w
kształtowaniu się ogólnonarodowej, literackiej polszczyzny.
5. "Onomastyka w Polsce: Od początków wieku XIX-go do czasów współ-

czesnych" (Sławomir Gala)
Treścią artykułu jest onomastyka jako dział jçzykoznawstwa, jej przed-
miot, zakres badań, metodología badawcza oraz relacje między tym a innymi
dzial ami jçzykoznawstwa, takimi jak: historia języka, dialektologia, a takze
innymi naukami, np. historią. W drugiej części przedstawiono periodyzację
badan onomastycznych w porządku chronologicznym. Ukazano systematycz-
ny rozwój tej dyscypliny badawczej, egzemplifikując ten rozwój przykladami
bibliografieznymi oraz przytoczeniem najwazniejszych organizacji i insty-
tucji naukowych. Istotą rozwoju jakosciowego onomastyki polskiej jest
podejmowanie coraz to nowych tematów badawczych, swiadczących o po-
STRESZCZENIA POLSKIE 315
szerzaniu zakresu badawczego o nowe klasy znaków mowy, uznawane za

nomina propria oraz podejmowanie problematyki teoretycznej — miejsca i
funkcji nazw wlasnych w systemie języka. Omówienie zakończono postula-
tami badawczymi.
6. "Wklad Jana Baudouina de Courtenay do jçzykoznawstwa ogólnego"

(Arleta Adamska-Salaciak)
Wklad Jana Baudouina de Courtenay (1845-1929) do jçzykoznawstwa
teoretycznego pozostaje trudny do oszacowania. Nie stworzył on nigdy syn-
tetycznego dziela, a wiçkszości jego prac nie przetlumaczono dotąd na język
angielski. Mimo to, glównie za sprawą. Jakobsona, jego wpiyw na rozwój fo-
nologii jest ogólnie znany. Zdecydowanie mniejsza jest wśród językoznaw-
ców świadomość wagi prac Baudouina poświçconych zmianie językowej.
Jego poglądy na istotę zmiany, jej przyczyny i cele oraz na rolę, jaką odgry-
wa w niej system jçzyka, mają dla dzisiejszego językoznawcy nie tylko his-
toryczne znaczenie.
7. "Mikolaj Kruszewski a językoznawstwo dwudziestego wieku" (Fedor

M. Berezin)
Mikolaj Kruszewski (1851-1887) był, obok Jana Baudouina de Courte
nay, jednym z prekursorów strukturalizmu. U podstaw jego teorii lezy twier-
dzenie, iz język to system, a raczej system systemów i to w zakresie struktur,
jak i relacji. Swoje poglądy zawarl w szeregu waznych prac, takich jak Zarys
nauki o języku czy Szkice językoznawcze. Za szczególnie wazne osiągniçcia
uznane zostały: jego teorie o alternacji dzwiçkowej oraz prawa: asymilacji
morfologicznej, i apokopy rdzenia na korzysc sufiksu, a takze prawo asocja-
cji na podstawie stycznosci (relacje syntagmatyczne) i prawo asocjacji na
podstawie podobieñstwa (relacje paradygmatyczne). Te dwa ostatnie prawa
wyjasniają zmiany w jçzyku jako systemie o charakterze psychologicznym.
Mimo tych szerokich i rewolucyjnych pogląydow, jçzyk w jego ujçciu ograni-
czał się do planu morfologicznego, do morfologii wyrazu, ale w tym zakresie
Kruszewski dal wyczepują.cy opis znaczenia pojedynczych morfemów, jak i
wzajemnych relacji między morfemami.
8. "O głównych koncepcjach jçzykoznawczych Mikolaja Rudnickiego"

(Jerzy Bańczerowski)
Artykul jest próbą interpretacji poglądów Rudnickiego w kategoriach
współczesnego jçzykoznawstwa. Jçzyk jest formą świadomosci (cf. 'kompe-
tencja językowa') rozumianej jako wiedza językowa — w istocie forma poz-
316 POLISH SUMMARIES
nania. Świadomość językowa jest świadomością danej wspólnoty komunika-

tywnej i ma swoje odbicie w jednostkowej swiadomosci jçzykowej. Funda-
mentalne w takiej koncepcji sąwyobrazenia reprodukujące i reprodukowane.
Wyobrazenia reprodukowane są, indywidualnymi, konkretnymi obiektami w
formie artykulacyjnej i akustycznej. Wyobrazenia reprodukujące to obiekty
istniejące w swiadomosci jçzykowej. Wykonanie jçzykowe ('language per
formance') jest zbiorem niezliczonych aktów reprodukcji jçzykowej charak-
teryzującej się pewnym paralelizmem psychofizjologicznym — iancuch wyo-
brazeń przesuwa się w swiadomosci, a odpowiada mu iańcuch ruchów na-
rządów mowy. Język jest podatny na zmiany historyczne rozumiane jako
mutabilnosc swiadomosci jçzykowej. Rudnicki próbował sformulowac prawa
asymilacji, dysymilacji, metatezy i palatalizacji, które są. jedynie róznymi
manifestacjami sil identyfikacji-dyferencjacji dziaiających jako causa movens
w przestrzeni wyobrazeń językowych. Rudnicki rozwinął dwa typy fonetyki
strukturalnej: artykulacyjna i audytywną., a takze teorię diakryzy i fonologii w
zaawansowanej formie.
9. "Jerzy Kuryiowicz jako indeoeuropeista i teoretyk jçzyka" (Wojciech

Smoczyński)
Kuryiowicz był niewątpliwie jednym z najwiçkszych polskich języko-
znawców. Był poliglotą (angielski, francuski, niemiecki, wloski, hiszpański,
portugalski, rosyjski, arabski, perski, i kilka innych), ale przede wszystkim
interesowal się strukturą języka i jego mechanizmami. Studiowal u najwiçk
szych uczonych swoich czasów (Meillet, Vendryes, Cohen), ale wypracowal
wlasną. metodologię i teorie. Jego glówne osiągniçcia były związane z indo-
europejskim i teorią języka, i to we wszystkich obszarach — fonologii, mor-
fologii i skladni. Jedno z jego wielkich dzieł Etudes indo-européennes zostalo
okreslone jako 'teoretyczny zarys strukturalnej podstawy gramatyki indo-
europejskiej'. Ale pracą, która przyniosla mu sławç była teoría laryngalna.
10. "Aspekty lingwistycznego swiata Ludwika Zabrockiego" (Jerzy Bań-

czerowski)
Szerokie zainteresowania Zabrockiego obejmują jçzykoznawstwo ogólne,
jçzykoznawstwo porównawcze (historyczne, typologiczne, kontrastywne,
konfrontatywne), psycho- i socjolingwistykç, jçzykoznawstwo cybemetycz-
ne, jçzykoznawstwo indoeuropejskie i jçzykoznawstwo stosowane (glotto-
dydaktykç). Jego oryginalny wkład to przede wszystkim kodematyka lin-
gwistyczna, synchroniczna i diachroniczna fonetyka strukturalna, diakry-
tologia, wspólnoty komunikatywne i jçzykowe, aspekty porównania jçzykow,
STRESZCZENIA POLSKIE 317
cybernetyczne systemy komunikacji jçzykowej. Pojçcie kodu pozwoliio

Zabrockiemu uchwycic dynamiczny aspekt jçzyka i komunikacji jçzykowej.
Procesy dzwiçkowe dzielil na czysto fonetyczne (uniwersalne) oraz inicjo-
wane i kontrolowane przez poszczególne systemy fonologiczne. Zabrocki byi
pierwszym, który stworzył caiosciową teorię wspólnot komunikatywnych i
jçzykowych. Wspólnota jçzykowa jest wspólnotą komunikatywną, która uzy-
wa jednolitego srodka komunikacji, tzn. wspólnego jçzyka. Kazda wspólnota
jçzykowa jest wspólnotą. komunikatywną, ale nie odwrotnie. Cybernetykę
definiował Zabrocki jako naukę o abstrakcyjnych optymalnych systemach
informacyjnych. W jçzykoznawstwie cybemetyka ma istotne znaczenie w
jçzykoznawstwie ogólnym, psycholingwistyce, socjolingwistyce, a takze w
glotodydaktyce i metodologii nauczania jçzyka.
INDEX OF AUTHORS*
A.
Adamska-Saiaciak, Arleta (b.1957): 87, 180
xiii, 17, 20, 105, 175-208 Benveniste, Emile (1902-1976): 263,
Ajdukiewicz, Kazimierz (1890-1963): 267, 267, 269
xi Berezin, Fedor Mixajlovic (b.1930):
Aleksandrov, Aleksandr Ivanovic xiv, 200, 209-231
(1861-1917): 212 Bernhardi, August Friedrich (1769-
Ammer, Karl (1911-1970): 261 1820): xi, 54
Andersen, Henning (b.1934): 194, Best, Karl-Heinz (b.1943): 263
199, 202 Besta, Theodor (1920-1996): 178/2
Antkowiak, Zygmunt: 161 Blatt, Gerson (1858-1916): 20
Anttila, Raimo (b.1935): 197 Blicharski, Michał: 73
Arabski, Janusz (b.1939): 81 Bloch, Jules (1880-1953): 256
Arct, Michal (1840-1916): 111 Bloomfield, Leonard (1887-1949):
Ascoli, Graziado Isaia (1829-1907): 34
179 Bogorodickij, Vasilij Alekseevic
(1857-1941): 179, 212, 218
B. Bopp, Franz (1791-1867): 3, 4
Bagnicka, Romualda: 179 Borek, Henryk (1929-1986): 150,
Bąk, Stanisiaw (1900-1981): 130, 132 157, 160, 162
Bally, Charles (1865-1947): 29 Bréal, Michel (1832-1915): 179
Banaczkowski, Piotr: 158 Breza, Edward (b.1932): 160, 161
Bańczerowski, Jerzy (b.1938): x, xiv, Brocki, Zygmunt (1922-1982): 87,
xv, 15, 28, 66, 67, 69, 232-254, 273- 161, 253/7
312 Brückner, Aleksander (1856-1939):
Bandtk(i)e, Jerzy Samuel (alias Georg 112, 138, 154, 189, 219
Samuel, 1768-1835): 104, 105, 106 Brugmann, Karl (1849-1919): 181,
Bartoszewicz, Lidia : 77 189, 209, 213, 219, 165n
Basara, Anna (b.1931): 132, 137 Bubak, Jozef (1934-1999): 150
Basara, Jan (b.1929): 132 Buczyñski, Mieczyslaw: 160
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan (Nieci- Bühler, Karl (Ludwig, 1879-1963):
sław, 1845-1929): ix, x, xi, xii, xiii, 34, 36, 266n
4, 5, 6, 7-8, 9, 10, 14, 16-23, 33, 55- Bujak, Franciszek (1875-1953): 154
59, 61n, 67, 70, 71, 125, 154, 175- Bukowcowa, Zofia: 102
202, 209, 210, 212, 218, 221, 224n, Bulič, Sergej Konstantinovic (1859—
229, 166, 273 1921): 176n, 179, 212
Bazell, C(harles) E(rnest, 1909-1984): Burszta, Jozef (b. 1914): 141
263 Bystroń, Jan Stanisiaw (1892-1964):
Benni, Tytus (1877-1935): 64, 85, 86, 125, 157
* This index does not cover bibliographies appended to each chapter. Major discussions of
the work of individual scholars are given in bold print; contributions are in italics.
320 INDEX OF AUTHORS
c.
Calepino, Ambrogio (c. 1435-1511): Durkheim, Émile (1858-1917): 12,
103 31
Catford, John C. ("Ian", b.1917): Dybowski, Roman (1883-1945): 63
61« Dzikowski, Wladyslaw: 161
Cegielski, Hipolit (1815-1869): 4, 5
Chantraine, Pierre-Louis (1899— E.
1974): 263 Erdman(n), Edmund (1877-1936):
Chniura-Klekotowa, Maria (1935- 62
1976): 180« Estienne, Henri (1528-1598): 103
Chomicz-Jung, Krystyna : 77 Estienne, Robert (1503-1559): 103
Chomsky, Noam (b.1928): xvi
Ciesielska-Borkowska, S.: 62 F.
Ciesla, Michai (b.1907): 62, 63 Famincyn, Andrej Sergeevic (1835-
Cieślikowa, Aleksandra (b.1936): 160 1918): 221
Cikobava, Arnol'd Stepanovic (1898— Ferguson, Charles A. (1927-1998):
1985): 183 61
Cohen, Marcel (1884-1974): xv, 256 Figarski, Wiadyslaw: 81
Coseriu, Eugenio (b.1921): 72 Fisiak, Jacek (b.1936): 9, 67, 71, 72-
Cowgill, Warren C(rawford, 1929- 73, 74, 75
1985): 264 Fortunatov, Filipp Fedorovic (1848—
Cuny, Albert (1869-1947): 267, 268 1914): 7
Cygan, Jan: 71 Fourquet, Jean (b.1899): 263
Czerny, Zygmunt (1888-1975): 65 Fries, Charles Carpenter (1887-1967
Czochralski, Jan: 71, 72 60
Furdal, Antoni (b.1928): 15, 162
D.
Dąbrowka, Andrzej: 117 G.
Dakowska, Maria: 79, 81, 82, 83 Gajda, Stanislaw: 88
Dąmbska, Izydora (1904-1983): xi Gala, Sławomir (b.1945): xiii, 147-
Darwin, Charles (1809-1881): 221 172
Deese, James E(earle, b.1928): 225 Galle, Henryk (1872-1948): 111n
Dejna, Karol (b.1911): xii, 132, 134, Gawroñski, Andrzej (1885-1927): 7,
140, 141, 151-152, 153, 155 9, 10, 11, 12,28-29, 65, 256
Delbrück, Bertold (1842-1922): 24, Gelb, Ignace Jay (1907-1985): 263
183«, 199 Geller, Ewa: 117
Dluska, Maria (1900-1992): 85 Gliñski, J[ozef?]: 111n
Dobrzański, Zdzislaw : 85, 87 Gloger, Zygmunt (1845-1910): 154
Doroszewski, Witold (1899-1976): Goczoiowa, Zofia: 81
xiii, 12, 13,31-33,70, 101, 102, Godel, Robert (1902-1984): 16
113-114, 136, 137, 158 Gogolewski, Stanisiaw (b.1939): xii,
Duden, Konrad (1829-1911): 111 123-146
Dufriche-Desgenettes, A. (1804- Gołąb, Zbigniew (1923-1994): 15,
1878): 187« 260
Dukiewiczowa, Leokadia: 86 Golębiowska, Teresa (b.1939): 150,
Dunaj, Bogusław: 117 157, 160
INDEX OF AUTHORS 321
Górnowicz, Hubert (1922-1986): Hoenigswald, Henry M. (b.1915):

157, 159, 160, 161, 162 266«
Górski, Konrad (1895-1990): 115 Horálek, Karel (1908-1992): 21
Gottlieb, Wojciech: 62 Horodyska-Gadkowska, Haiina: 141
Grabias, Stanislaw: 85 Hrabec, Stefan (1912-1972): 115,
Grabowska, L. & Malgorzata: 87 156
Grabowski, Zygmunt: 87 Humboldt, Wilhelm von (1767-
Grala, Maria: 81 1835): 22
Grece-Dąbrowska, Claire: 260
Greenberg, Joseph H(arold, 1915— I.
2000): 264 Ingarden, Roman (1893-1970): x
Grimm, Jacob (1785-1863): 3 Ippoldt, Juliusz (1867-1960): 62, 63
Grucza, Franciszek (b.1937): x. xi. 15, Ipsen, Gunther (1899-1984): 224
53-99 Ivanov, Vjaceslav Vs(evolodovic,
Gruszczyński, Wlodzimierz (b.1953): b.1929): 264
113 Ivic, Milka (b.1921): 32
Grzebieniowski, Tadeusz (1894— Iwan, Krystyna: 63
1973): 63
Grzegorczyk, Pior: 102 J.
Grzegorek-Lipińska, Maria, see Jagic, Vatroslav (1838-1923): 213,
Lipiñska-Grzegorek, Maria 219
Grzeszczuk, Stanislaw (b.1934): 160 Jakobson, Roman (Osipovic, 1896—
1982): xiii, xiv, 5, 7, 14, 16, 18, 20,
H. 23, 53, 136, 176n, 184, 186, 187n,
Häusler, Frank (b.1930): 175n, 176n 190, 191, 224, 227-228, 229, 263
Halicka, Irena (d.1985): 161 Janicki, Karol: 72
Halle, Morris (b.1923): 263 Jassem, Wiktor (b.1922): 85, 86
Hamp, Eric P(ratt, b.1920): 263n Jerzykowski, Antoni (1821-1889):
Handke, Kwiryna (b.1932): 15, 38, 111
73,78, 135, 160 Jodlowski, Stanislaw (1902-1978): 64,
Hanusz, Jan (1858-1887): 154 86
Haugen, Einar (1906-1994): 53 Jungmann, Josef (1773-1847): 106
Hausenblas, Karel: 88
Havet, Louis (1849-1925): 179, 187/?, K.
219 Kaczmarek, Leon (1911-1996): 67.
Heinz, Adam (1914-1984): x, xiii, 15, 84-85
21, 34, 70, 255«, 260, 261, 265«, Kalisz, Roman: 72
266« Kamińska, Maria (b.1930): 157
Helsztyñski, Stanislaw (1891-1986): Kania, Jozef (Tadeusz, 1937-1974):
63 85, 102
Herbart, Johann Friedrich (1776— Karas, Mieczyslaw (1924-1977): 116,
1841): 183« 136, 140, 142, 143, 150, 155, 159,
Hirt, Herman (1865-1936): 265« 160
Hjelmslev, Louis (1889-1965): xiv, Karlowicz, Jan (1836-1903): 29, 64,
34, 258 102, 108, 110, 114, 142, 153, 154,
Hock, Hans Henrich (b.1938): 263« 213
Karpluk, Maria (b.1925): 115, 155 18-21, 179, 180, 186, 187, 189, 190.
Kątny, Andrzej: 73, 74 201,204-229
Keller, Rudi {alias Rudolf, b.1942): Kryński, Adam Antoni (1844-1932):
201, 202 29, 108, 153
Kęsikowa, Urszula (b.1939): 161 Krysztofiak, Maria: 83
Kętrzyński, Stanislaw (1876-1950): Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. (b.1939): 71,
157 74
Kielar, Barbara Z. (b.1930): 77, 82, Kucaia, Marian (b.1927): 73, 102,
83, 84, 88 142, 158, 162
Kieiczewska, Maria ( Kuczyński, K. A.: 63
Kielski, Boleslaw (1879-1965): 62, 71 Kuhn, Adalbert (1812-1881): 178
Kilbury, James S. (b.1949): 189, 214 Kupiszewski, Wladyslaw (b.1930): 161
Klausenburger, Jurgen (b.1942): 189 Kurylowicz, Jerzy (1895-1978): x,
Kleczkowski, Adam (1883-1949): xiv, xv, 12, 13, 33-35, 1623, 225,
61-62, 259 255-269
Knapski, Grzegorz (Gregorius Kurzowa, Zofia (b.1931): 160
Cnapius, c. 1564-1639): 103, 104, Kwiatkowski, Stefan (1878-1940): 62
106, 108, 113
Kochanowski, Jan (1530-1584): 106 L.
Koerner, E(mst) F(rideryk) Konrad Lado, Robert (1915-1995): 60
(b.1939): ix, xivn, 175«, 176/z, 200, Lam, Stanislaw (1891-1965): 112
214 Larin, Boris Aleksandrovic (1893—
Kolmaczewski, Leonard (Leonard 1964): 214
Zenonovic Kolmacevskij, 1850- Leder, Albert {alias Andrzej): 62
1889): 8, 21 Lehr-Splawiñski, Tadeusz (1891—
Kolosov, Mitrofan Alekseevic (1832— 1965): 25, 138, 153, 157, 259
1891): 210 Łempicki, Zygmunt (1886-1943): 63
Komorowska, Hanna (b.1940): 80 Lencek, Rado L.: 186/?
Koneczna, Halina: 85 Leont'ev, Aleksej Alekseevic
Kondratiuk, Michal (b.1934): 161 (b.1936): 175/2, 183, 212, 213
Kopaliński, Wladyslaw (b.1907): 112 Leskien, August (1840-1916): 5, 29,
Kopczynski, Onufry {alias Andrzej, 124, 178, 179, 181
1735-1817): 3, 106 Łesiów, Michal (b.1928): 161
Kopertowska, Danuta (b.1935): 161 Lesniewski, Stanisląw (1886-1939): x,
Korbut, Gabrjel (1862-1934): 176n xi
Kosyl, Czesiaw (b.1943): 160, 162 Lewandowski, Jan: 77, 84
Kotarbiński, Tadeusz (1886-1981): x, Lewicki, Andrzej Maria (b.1934): 15
xi Leyding-Mielecki, Gustaw (junior,
Kowalik-Kaleta, Zofia: 160 1899-1974): 157
Kowalski, Tadeusz (1889-1948): 259 Linde, Samuel Bogumil {originally:
Kozierowski, Stanislaw (1874-1949): Gottlieb, 1771-1841): 102, 105,
155 106, 107, 108-110
Kozlowska, Zofia: 73, 84 Lindeman, Fredrik Otto (b.1936):
Kruszewski, Mikolaj (Habdank, 1851- 269;n
1887): x, xiii, xiv, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14, 16, Lipińska-Grzegorek, Maria: 72, 74
Lloyd, Richard J(ohn, 1846-1906): Meringer, Rudolf (1869-1931): 189

189 Mescaninov, Ivan Ivanovic (1883—
Lockhart, Leonora: 61n 1967): 258n
Lorentz, Friedrich (1870-1937): 129- Michalewski, Kazimierz: 150, 162
130 Mickiewicz, Adam (1798-1855): 115
Los, Jan Nepomucen (1860-1928): Miemietz, Bärbel: 73
65, 138, 154, 259 Mierzejewska, Halina: 85
Lubas, Władysiaw (b.1932): 157, 161, Miklosich, Franz von {alias Fran
162 Miklosic, 1813-1891): 155
Lukasiewicz, Jan (1878-1956): xi Milewski, Tadeusz (1906-1966): xii,
Lukszyn, Jurij: 89 13, 14, 35-37, 39, 138, 153, 156,
Luther, Martin (1483-1546): 137 158, 302
Mill, John Stuart (1806-1873): 220,
M. 223, 224
Mączyński, Jan (Ioannes Maczinsky, Möller (M0ller), Hermann (1850-
C.1520-C.1587): 103, 105, 108 1923): 268
Mączyński, Jan (b.1936): 160 Morciniec, Norbert (b.1932): 86
Mączyński, Piotr (16th cent.): 103 Moser, Hugo (1909-1989): 72
Malachowska, Ewelina: 55, 176« Moszyski, Kazimierz (1887-1959):
Malee, Maria (b.1928): 160 153, 154
Malecki, Mieczyslaw (1903-1946): Moulton, William Gamwell (1914-
131, 140 2000): 61
Malinowski, Bronisław (1884-1942): Mrongowiusz, Krzysztof Celestyn
11 {alias Christoph Cölestin Mron-
Malinowski, Lucyjan (1839-1898): govius, 1764-1855): 104, 108
xii, 123, 124, 125, 129, 135, 154 Mrózek, Robert (b.1942): 161
Manczak, Witold (b.1924): 25. 26, Mugdan, Joachim (b.1951): 175«,
162, 260, 261, 269n 176«, 183
Mandeville, Bernard de (c. 1670- Muka, Arnost (1854-1932): 178«
1733): 201 Murmelius, Jo(h)annes {alias Jan
Marciniak, Stanislaw: 87 Murmel or Myrmeling, 1479-
Marr, Nikolaj Jakovlevic (1865— 1527): 102
1934): 257, 258n Myczko, Kazimiera: 81
Martinet, André (1908-1999): 197 Mymer, Franciszek (Francisus Myme-
Marton, Waldemar (b.1932): 72, 80 rus, c.\5M-post 1564): 102
Marty, Anton (1847-1914): 12
Maruszewski, Mariusz: 85 N.
Matuszewski, Jozef (b.1911): 160 Nagucka, Ruta (Sikorzanka, b.1930):
Mayenowa, Maria Renata (1910— 260
1988): 114 Niedzwiedzki, Wladysiaw (1849-
Mayrhofer, Manfred (b.1926): 264n, 1930): 64, 108, 153
267n, 269ą Nitsch, Kazimierz (1874-1958): xii,
Mazur, Marian: 88 61, 123, 125-129, 130, 140, 142,
Meillet, Antoine (1866-1936): xv, 26, 156, 158, 176«, 180, 254
219, 256, 267 Nowicki, Witold: 88
O.
Olmsted, David Lockwood (b.l926): Porzig, Walter (1895-1961): 224
9, 184 Potebnja, A(leksandr) A(fanas'evič =
Osthoff, Hermann (1847-1909): 209, Oleksandr Opanasovyč P., 1835-
213 1891): 210, 212
Otrębski, Jan (1889-1971): 154, 157 Prędota, Stanislaw (d.l944): 86
Ozdzynski, Jan (b.1941): 161 Przetacznikowa, Maria: 85
Puzynina, Jadwiga (b.l928): 103
P.
Passy, Paul-Édouard (1859-1940): R.
191 Radiov, Vasilij Vasil'evič {alias
Paul, Hermann (1846-1921): 213 Wilhelm Radioff, 1837-1918): 179,
Pawłowski, Eugeniusz (1902-1986): 189, 212
114, 157, 161 Radwañska-Williams, Joanna: x, xiv,
Pedersen, Holger (1867-1953): x, 210, 213, 217, 222, 226, 227, 228,
182 229
Pelc, Jerzy (b.1924): v Ramult, Stefan (1859-1913): 129
Pfeiffer, Waldemar (b.1938): 67, 78, Reichan, Jerzy (b.1929): 116, 142
79, 80 Renou, Louis (1896-1966): 263
Piekosiñski, Francíszek Ksawery Reszkiewicz, Alfred (1920-1973):
(1844-1906): 154 260
Pionnier, L.: 62 Reychman, Jan (Antoni Waclaw,
Piotrowski, Tadeusz (b.1957): xii, 1910-1975): ix
101-122 Rieger, Janusz (b.1934): 73, 85, 155,
Pisani, Vittore (1899-1990): 266n 161
Pisarkowa, Krystyna (b.1932): 161 Rittel, Teodozja (b.1938): 81
Plezia, Marian (1917-1996): ix, 102 Rix, Helmut (b.1926): 269n
Płociñska, Barbara: 73 Rokoszowa, Jolanda (1944-1997): 25
Pobozniak, Tadeusz (b. 1910-1990): Roques, Mario (1875-1961): 256
260 Rospond, Stanislaw (1906-1982):
Pogonowski, Jerzy (b.1951): 15 150, 153, 156, 157, 158, 160
Polański, Kazimierz (b.1929): 15, 148 Rothstein, Robert A. (b. c.1935): 86,
Polivanov, Evgenij Dmitrievic (1891— 184
1938): 214 Rozwadowski, Jan (Michai, alias
Pomorska, Krystyna (1928-1986): Johannes von Rozwadowski, 1867-
228 1935): x, xiii, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
Poplawski, Jan (1819-1885): 4-5 24-27, 87, 153, 154, 155, 175n
Popov, Aleksandr Vasil'evic (1855- Rudnicki, Mikolaj (1881-1978): xiv-
1880): 212 xv, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 27-28, 138, 155,
Popowska-Taborska, Hanna (b.1930): 157, 232-253
141 Rudzka(-Ostyn), Brygida (1939-
Porębowicz, Edward (1862-1937): 1997): 81
256/i Rusek, Jerzy (b.1930): 176/2, 255n
Porzeziński, Jan Wiktor {alias Viktor Rymut, Kazimierz (b.1935): 153, 157,
Karlovič Požezinskij, 1870-1929): 160
5, 7, 10, 23-24, 29 Rvmsza-Zalewska. Danuta: 102
Rzetelska-Feleszko, Ewa (b.l932): 15, Smoczyński, Pawei (1914-1979): 89,

38, 135, 161 150, 162
Smoczyñski, Wojciech: x, xv, 255-271
S. Smogorzewski, Zygmunt (1884—
Sadownik, Barbara: 74, 79 1931): 256
Safarewicz, Jan (1904-1992): x, 10, Sobierajski, Zenon (b.1917): 141
35, 155, 255/2, 259 Spang-Hanssen, Henning: 268/7
Sapir, Edward (1884-1939): 190, Sreznevskij, Izmail Ivanovic (1812—
266n 1880): 178, 179
Saradzanidze, Tinatin (1906-1982): Śródka, Andrzej: ix
175n, 176/7 Stachurski, Edward (b.1942): 176/7
Saussure, Ferdinand de (1857-1913): Stalin, Josef (1879-1953): 258
5, 12, 14,29, 31, 33,34,36, 135, Stadtmüller, K.: 87
148, 179, 185, 187/7, 209, 215, 222, Stanislawski, Jan: 71
229, 264, 266, 268, 269 Stankiewicz, Edward (b.l920): 55,
Śčerba, Lev Vladimirovic (1880— 102, 136, 176/7
1944): 181, 214 Stasiak, Halina: 81
Scherer, Wilhelm (1841-1886): 5, 19, Steffen, Maria: 86
192 Steinthal, Heymann (1823-1899): 12
Schleicher, August (1821-1868): xi, Steuer, Feliks (fl. 1934-1937): 130
xiii, 5, 56n, 124, 178, 182, 192 Stieber, Zdzislaw (1903-1980): 37,
Schooneveld, Cornelis Hendrik van 86, 87, 130-131, 132-134, 141
(b.1921): 9 Stone, Gerald (b.1932): 184
Schorr, Mojzesz (1874-1943): 256 Streitberg, Wilhelm (1864-1925): 24
Schuchardt, Hugo (1842-1927): 11, Strutyñski, Janusz: 161
194 Strzetelski, Jerzy (1924-1994: 260
Secenov, Ivan Mixajlovic (1829— Strzyźewska-Zaremba, Alina: 141
1905): 221 Sturtevant, Edgar H(oward, 1875-
Seldeslachts, Herman (b.1959): 180/7 1952): 267
Sievers, Eduard (1850-1932): 29 Styczek, Irena: 85
Sikorzanka, Ruta, see Nagucka, Ruta Supranowicz, Elzbieta (b.1943): 161
Skalmowski, Wojciech (b.1934): 261 Surma, Genowefa (1944-1995): 161
Skorochód-Majewski, Walenty (1764- Sweet, Henry (1845-1912): 191
1835): 4 Swiderska, Halina (1899-1961): 130
Skorupka, Stanislaw (1906-1988): 85, Swiggers, Pierre (b.1955): 180/7
114 Sychta, Bernard (1907-1982): 116,
Skowronek, Barbara: 79, 81, 82 158
Skubalanka, Teresa: 88 Szczodrowski, Marian: 81
Siawiński, Fabian Ferdynand (1830— Szemerényi, Oswald (John Louis,
1903) 1913-1996): 268, 269/7
Slawski, Franciszek (1916-2001): Szober, Stanislaw (Jozef Leonard,
115, 153 1879-1938): 10, 12, 13, 23, 25, 29-
Sljusareva, Natalija Aleksandrovna 30,31, 138, 176/7, 180
(b.1918): 179n Szulc, Aleksander (b.1924): 67, 81,
Śmiech, Witold (1917-1991): 159 86
Smoczyñska, Magdalena: 176/7 Szumska, Urszula: 160
Szwedek, Aleksander (b.1940): 72 Vengerov, Semen Afanas'evič (1855-

Szymczak, Mieczysław (1927-1985): 1920): 10
73, 85, 87, 88, 142, 150 Vinogradov, Viktor Vladimirovič
(1895-1969): 176n
T. Vladimircov, Boris Jakovlevič (1884—
Trager, George Leonard (1909- 1931): 214
1992): 53 Voßler, Karl (1872-1949): 11
Treder, Jerzy: 161
Trenklerówna, K.: 62 W.
Trier, Jost (1894-1970): 224 Wagner, Philipp: 189
Troc, Michal Abraham (alias Michael Warchol, Stefan (b.1930): 157, 160,
Abraham Trotz; c.1689-1769): 161
104, 105 Wątsik, Zdzisław (b.1947): ix, x, xi, 3-
Troickij, Matvej Mixajlovič (1835- 51
Tarde, Gabriel (de, 1843-1904): 31 Watkins, Calvert (b.1933): 263, 264
Tarski, Alfred (1902-1983): xi, 53 Wawrzyńczyk, Jan (b.1944): 73
Taszycki, Witold (1898-1979): 29, Wedkiewicz, Stanislaw: 63
64, 138, 150, 151, 154, 156, 158 Weinsberg, Adam (1918-1992): 5, 9,
Timirjazev, Kliment Arkad'evič 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,20, 21,25,26
(1843-1920): 221 Weisgerber, Leo (1899-1985): 224
Tokarzówna, Krystyna: 102, 115 Wernic, Henryk (1829-1905): 111n
Tomaszewski, Adam (1895-1945): Whorf, Benjamin Lee (1897-1941):
130 60
1899): 220, 225 Wieczorkiewicz, Bronisiaw (1904-
Trubelzkoy, (Prince) Nikolaj 1974): 29
Sergeevic (1890-1938): 190, 266n Wierzchowska, Bozena: 85
Turczyn, Ryszard: 117 Wierzchowski, Józef (b. 1927): 25, 32
Twardowski, Kazimierz (1866-1938): Wilkoń, Aleksander (b.1935): 160
x Williams, Joanna Radwańska, see
Tymieniecki, Kazimierz (1887— Radwańska-Williams, Joanna
1968): 157 Windisch, Ernst (1843-1918): 175
Wojnicki, Stanislaw: 88
U. Wojtasiewicz, Olgierd (1916-1991):
Ufimceva, Anna Amfilof' evna: 225 14
Ulaszyn, Henryk (Kazimierz, 1874— Wójtowicz, Janina (b.1930): 132
1956): 156, 176n, 180, 273 Wolff, Adam: 161
Urbańczyk, Stanisiaw (b.1909): x, 73, Wolnicz-Pawlowska, Ewa: 160
102, 114, 132, 138, 153, 155, 157, Wozniakowski, Waldemar: 76
176n Wozniewicz, Wladyslaw: 80
Wundt, Wilhelm (1832-1920): 25,
V. 183/2
Vachek, Josef (1909-1996): 261
Vasmer, Max (1886-1962): 176/7, Z.
214 Zaborski, Andrzej: 269n
Vendryes, Joseph (1875-1960): xv, Zabrocki, Ludwik (1907-1977): xiv,
256 14,66-69,72,75,76,273-309
Zabrocki, Tadeusz (b.l948): 74 Zdanowicz, Aleksander (1808-1868):

Zadrożny, Jerzy: 158 108
Zagajewski, Karol: 62 Zdunska, Helena (b.1932): 132, 137
Zajączkowski, Stanislaw (1890-1977): Zgólka, Tadeusz (b.1945): 15
157 Zgólkowa, Halina (b.1947): 116
Zaręba, Alfred (1921-1988): 151, Ziemnowicz, Mieczyslaw: 62
162 Zierhoffer, Karol (b.1924): 157
Zarębina, Maria (b.1924): 85 Zwoliński, Przemyslaw (1914-1982):
Zawadowski, Leon (b.1914): xi, 14- 37, 123, 155, 157
15, 37-39, 258, 261 Zmudzki, Jerzy: 83
Zawadzka, Elżbieta: 81
Zawiliński, Roman (1855-1932): 124
ADDENDA: Further biodata not

referenced in the present volume:
A.
Abrahamowicz, Zygmunt (1923— Durich, Waclaw (1735-1802)
1990)
Andrzejewski, Bogumil Witalis F.
("Goosh", 1922-1994) Faber, Andrzej (fl. 1718-1733)
Arct, Stanislaw (1818-1900) Florczak, Zofia (1912-1996)
Arct, Stanislaw (1884-1963) Folejewski, Zbigniew (1910-1999)
Friedrich, Henryk (1908-1844)
B.
Bajerowa, Irena (b.1921) G.
Bartmiński, Jerzy (b.1939) Galas, Piotr (1888-1970?)
Bobek, Wladyslaw (1878-1942) Gansiniec, Ryszard (1888-1958)
Brajerski, Tadeusz (1913-1997) Gliński, Jozef (1817-1866)
Buttler, Danuta (1930-1991) Grabowski, Yvonne S. (1929-1989)
Bystroń, Jan (1860-1902) Grochowski, Maciej (b.1948)
C. J.
Cienkowski, Witold (d.1993) Jaworski, Michal (1921-1996)
Czekanowski, Jan (1882-1965) Jocher, Adam Benedykt (1791-1860)
Czezowski, Tadeusz Hipolit (1889— Jordan, Jan Petr (also Piotr, 1818—
1981) 1891)
D. K.
Dmochowski, Franciszek Krsawery Kamińska, Halina (1927-1992)
(1762-1808) Kania, Stanislaw (b. 1931)
Drobny, Wladyslaw (1900-1989) Kleiner, Juliusz (1886-1957)
Drzewiecki, Konrad Mieczyslaw Kliniek, Stanislaw (1903-1939)
(1871-1922)
Kolbuszewski, Stanisiaw Francizuk R.

(1933-1986) Rusiewicz, Zygmunt (1911-1954)
Kosciusko, Tadeusz (1746-1817)) Ruszkiewicz, Piotr (b.1946)
Kotarbińska, Janina (1901-1997) Rybicka-Nowaeka, Halina (1929-
Kridl, Manfred (1882-1957) 1992)
Kuraszkiewicz, Wladysław (1905—
1997) S.
Kuratowski, Kazimierz (1896-1980) Safarewiczowa, Halina (1904-1980)
Kurkowska, Halina (1922-1983) Satkiewicz, Halina (b.1928)
Semkowicz, Władysiaw (1878-1949)
M. Siudut, Andrzej (1922-1987)
Maciejewski, Jerzy (1923-1992) Sławiński, Fabian Ferdynand (1830-
Miłosz, Czesław (b.1911) 1903)
Miodunka, Wladysiaw (b.1945) Sławski, Franciszek (1916-2001)
Moszczeński, Stanislaw Nalęcz (1731- Stopa, Roman (1895-1995)
1790) Szaniawski, Klemens (1925-1990)
Moszyński, Leszek (b.1919) Szlifersztejnowa, Salomea (1912-
1994)
N.
Nagnajewicz, Marian (1911-1987) T.
Nehring, Władysław (1830-1909) Tatarkiewicz, Wladysiaw (1886-1980)
Nowak, Zbigniew Jerzy (1919-1993) Tokarski, Jan (1909-1982)
Tokarzóna, Krystyna (b.1927)
O. Trojański, Jan Kajetan (1796-1850)
Obrębska-Jabłońska, Antonina (1901— Turska, Halina (1901-1979)
1994)
Ortwin, Ostap {alias Oskar W.
Katzenellenbogen, 1876-1942) Walczak, Bogdan (b.1949)
Ossoliñski, Count Jozef Maksymilian Widajewicz, Jozef (1889-1954)
(1748-1826) Witwicki, Wladysiaw (1878-1948)
Ostrowska, Ewa (1907-1977 Wojciechowski, Tadeusz (1838-1919)
Wolniewicz, Boguslaw (b.1927)
P.
Pecold, Kazimierz (1930-1976) Z.
Pisarek, Walery (b.1931) Zagórski, Zygmunt (b.1926)
Przelęcki, Marian (b.1923) Zaleski, Jan (1926-1981)
Przybylski, Jaeek (1756-1819) Zawirski, Zygmunt (1882-1948)
Przyluski, Jan (1885-1944)
Puppel, Stanisław (b.1947)
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
A.
absorption borrowing, 184, 202
morphological-, 196, 197
accent, 18,237,241,242 C.
alternation, 9, 19, 171, 172, 173, 181, 182, cartography
193, 195, 242 geolinguistic~, 119
morphophonemic~, 195 cerebration, 179, 180, 181
neophonetic~, 171 chain
phonetic~, 21, 23, 171, 195, 242 acodal-, 253, 254, 255, 259, 260, 262,
sound~, 9, 164, 173, 193, 195, 206 267, 270
alternations codal~, 253, 254, 255
psychophonetic~, 171 code~, 253, 254, 255, 256, 260
analogy, 5, 8, 18, 19, 23, 35, 176, 182, sound~, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259,
185, 196, 202, 204, 230, 238, 273 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 266, 268,
analysis 270, 271
morphological~, 103, 207 chains
anthropologism, 11 code-, 254, 255, 256, 260
anthroponomastic, 137, 140, 141 change
anthroponymy, 137, 141, 143, 144 language-, 7, 159, 172, 176, 178, 182,
anthropophonic, 20, 173, 181, 193, 199, 184, 199, 212, 216, 217, 218, 224,
229 225, 227
antonyms, 104 phonetic-, 8, 23, 28, 172, 176, 178,
apocopy,196 195, 225, 229, 268
arbitrariness, 204, 212 semantic~, 184
articulation, 110, 111, 122, 179, 257, 258, sound~, 9, 24, 27, 171, 173, 175, 176,
259, 260, 268, 269 177, 183, 193, 199, 225, 226, 227,
assimilation, 28, 182, 195, 196, 202, 216, 262, 270
217, 218, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, channel
263, 270, 271 articulatory-kinesthetic~, 283
inflectional~, 196 information~, 281, 282, 283
morphological~, 195, 196 Chelminskiation, 218, 228
prefix~, 196 cipher, 255
suffix~, 196 circuit
association control~, 284
-by contiguity, 19, 201, 202, 203, 204 monitory~, 283, 284
-by similarity, 19, 180, 201, 202, 203, code, 201, 251, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257,
204, 206 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 284, 285
associationism, 8, 12, 167 ~symbol, 253, 254
atomism, 9, 39, 183 ~unit, 253, 254, 256
auditory analytic~, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 284,
~phonetics, 221 285
autonomism, 11 interlingual~, 255, 256
intralingual~, 256
B. language~, 251,253
base linguistic~, 201, 252, 253
word-, 13, 32 sentence~, 254
330 INDEX OF SUBJECTS
synthetic~, 256, 258, 259, 284, 285 diacritology, 252, 272, 274, 275
transformation~, 255, 256, 257 diacrits, 38
transposition~, 255, 256 dialect, 20, 23, 91, 93, 97, 98, 102, 103,
word-, 254 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113,
codematics, 252, 253, 257 115, 116, 117, 119, 120, 121, 125, 229
linguistic~, 252, 253 Bylak~, 110
codes folk~, 115
analytic~, 255, 256 Kashubian~, 110, 112
interlingual~, 255 Lekhitic~, 218, 228
intralingual~, 256 Slovincian~, 112, 113
synthetic~, 256, 285 transitional~, 114
transformation~, 255, 256 dialectology, 6, 24, 32, 106, 108, 110, 112,
coding, 206 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 125,
cognation, 22 126, 134, 158, 162
cohesion, 115 dialects
community ~of Kociewie, 124
communicative~, 275, 276, 277, 278 ~of Spisz, 124
language~, 212, 217, 225, 275, 276, dictionary
277 dialect~, 98
commutability, 11, 13 electronic~, 103
competence etymological~, 99
language~, 212 historical~, 92, 95, 101, 145
concord, 115 monolingual~, 88, 92, 100
confusivum, 272, 273, 274, 275 specialist~, 105
connotation, 131 synchronicV, 101
consciousness differentiation, 15, 28, 32, 117, 126, 139,
language~, 212, 213, 214, 215, 217, 215, 216, 217, 218, 220, 223, 227, 243,
218, 221, 223, 224, 225, 228, 230 265, 269, 278
constituent, 11, 17, 19, 23, 25, 30, 31, 65, diffusion
118, 254, 255, 256, 261, 262, 271, 272, phonetic~, 272, 273, 274
273 diffusionism
contamination, 226 convergent~, 8
contextualism, 12 diffusive
continuity ~type, 272, 273, 274
diachronic~, 215 diffusivum, 272, 274, 275
corpora, 104 diminutive, 138
crystallization, 13, 32, 35 diphthongization, 264
cybernetics, 282, 285
E.
D empiricism, 97, 198
denasalization, 263, 268, 270 energeia, 166
denucleation, 266 entropy
depalatalisation, 136 ~value, 281
derivation, 26, 32, 34, 37, 134 equivalence
lexical~, 34 translative~, 256
syntactic~, 34 ergon, 166
descriptivism, 197 ethnopsychology, 167
diachrony, 12, 17, 19, 35, 170, 204, 224, etymology, 18, 19, 24, 44, 99, 102, 109,
225, 238, 242, 262, 270 139,181, 182
diacrisis, 219, 220, 271, 272, 273, 274 evolutionism
INDEX OF SUBJECTS 331
divergent~, 8 I.
exceptionlessness, 178, 222, 225 iconicity, 181
idealism
F. aesthetic~, 11,29
factualism, 12 idiolects, 126
features idioms, 90, 92, 97
lexicographicV, 117 image
phonetic~, 109, 168, 220, 221, 223 phonic~, 215, 221
field reproductive~, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217,
~theory, 202 218, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228
metonymie~, 206 individualism, 9, 11, 39
formalism inflection, 19, 24, 26, 27, 93, 110, 118,
deductive~, 37 124, 131, 141, 195, 196,241,242
grammatical~, 12 inheritance, 202
formant, 132, 138, 140, 143, 144 innovation
formation abductive~, 183
word-, 25, 97, 115, 118, 124, 126, 132, deductive~, 183
134, 144, 195, 200 isomorphism, 35, 236, 238
fortition, 263, 264, 265, 270 isophone, 111
function
semiotic~, 205 J.
functionalism Jablonkovation, 228
inductive~, 37
fusion K.
~of phones, 228 Kashubiation, 218, 228
kinema, 175
G. knots
geography transformational~, 281, 282
linguistic~, 13, 123
glottodidactics, 49, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, L.
67,68,69,70, 252,281,283 language,
grammar ~community, 212, 217, 225, 275, 276.
categorial~, 15 277
comparative~, 4, 5, 58, 117, 162, 163, analytic~, 197
236, 242 Arabic, 164, 232
historical~, 108, 188 Armenian, 164, 233
universal~, 3 Celtic, 121, 163
guna, 19,193 Czech, 11, 91, 93, 109, 122, 139, 231,
267
H. East Franconian, 265
heteroarticulation, 269 Estonian, 164
heteronomism, 9 ethnic~, 259, 271,272
heterophony, 271,272 Finnish, 121
historicism, 9, 14, 118 French, 24, 26, 31, 48, 51, 55, 58, 68,
homoarticulation, 269 90, 91, 159, 232, 233, 235
homonymy, 180, 285 German, 5, 8, 9, 20, 21, 23, 26, 35, 41,
homophony, 271, 272 43,48,49,51,52, 53, 55, 58, 59,
hydronymy, 137, 138, 144 60, 61, 62, 68, 89, 91, 92, 98, 109,
hypotaxis, 115 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 120. 139,
164, 165, 171, 176, 183, 193, 197,
199, 200, 202, 206, 232, 233, 234, Russian, 5, 7, 18, 23, 42, 43, 48, 55,
241, 252, 255, 256, 265, 273, 274, 57, 58, 60, 67, 68, 93, 107, 109,
275, 280, 285 113, 114, 162, 163, 164, 165, 186,
Greek, 43, 90, 130, 232, 233 188, 190, 191, 192, 193, 195, 196,
Hebrew, 92, 101 198, 205, 232, 233, 236
High German, 120, 265 Sanskrit, 4, 5, 28, 162, 188, 233
Hungarian, 4, 7, 90, 162, 165, 232 Slovak, 109, 124
Indo-European, 4, 5, 7, 13, 19, 22, 24, Slovenian, 163, 191
26, 27, 28, 29, 34, 35, 39, 42, 107, Swedish, 92, 277
108, 117, 130, 137, 141, 158, 165, Turkish, 35, 236
188, 196, 197, 226, 233, 234, 235, Ukrainian, 109, 113, 122,234
241, 242, 243. 244, 245, 246. 252, West Polabian, 117
265 White Russian, 109, 113
Kashubian, 103, 108, 109, 110, 111, languages
112, 113, 116,117, 124, 125, 141 East-Slavonic, 75, 122
Latin, 43, 89, 90, 91, 95, 101, 121, Finno-Ugric, 265
196, 232, 266 Indo-European, 4, 5, 7, 13, 19, 22, 24,
Latvian, 91, 164 26, 27, 28, 29, 34, 35, 39, 42, 107,
literary, 44, 90, 106, 121, 136 108, 117, 130, 137, 141, 158, 165,
Lithuanian, 91, 109, 113, 137, 162, 164 188, 196, 197, 226, 233, 234, 235,
Middle High Franconian, 265 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 252,
Middle Polish, 122, 145 265
Old Indie, 266, 267 Proto-Germanic, 265
Old Polish, 99, 101, 110, 122, 135, langue, 17, 28, 31, 34, 131, 235, 243, 253
137, 141, 142, 168,230 law
Old Slavic, 19, 137 assimilation~, 227, 228
Polabian, 117 morphological-, 195
Polish, 3,4, 5 , 6 , 7 , 8,9, 10, 11, 12, phonetic-, 176, 222, 227
13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, sound-, 17, 23, 170, 176, 177, 178,
24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 35, 36, 195, 200, 212, 222, 225
37, 3 9 , 4 2 , 4 8 , 4 9 , 5 0 , 5 1 , 5 2 , 53, laws
54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, ~of association, 19, 201, 202, 203, 204
64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, psychological-, 201
73, 74, 75, 76, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, lenition, 263, 264, 265, 268, 270
93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, lexeme, 33, 130
102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, lexicalization, 13, 32
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, lexicography, 33, 51, 57, 63, 76, 88, 89,
117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 90, 95, 97, 99, 101, 102, 104, 125,
124, 125, 126, 130, 131, 133, 135, 158, 165
136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, lexicology, 33, 158, 165, 195
143, 145, 158, 159, 162, 164, 165, lexicon, 27, 38, 101, 136, 137. 201, 212,
168, 169, 171, 172, 176, 180, 182, 230
196, 203, 206, 207, 210, 221, 224, lingua franca, 93
230, 231, 233, 234, 235, 236, 240, linguistics
250, 252, 253, 254, 256, 272, 273, appliedV, 15, 39, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47,
274, 277, 279, 280, 286 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57,
professional-, 26 58, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 76,
Proto-Indo-European, 226 252, 279, 280
Proto-Slavonic, 117, 134 comparative~, 3, 8, 13, 33, 37, 62, 164,
236, 237, 279, 280
computational~, 88 O.
confrontative~, 62, 279, 280 oikonym, 132, 133, 139, 145
contrastive~, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 158, onomastics, 130, 134, 136, 137, 138, 141,
280 142, 143, 145, 241
cybernetic~, 252, 286 ontogenesis
external~, 11, 36 language~, 225
general, 3, 6, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, orthoepies, 24
25, 28, 29, 30, 35, 36, 159, 164,
165, 188, 191, 200, 207, 231, 234, P.
237, 238, 240, 252, 281 palatalization, 226, 227, 228, 229
historical~, 17, 37, 134, 158, 172, 227, paradigm
237, 240,245 diacritic~, 272, 274, 275
psychological~, 12 paradigmatic
synchronic~, 45 ~relation, 9, 273
theoretical~, 7 parataxis, 115
literary language parole, 17,29,31, 131,253
Polish~, 106, 121, 136 pattern
loanword, 257 phone~, 257, 258, 259
perception, 24, 33, 179, 185, 221, 257
M. performance
Mazuration, 218, 228 language~, 212, 214
mazurzenie, 111, 118, 121, 122 phonation, 179, 180
mentalism phone, 107, 212, 213, 214, 219, 220, 221,
empirical~, 9 222, 223, 224, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230,
meta-information, 282 257, 258, 259, 261
metanalysis, 196, 197 phoneme, 9, 14, 20, 21, 22, 31, 37, 170,
see pereintegracija, 196 171, 173, 174, 175, 177, 193, 195, 226,
metasystem, 285 245, 255, 271
metathesis, 118, 136, 225, 226, 227, 229, phonemics, 195
230 phonetics, 11, 12, 13, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24,
morpheme, 19, 34, 107, 132, 170, 197, 26, 27, 31, 72, 73, 106, 115, 120, 124.
242 158, 165, 170, 188, 193, 199, 201, 214,
morphology, 24, 26, 27, 38, 43, 109, 193, 219, 221, 226, 252, 259, 261, 262, 263,
195, 197, 201, 212, 217, 243, 272, 275 266, 269, 270
morphophonology, 195 auditoryV, 221
multilingualism, 178, 278, 279 comparative~, 188
mutability, 215, 218, 224, 225 experimental~, 261
diachronic~, 215 structural~, 219, 252, 259, 262, 263,
266, 269, 270
N. phonology, 11, 12, 31, 73, 158, 165, 170,
Neogrammarian, 107, 118, 119, 187 171, 174, 193, 195, 212, 219, 220, 226,
nomen appellativum, 130, 134, 145 241, 242, 246
nomen proprium, 130, 133, 134, 140, 144, generative~, 174
145 historical~, 195, 226
nomina acti, 132 plane
nomina actionis, 132 articulatory~, 219
nomina instrumenti, 132 auditory~, 219
nucleation phonic~, 266, 267
syllabic-, 263, 265, 266, 267 semantic~, 130, 266
positivism, 187, 198
pragmatics, 115 sentence-code, 254

processualism, 11, 12 Shadzenje, 228
protolanguage, 107, 193 significator
proto-name, 143 sentential~, 257
proverbs, 26, 89, 92 signified, 34, 204
psycholinguistics, 56, 168, 214, 281 signifying, 204
psychologism sociolinguistics, 15, 32, 158, 168, 252,
positivistic~, 9 275, 281
psychology, 12, 23, 28, 31, 46, 162, 167, sociologism, 11, 167
168, 169, 174, 198 spelling, 51, 73, 92, 98, 101, 102, 104,
psychophonetics, 21, 22, 170 178
stability
R. synchronic-, 215
range (load) stem
diffusive~, 272 lexical-, 196
rationalism, 198 structuralism, 11, 12, 14, 16, 29, 33, 34,
récognitive 36, 118, 119, 173, 205, 207, 240, 246,
~value, 222, 223 285, 286
reconstruction cybernetic-, 285
internal~, 35, 243 distributional-, 12
relation formalist-, 12
associative~, 201,202 stylistics, 24, 29
paradigmatic~, 9, 273 subconsciousness, 213
syntagmatic~, 202 substitution, 172, 221, 228
relevance surname, 133, 137, 143
semantic~, 221 syllabication, 35
semasiological~, 214, 215, 220, 221, symbol
222, 224, 226, 227, 229 code~, 253, 254
reproduction symbolisation, 181
language~, 212, 214, 215, 217, 218, synchrony, 12, 17, 19, 35, 169, 170, 204,
224, 226 224, 225, 238, 243
root, 19, 56, 136, 195, 197, 244 synonym, 31
syntagma, 280, 285
S. syntagmatic
salience ~relation, 202
cognitive~, 214, 223, 224 syntax, 24, 26, 27, 30, 37, 115, 195, 212,
semanteme, 254 220, 235, 241, 243
semantic system
~relevance, 221 psychophonetic~, 28, 219, 220, 221
semantics, 24, 26, 27, 32, 33, 37, 38, 266, semiotic~, 206
280 systemism, 11, 39
semasiological, 22, 28, 171, 172, 182, 214,
215, 220, 221, 222, 224, 225, 226, 227, T.
229 teleology, 185
~relevance, 214, 215, 220, 221, 222, terms
224, 226, 227, 229 technical~, 95, 175
semasiology, 24, 25, 195 theory
semiotic field~, 202
~ function, 205 information-, 203, 223
semiotics, 15, 16, 33, 38, 181, 272 toponomastics, 24, 139, 141
toponyms, 132, 144 V.

toponymy, 137, 138, 141, 144 value
transformational entropy~, 281
~knots, 281,282 récognitive~, 222, 223
transposition, 35, 253, 255, 256 variability
translative~, 256 synchronic~ ,215,218
Tsekanje, 228 variance, 35
type variation
diffusive~, 272, 273, 274 subphonemic~, 195
typology variations
language~, 35, 158, 165 dialectal~, 106, 109, 110, 123, 126
U. W.
unit word order, 115
code~, 253, 254, 256 word-base, 13, 32
universals word-code, 254
linguistic~, 200, 206 word-formation, 25, 97, 115, 118, 124,
universe 126, 132, 134, 144, 195, 200
language~, 281 words
urbonymy, 143 foreign~, 91, 98, 102, 104
function~, 100
obscene~, 96, 103

Koerner Et Al - 2001 Towards A History of Linguistics in Poland From The Early Beginnings To The End of The Twentieth Century

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Koerner Et Al - 2001 Towards A History of Linguistics in Poland From The Early Beginnings To The End of The Twentieth Century

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TOWARDS A HISTORY OF LINGUISTICS

Series III - STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF THE LANGUAGE SCIENCES

Advisory Editorial Board

Cristina Altman (Saõ Paulo); Ranko Bugarski (Belgrade)

Edited by Konrad Koerner and Aleksander Szwedek

Towards a History of Linguistics in Poland

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY

CIP-data for this book is available from the Library of Congress

© 2001 - John Benjamins B.V.

depth analyses of the scientific contributions of two further Polish scholars of

Konrad Koerner Aleksander Szwedek

PART II: Portraits of Major Polish Linguists

LOCATION OF PHOTOGRAPHS AND ILLUSTRATIONS

other illustrations, of Holger Pedersen's popular book (Pedersen 1931),

(1886-1939), Tadeusz Kotarbiński (1886-1981), Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz

search is developing: historical dialectology, concerned with the issues of the

erating as causa movens in the space of language images. Rudnicki devel­

to general linguistics, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, and indeed to glot-

302. Warszawa: A. Heflich & S. Michalski. [Also published separately as a text­

Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego, 16 pp. [Lecture given on the occassion of the 250th

Rudnicki, Mikolaj. 1956. Językoznawstwo polskie w dobie oswiecenia [Polish lin­

1918)]". Nauka w Wielkopolsce, 473-498. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie.

1. Landmarks in the Polish panorama of general linguistics

* This chapter first appeared as an article in Historiographia Linguistica 25.149-198 (1999).

Professional-organizational possibilities opened up for Polish linguistics

2. Periods in the development of Polish linguistics

5) the promotion of a methodological holism postulating an overall view

A separate position in the discussion with theNeogrammarians was held

1982:209-212; Zaleski 1975:21-28). Abroad, there was the creation of the

and magic needs of people, as well as to contextualism — relativizing the

uniting descriptive phonetics and functional phonetics as two branches of

2.3 The heritage of Polish thought on language afterWorld War II

background of traditional perspectives were summarized in Słownik termi-

books but also in such encyclopedias, as the: Encyklopedia wiedzy o języku

3. An assessment of the contribution of individual Polish linguists to

3.1 Baudouin de Courtenay s legacy

douin's name found itself mentioned together with the Neogrammarians,

3.2 Kruszewski's (and Baudouin s) work during the Kazan period

68ff. and in Kruszewski 1995:xxviii-xxxii). Here the neo grammarian notion

forward by Baudouin, but as he himself emphasized, Kruszewski set forth the

[1996:46] transl, of Kruszewski 1883:17; on the concept of the uniformity

3.3 Baudouin s views after Kruszewski's death

[On psychical foundations of linguistic phenomena]" (1903), "Próba uzasad-

In his appreciation of the role of Baudouin in the development of Polish

3.4 Porzeziński' s contribution to Polish linguistics

3.5 Rozwadowski's contribution to Polish linguistics

guage (cf. Lehr-Spławiński 1936:3-21; Szober 1959:189-195[=1937:421-

3.7 Gawroñski' s contribution to general linguistics

3.8 Szober's views in the area of general linguistics

Warsaw. As a theoretician of language searching for the explanation of lin­

During the period of political liberation of scientific thinking from Marx­

3.10 The place of Kurytowicz in national and international linguistics

3) The, assumption of a hierarchical organization of language where the

3.11 Milewski s contribution to general linguistics

Those were the papers read by Milewski on 20 April 1941 on "Problematyka

tion. The extended version of Milewski's handbook, since 1965 entitled

3.12 Zawadowskïs contributions to linguistic theory

functional textual linguistics were proposed in his treatises on "Substance and

Engaging in polemics with traditional trends, Zawadowski (1966:27)

J. Baudouin de Courtenay, vol.IV. 140-278. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo

Bühler, Karl. 1934. Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena:

Florczak, Zofia. 1978. Europe]skie zródla teorii jçzykowych w Polsce na przelomie

Horálek, Karel 1989. "Jan Baudouin de Courtenay a psychologizm w języko-

erating as causa movens in the space of language images. Rudnicki devel

302. Warszawa: A. Heflich & S. Michalski. [Also published separately as a text

Rudnicki, Mikolaj. 1956. Językoznawstwo polskie w dobie oswiecenia [Polish lin

Warsaw. As a theoretician of language searching for the explanation of lin

During the period of political liberation of scientific thinking from Marx

Kruszewski, Mikolaj 1884-1890. "Prinzipien der Sprachenentwicklung". Interna

Zawadowski, Leon. 1948. "Zagadnienia teorii zdań względnych (Streszczenie) [Is

Studies") and that glottodidactics began to exist as an independent pro

(Mazur 1961). Since then, studies on various terminological issues — de

Engel, Ulrich, Danuta Rytel-Kuc et al. 2000. Deutsch-polnische kontrastive Gram

Grucza, Franciszek. 1976. "Fehlerlinguistik, Lapsologie und kontrastive Forschun

Zmudzki, Jerzy. 1995. Konsekutivdolmetschen: Handlungen, Operationen, Strate