Cover not available
Part of
Analogy and Contrast in Language: Perspectives from Cognitive Linguistics
Edited by Karolina Krawczak, Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and Marcin Grygiel
[Human Cognitive Processing 73] 2022
► pp. 115–156

Chapter 5
Contrast and analogy in aspectual distinctions of English and Polish

The case of think predicates

| Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań
This chapter makes an attempt at finding contrasts and analogies in the aspectual system of Polish and English with the use of the Integrated Model of Aspect (Kokorniak 2018). The model employs categorisation and other conceptual mechanisms (Langacker 1987, 1999, 2009) in order to reveal that the two aspectual systems, as proposed by Comrie (1976: 25), belong to different levels of elaboration, which is why they have been considered incompatible. The author suggests that the level of aspectual classes should be used for the comparison to be possible (Vendler 1957; Croft 2012). In a detailed comparative qualitative analysis of think predicates, aspectual distinctions are considered in terms of stativity vs. dynamicity, (a)telicity, (un)boundedness, replicability vs. expandability and punctuality vs. durativity.
Keywords: aspectual classes, aspectual system, conceptual mechanisms, Integrated Model of Aspect
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Traditional aspectual distinctions in Polish and English
  • 3.A search for tertium comparationis: An Integrated Model of Aspect
  • 4.Finding contrast and analogy in aspectual distinctions of Polish and English: A case study of the think concept
    • 4.1Aspectual profiling of Polish ‘myśleć’ verb constructions
    • 4.2Aspectual profiling of English think verb constructions
    • 4.3Aspectual contrasts and analogies in Polish myśleć and English think constructions
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 27 October 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.73.05kok
References (79)
References
Antinucci, F., & Gebert L. 1977. Semantyka aspektu czasownikowego [Semantics of verb aspect], Studia Gramatyczne, 1, 7–43.Google Scholar
Bacz, B. 2002. On the image-schema proposals for the preposition po in Polish, Glossos, 3. ([URL]) (date of access: 17th Nov. 2009).
Bielak, J., & Pawlak M. 2013. Applying Cognitive Grammar in the foreign language classroom: Teaching English tense and aspect. Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bobrowski, I. 1997. Tertium comparationis and contrastive linguistics. In R. Hickey, & S. Puppel (Eds.), Language history and linguistic modelling: A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th birthday. Vol. 2: Linguistic modelling (1693–1702). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bogusławski, A. 1963. Prefikacja czasownikowa we współczesnym języku rosyjskim [Verb prefixation in modern Russian]. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.Google Scholar
1994. Polskie po- dystrybutywne i sprawa granic słowotwórstwa [Polish distributive po- and the case of word-formation boundaries]. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego: Prace Językoznawcze 17–18, 61–68.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D.. 1971. The phrasal verb in English. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. L. 1988. The development of English aspectual systems: Aspectualizers and post-verbal particles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect. An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) ([URL])
Croft, W. 1999. Some contributions of typology to cognitive linguistics, and vice versa. In T. Janssen, & G. Redeker (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, scope and methodology (61–93). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Ő. 1981. On the definition of the telic-atelic (bounded–unbounded). In P. Tedeschi, & A. Zaennen (Eds.), Tense and aspect (79–90). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
2013. How telicity creates time, Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 2(1), 45–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danielewiczowa, M. 2000. Główne problemy opisu i podziału czasownikowych predykatów mentalnych. [Main problems in the description and classification of verbal mental predicates]. In R. Grzegorczykowa, & K Waszakowa (Eds.), Studia z semantyki porównawczej [Studies in Comparative Semantics] (227–247). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo UW.Google Scholar
Dickey, S. M. 2000. Parameters of Slavic aspect: A cognitive approach. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Fabiszak, M., Hebda, A., Kokorniak, I., & Krawczak, K. 2014. The semasiological structure of Polish myśleć ‘to think’. In D. Glynn, & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (223–251). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fortescue, M. 2001. Thoughts about thought. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 15–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, B. 1976. The verb-particle combination in English. New York: Academia Press.Google Scholar
Glynn, D. 2014a. Polysemy and synonymy: Cognitive theory and corpus method. In D. Glynn, & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (7–38). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014b. The many uses of run: Corpus methods and Socio-Cognitive Semantics. In D. Glynn, & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (117–144). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014c. Techniques and tools: Corpus methods and statistics for semantics. In D. Glynn, & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (307–341). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goddard, C. 2003. Thinking across languages and cultures: Six dimensions of variation. Cognitive Linguistics, 14, 109–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grochowska, A. 1979. Próba opisu reguł łączliwości przedrostka prze- z tematami czasownikowymi. [An attempt at the description of the combinatory rules of the prefix prze- with verb roots.] Polonica, 5, 59–74.Google Scholar
Grzegorczykowa, R. 1997. Nowe spojrzenie na kategorię aspektu w perspektywie semantyki kognitywnej [A fresk look at the category of aspekt from the cognitive semantic perspective]. In R. Grzegorczykowa, & Z. Zaron (Eds.), Semantyczna struktura słownictwa i wypowiedzi [Semantic structure of vocabulary and utterance] (25–38). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.Google Scholar
Gvozdanović, J. 2012. Perfective and imperfective aspect. In R. Binnick (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect (781–802). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M., 2003. The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. The New Psychology of Language, 2, 211–242.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. 1982. Aspect between discourse and grammar: An introductory essay for the volume. In P. J. Hopper (Ed.), Tense–aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics (3–18). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, L. 1986. A semantic analysis of the Russian verbal prefixes za-, pere-, do-, and ot-. München: Verlag Otto Sagner. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, L A. 2007. Aspectual clusters of Russian verbs, Studies in Language, 31(3), 607–648. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. Russian aspectual types: Croft’s typology revised. In M. Shrager, G. Fowler, S. Franks, & E. Andrews (Eds.), Studies in Slavic linguistics and accentology in honor of Ronald F. Feldstein (147–167). Bloomingtom: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Janda, J. This volume. From nouns to verbs: Analogy across parts of speech.
Kardela, H. 1996. Płynność kategorii w opozycjach policzalny/niepoliczalny i dokonany/niedokonany [Category fluency in countable/uncountable and perfective/imperfective oppositions]. In R. Grzegorczykowa, & A. Pajdzińska (Eds.), Językowa kategoryzacja świata [Linguistic categorisation of the world] (297–330). Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej.Google Scholar
1997. Telicity as a perfectivising category: Notes on aspectual distinctions in English and Polish. In R. Hickey, & S. Puppel (Eds.), Language history and linguistic modeling: A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th birthday. Vol. 2 (1473–1492). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2000. Dimensions and parameters in grammar: Studies in A/D asymmetries and subjectivity relations in Polish. Lublin: Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Press.Google Scholar
Kemmer, S. 1993. The middle voice. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klebanowska, B. 1971. Znaczenia lokatywne polskich przyimków właściwych [Locative meaning of Polish prepositions]. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.Google Scholar
Kochańska, A. 2002. Selected issues in the semantics of the Polish imperfective: A cognitive grammar account [unpublished manuscript of the Ph. D. dissertation]. Warszawa: Uniwersytet Warszawski.Google Scholar
2007. Conflicting epistemic meanings of the Polish aspectual variants in past and future uses: Are they a vagary of grammar? In D. Divjak, & A. Kochańska (Eds.), Cognitive paths into the Slavic domain (149–180). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kokorniak, I. 2018. Aspectual modelling of mental predicates in English and Polish: A cognitive linguistic perspective. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.Google Scholar
Krzeszowski, T. 1980. Tertium comparationis. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Contrastive linguistics: Prospects and problems (301–312). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kustova, G. 2000. Niektóre problemy opisu predykatów mentalnych. [Some problems in the description of mental predicates]. In R. Grzegorczykowa, & K. Waszakowa (Eds.), Studia z semantyki porównawczej [Studies in comparative semantics] (249–263). Vol. 1. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo UW.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1982. Remarks on English aspect. In P. J. Hopper (Ed.), Tense–aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics (265–304). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1999. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Constructions and constructional meaning. In V. Evans, & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (225–267). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
This volume. What could be more fundamental?
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. 1999. A cognitive-interactional model of cross-linguistic analysis: New perspectives on tertium comparationis and the concept of equivalence. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Ed.), Cognitive perspectives on language (53–76). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Lindner, S. 1982. What goes up doesn’t necessarily come down: The ins and outs of opposites. Papers from the Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 8, 305–323.Google Scholar
Mair, Ch. 2012. Progressive and continuous aspect. In R Binnick (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect (803–827). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego (NKJP) [National Corpus of the Polish Language] ([URL])
Pasich-Piasecka, A. 1993. Polysemy of the Polish verbal prefix prze-. In E. Górska (Ed.), Images from the cognitive scene (11–26). Kraków: Universitas.Google Scholar
Piernikarski, Cezary. 1975. Czasowniki z prefiksem po- w języku polskim i czeskim: Na tle rodzajów akcji w językach słowiańskich. [Verbs with the po- prefix in Polish and Czech: In the background of Aktionsarten in Slavic languages]. Warszawa: PWN.Google Scholar
Przybylska, Renata. 2006. Schematy wyobrażeniowe a semantyka polskich prefiksów czasownikowych do-, od-, prze-, roz-, u-. [Image schemata and the semantics of Polish verb prefixes do-, od-, prze-, roz-, u-]. Kraków: Universitas.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. 1976. A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Dirven, R. 2007. Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rice, S. 1999. Aspects of prepositions and prepositional aspect. In L. de Stadler, & Ch. Eyrich (Eds.), Issues in Cognitive Linguistics: 1993 Proceedings of the International Cognitive Linguistics Conference (225–247). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rudzka-Ostyn, B. 1985. Metaphoric processes in word formation: The case of prefixed verbs. In W. Paprotté, & R. Dirven (Eds.), The ubiquity of metaphor: Metaphor in language and thought (209–241). Amsterdam. & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schulze, R. 1993. The meaning of (a)round: A study of an English preposition. In R. A. Geiger, & B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Eds.), Conceptualizations and mental processing in language (399–430). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sharwood-Smith, M. 1974. Imperfective versus progressive: An exercise in contrastive pedagogical linguistics, Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics, 3, 85–90.Google Scholar
Słownik Języka Polskiego. 2020. (SJP, [Polish Language Dictionary]) ([URL]) (date of access: 6th Nov. 2020)
Stawnicka, J. 2005. Delimitatywa w języku rosyjskim i polskim [Delimitatives in Russian and Polish]. In P. Czerwiński, & H. Fontański (Eds.), Język a rzeczywistość: Rusycystyczne studia konfrontatywne [Language and reality: Russian confrontational studies] (89–101). Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.Google Scholar
Sokolova, S., & Lewandowski, W. 2010. Constructional profile of the verbal prefix za-: A comparative study of Russian and Polish. Oslo Studies in Language, 2(2), 365–391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Śmiech, W. 1971. Funkcje aspektów czasownikowych we współczesnym języku ogólnopolskim. [Functions of verb aspects in contemporary Polish]. Łódź: Łódzkie Towarzystwo Naukowe.Google Scholar
1986. Derywacja prefiksalna czasowników polskich. [Prefix derivation of Polish verbs]. Wrocław: Ossolineum.Google Scholar
Tabakowska, E. 2001. O motywacji związku rządu derywatów prefiksalnych polskich czasowników z dopełnieniem [About motivation of Polish governed prefixed verb derivatives with an object]. In W. Kubiński, & D. Stanulewicz (Eds.), Językoznawstwo kognitywne 2: Zjawiska pragmatyczne [Cognitive linguistics: Pragmatic phenomena] (212–224). Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego.Google Scholar
2003. Space and time in Polish: The preposition za and the verbal prefix za-. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in Honour of Günter Radden (153–177). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 1: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thelin, Nils B. 1990. Verbal aspect in discourse: On the state of the art. In N. Thelin (Ed.), Verbal aspect in discourse (3–88). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Timberlake, A. 1982. Invariance and the syntax of Russian aspect. In P. J. Hopper (Ed.), Tense–aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics (305–333). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 1978. On the expression of spatio-temporal relations. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of human language. Vol. 3. Word structure (369–400). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, A. & V. Evans. 2001. Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language, 77(4), 724–765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Z. 1957. Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review, 66, 143–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 1967. On the semantics of the verbal aspect in Polish. In R. Abernathy et al.. (Eds.), To honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, 11 October 1966. Vol. 3 (2231–2249). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Zbierska-Sawala, A. 1993. Early Middle English word formation: Semantic aspects of derivational affixation in the AB language. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar