Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Lingua Posnaniensis

The Journal of Poznan Society for the Advancement of the Arts and Sciences and Adam Mickiewicz University, Institute of Linguistics

2 Issues per year


SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.100

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2083-6090
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Sur la tendance analytique du polonais

Marek Gawełko
Published Online: 2010-09-22 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10122-010-0003-0

Sur la tendance analytique du polonais

There are different studies of the analytic tendency in Polish. However, a further study is required to permit the determination of the place occupied by Polish on the evolutive scale of the type «synthetic → analytic». The objective of the paper is to establish the distance between Polish and the most evoluated Indo-European languages (English and French) from the point of view of analytism. It is probably true that the passage from synthetic (morphological) structures to analytic (syntactic) ones has taken place sooner in Polish than in Czech. But the two of them are much more synthetic than the most synthetic Romance language (Rumanian) and than German, whose synthetic character, in the domain of Germanic languages, is surpassed only by Icelandic.

Keywords: synthetic; analytic morphology; Polish

  • Adams James N. 1976. «A typological approach to Latin word order». Indogermanische Forschungen 86, 70-99.Google Scholar

  • Anusiewicz Janusz. 1978. Konstrukcje analityczne we współczesnym języku polskim. Wrocław: Ossolineum.Google Scholar

  • Bauer Brigitte L. M. 1992. Du latin au français: le passage d'une langue SOV à une langue SVO. Nijmegen: Univ. diss.Google Scholar

  • Bauer Brigitte L. M. 2000. Archaic Syntax in Indo-European. Berlin et New York: Mouton de Gruten.Google Scholar

  • Brang Peter, Nivat Georges, Zett Robert (eds.). 1983. Contributions des savants suisses au IXe congrès international des slavistes à Kiev, septembre 1983. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

  • Contreras Heles. 1962-1963. «Una clasificación morfo-sintáctica de las lenguas románicas». Romance Philology 16, 261-268.Google Scholar

  • Criştea Teodora. 1977. Éléments de grammaire contrastive. Domaine franço-roumain. Bucarest: Editura Didactică şi Pedagogică.Google Scholar

  • Eckert Gabriele. 1986. Sprachtypus und Sprachgeschichte. Untersuchungen zum typologischen Wandel des Französischen. TBL 265. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

  • Gawełko Marek. 1996 et 1999. L'étude sur l'ordre des mots dans les langues romanes. Vol. 1: La position du sujet; vol. 2: La passivation. Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe.Google Scholar

  • Gawełko Marek. 1998-1999. «Le passif réfléchi roman». Roczniki Humanistyczne XLVI-XLVII, 5, 115-143.Google Scholar

  • Gawełko Marek. 2001a. «Język polski wobec tendencji analitycznej języków indoeuropejskich». Polonica 21, 11-24.Google Scholar

  • Gawełko Marek. 2001b. «Essai de classification fonctionnelle des langues romanes». Romance Philology 55, 21-40.Google Scholar

  • Gawełko Marek. 2003. «Zasady perspektywy funkcjonalnej zdania a tendencja analityczna języków». Poradnik Językowy 3, 22-32.Google Scholar

  • Gawełko Marek. 2005a. «La perspective indo-européenne de l'impersonnel polonais». Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch 51, 21-30.Google Scholar

  • Gawełko Marek. 2005b. «Sur la vitalité de l'infinitif roman». Alfa. Revista de Lingüística (Brésil) 49, 2, 133-151.Google Scholar

  • Gawełko Marek. 2008. «Sur le développement de l'impersonnel indo-européen». Lingua Posnaniensis 50, 175-193.Google Scholar

  • Greenberg Joseph. 1960. «A Quantitative Approach to the Morphological Typology of Language». International Journal of American Linguistics 26, 178-194.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Greenberg Joseph. 1974. Language Typology. A Historical and Analytic Overview. The Hague-Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Guchman Mira M. (éd.) 1977. Istorico-tipologičeskaja morfologija germanskich jazykov. Moscou: Izdatel'stvo Nauka.Google Scholar

  • Harris Martin. 1978. The Evolution of French Syntax. London: Longman.Google Scholar

  • Kubrjakova Elena S. 1970. «Morfologičeskaja struktura slova v sovremennyx germanskix jazykach». In: Serebrennikov 1970.Google Scholar

  • Pinkster Harm. 1988. Lateinische Syntax und Semantik. Tübingen: Francke Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Pohl Jacques. 1965. «Le roumain, seule langue romane centrifuge?». In: Omagiu lui Alexandru Rosetti la 70 de ani. Bucarest: Ed. Acad. Republicii Socialiste România, 709-717.Google Scholar

  • Ramat Paolo. 1984. Linguistica tipologica. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar

  • Sapir Edward. 1921. Language. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar

  • Schwegler Armin. 1990. Analycity and Syntheticity. A Diachronic Perspective with Special Reference to Romance Languages. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Serebrennikov Boris A. (ed.). 1970. Obšče jazykoznanie. Formy suščestvovanija funkcii, istorija jazyka. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar

  • Weiss Daniel. 1983. «Zur typologischen Stellung des Polnischen (ein Vergleich mit dem Čechischen und Russischen) ». In: Brang et al. 1983: 219-245.Google Scholar

About the article


Published Online: 2010-09-22

Published in Print: 2010-01-01


Citation Information: Lingua Posnaniensis, Volume 52, Issue 1, Pages 39–54, ISSN (Online) 2083-6090, ISSN (Print) 0079-4740, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10122-010-0003-0.

Export Citation

This content is open access.

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in