Humanities and Social Sciences



LINGUISTICA SILESIANA | 2023 | vol. 44 | No 1

Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex


This paper investigates left-dislocated free relatives in Old English. On the theoretical level, it contributes to the ongoing discussion on the syntax of free relatives. It confirms a sharp distinction between wh- free relatives and demonstrative free relatives. The former type favours the Comp analysis, whereas the latter class is amenable to both the Comp and Head analyses. On the empirical level, it provides evidence that the Comp analysis with wh- pronouns is selected mainly on the basis of pied piping/stranding facts, while case marking regulates the choice of an appropriate analysis with demonstrative free relatives with þe. This corpus-based study also offers some quantitative information on the frequent patterns and cases commonly found in them.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Artur Bartnik

  1. John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex


Applying frame semantics, usage-based construction grammar, and quantitative corpus-based methodology, this article seeks to explore the nature of the extraposed construction with past participles complemented by that-clauses. To this end, the author extracts the occurrences of the It BE Ven that-construction from the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), determines its structural, semantic, distributional, and discourse-functional features, and identifies verbs that are strongly associated with the construction in question. The study meaningfully contributes to a growing body of research on it-extraposition by conducting a qualitative and quantitative analysis of one of its variants, a grammatical pattern with past participles that has not been hitherto investigated in much detail from a quantitative corpus- based perspective.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Jarosław Wiliński

  1. Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and Humanities
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex


Presented paper deals with the morphological category of aspect in Cantonese. Given the lack of a morphological category of tense in Cantonese, aspect holds a particular position in this system, as it is the sole morphological means expressing temporal relations. The aim of the paper is to present the functioning of the various aspects of Cantonese, both perfective and imperfective, based on the theoretical framework presented beforehand, which draws on the previous achievements of linguists in this field. The second section presents what specific morphological means are used to express the category of aspect in Cantonese, which is then followed by a brief discussion of the relation between resultative verb compounds and the perfective aspect. The last, and by far the largest section, presents corpus material which exemplifies the use of different aspect markers. The paper is an attempt to respond to the hitherto lack of consensus among Sinologists about the number as well as the types of aspects that occur in Cantonese.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Adrian Kędzior

  1. Jagiellonian University in Cracow
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex


The present article demonstrates that languages tend to contain dispersals – a subtype of conative calls used to chase animals – that are built around voiceless sibilants. This tendency is both quantitative (i.e., voiceless-sibilant dispersals are common across languages and in a single language) and qualitative (i.e., sibilants contribute very significantly to the phonetic substance of such dispersals). This fact, together with a range of formal similarities exhibited by voiceless-sibilant dispersals encapsulated by the pattern [kI/Uʃ] suggests that the presence of voiceless sibilants in dispersals is not arbitrary. Overall, voiceless-sibilant dispersals tend to comply with the general phonetic profile associated with the prototype of CACs and dispersals, postulated recently in scholarship, thus corroborating the validity of this prototype.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Alexander Andrason
1 2

  1. Living Tongues Institute for Endangered Languages (Salem, USA)
  2. University of Cape Town (South Africa)
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex


The paper presents the most overall project of Hungarian dialectology of the past few decades and deals with the partial result of its sociolinguistic survey. The interviews analysed were recorded in Western Hungary as part of the New General Atlas of Hungarian Dialects project between 2007 and 2012. The project, funded by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and organized by the Geolinguistics Research Group of the Eötvös Loránd University, asked the participants about sociolinguistic issues at several data collection sites in the Hungarian language area, in addition to surveying dialectological phenomena. For example: Do you speak dialects here in this town? Do they speak better here than in the neighboring settlements? Do you speak in the same way in a city or official place as at home, in a family circle? Have you ever been mocked because of your dialect speech? Given that tens of thousands of hours of the recordings have not yet been processed in a systematic and comprehensive way, the first half of the study provides numerical and detailed data on how the planned program of the research group was realized in practice regarding, for the time being, the Western Hungarian data collection sites. The second half of the study presents partial results on the language and dialect awareness, attitudes and use of the respondents by analysing the sociolinguistic interviews recorded in this area. The study provides a more accurate description of the specifics in the archive of the New General Atlas of Hungarian Dialects project, as well as what the recorded data reveal on the linguistic mentality of the Western Hungarian speech community in the beginning of the 21st century. This is just one of the numerous research topics offered by the enormous archive.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Andrea Parapatics

  1. University of Pannonia
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex


The paper aims to test a hypothesis of introducing free speech in Polish translations instead of censored renderings typical of post-World War II reality after 1989 when communists lost the parliamentary elections (4th June) and stopped ruling Poland. The new political reality of a democratic system was reasserted by abolishing the censorship apparatus in 1990.
The analysis is based on articles from a magazine Forum. Przegląd Prasy Światowej, which are Polish translations of 10 source texts (STs) - selected articles concerning Polish issues from The New York Times. The STs and their Polish translations have been compared in detail to be able to evaluate the target texts (TTs) according to their correspondence with the STs.
In lieu of the censorship rule of hiding unwanted content and manipulating the audience, also with the propaganda language ( Newspeak), after 1990, the only remaining type of information flow blockage was self-censorship or superiors’ interference. The analysis will discover how topics changed, what happened to the language of propaganda, how the contents of STs are revealed in translations, and what translation techniques are applied in the process of transferring the ST message. The questions posed are, first, how accurate the translations after 1990 are, and second, what reasons might have occurred to have avoided the publication of some contents.
The analysis will be the basis for evaluating translators’ ethics in ST content delivery by reference to Andrew Chesterman (1997, 2001, 2018), Anthony Pym (2001, 2012), Jeremy Munday (2012), Juliane House (2015), and others.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Edyta Źrałka

  1. University of Silesia
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex


This article is devoted to the German classes of particles: Gradpartikel (degree particle) and Fokuspartikel (focus particle), which are assigned divergent contents in different grammars and lexicons. In addition to this, a problem with didactic implications is the inconsistency of terminology. For example, Helbig/Buscha (2001) apply the term Gradpartikel to expressions that Hentschel/Weydt (2013) classify as Fokuspartikel. Engel (2009), on the other hand, refers to the expressions as Gradpartikel, which in Hentschel/Weydt (2013) represent the classes Fokuspartikel and Intensivpartikel. There are more similar inconsistencies in the literature with regard to class names and the inclusion of particles within them. The aim of this article is to revise the classification criteria and analyse the distinguishing characteristics of these classes and to put the terminology in order. The choice of terms in this article was determined by the primary function of the class: Fokuspartikel is named according to the function of focusing attention on something (German: fokussieren), while Gradpartikel is named according to the function of reinforcing (German: gradieren).
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Edyta Błachut

  1. Universität Wrocław
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex


The present article studies the properties of the phrase Como si no hubiera (un) mañana (‘As if there were no tomorrow’), which more frequently occurs in European Spanish than in other diatopic varieties of that language. As it is shown in the article, the phrase modifies verbs and verbal predicates, being able to perform intensifying quantification.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Monika Lisowska

  1. Universidad de Szczecin

Publication Ethics Policy

Ethical principles

Editors of “Linguistica Silesiana”, to maintain high-quality published articles and scientific integrity, preserve and enforce ethical principles, regarding both authors and editors of scientific publications, as well as reviewers.

The following information on the ethics of publication for “Linguistica Silesiana” is based on guidelines for best practices for the editors of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

I. Responsibilities of Authors

1. Authorship of work
Authorship should be limited to those who have made significant contributions to the concept and implementation of research and the interpretation of published research findings. Anyone who has contributed significantly to the creation of the work should be listed as co-authors. Persons whoparticipated only in parts of the research work resulting in the article should be listed in "acknowledgements" (see point 10). The lead author (or the author to whom correspondence should be addressed) should ensure that all co-authors (as defined above)are co-authors of the article and that there are no people who should not be listed among co-authors. The lead author (or author to whom correspondence should be addressed) should also ensure that all contributors have seen and approved the final version of the article and have agreed to its publication.

2. Disclosure and conflict of interest
The author should disclose any sources of funding for projects in his work, the contribution of research institutions, associations and other entities, and any material conflicts of interest that may affect his / herperformance or interpretation.

3. Standards for presenting research reports
The authors of the text based on their own research should provide a thorough overview of the work done and objectively discuss their significance. The work should contain enough details and references to scientific literature to allow others to repeat thework. Incorrect or deliberate inaccurate statements are treated as unethical and are not permitted.

4. Multiple, redundant or competitive publications
The author should in principle not publish materials describing the same study in more than one journal or primary publication. Submission of the same work to more than one journal editor at a time is unethical and is not permitted.

5. Confirmation of sources
The author should cite publications that have influenced the creation of a complex text, and each time confirm the use of the work of other authors.

6.Data access and data retention
The author should provide unprocessed data regarding the publication submitted for review or should be ready to allow access to such data. He or she should also retainthis data for a minimum of one year from publication.

7. Major errors in published works
If the author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in his or her published work, it is his or her responsibility to immediately notify the editor-in-chief and to cooperate with him or her to withdraw the article or publish the necessary errata.

8. Originality and plagiarism
The author submits to the editor only the original work. At the same time, it should be ensured that the names of the authors quoted in thework and/or excerpts of the works cited arecorrectly quoted or exchanged.

9. Ghostwriting
Ghostwriting/guest authorship is a manifestation of scientific misconduct and any detected cases will be exposed, including notification to the relevant authorities. Symptoms of scientific misconduct, especially violations of ethics in science will be documented by the editor.

10. Acknowledgements and information sources
Articles should include the acknowledgements for the people or institutions who have done the work for the author. Authors should also cite publications that have significantly influenced the finaleffect of the published paper.

II. Duties of the Editor-in-Chief and other members of the Editorial Board

1. Decisions to publish
The editor-in-chief is obliged to comply with current defamation laws, infringe copyright and plagiarism, and be fully responsible for the decisions that the articles should be published. He or she may consult with thematic editors and/or reviewers.

2. Confidentiality
No member of the editorial team may disclose information about complex work to anyone other than the author (s), reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial consultants (e.g. translators) and the publisher.

3. Impartiality and justice
The editor-in-chief should evaluate the content submitted regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, nationality or political preferences of the author (s).

4. Disclosure and conflict of interest
Unpublished articles or their excerpts may not be used in the editorial team's own research or reviewers without the express written permission of the author.

5. Engaging and collaborating in research
The editor-in-chief should guard the integrity of his or her magazine by applying corrections and withdrawals, as well as tracking suspicious research or alleged misconduct in publications and reviews. He or she should take appropriate action when ethical objections to the submitted work or published article arise.

III. Responsibilities of the Reviewers

1. Editorial decisions
The reviewer supports the editor in making editorial decisions and can also assist the author in improving his / her work.

2. Timeliness
Any selected reviewer who cannot review a work or knows that a quick review will not be possible should inform the editor-in-chief.

3. Objectivity standards
Reviews should be done in an objective way. The author's personal criticism is unacceptable. Reviewers should express their opinions clearly, using the appropriate arguments in support of their theses.

4. Confidentiality
Any reviewed article or other text for publication must be treated as confidential. It cannot be shown or discussedwith other people without the permission of the editor-in-chief.

5. Anonymity
All reviews are done anonymously, and the editorial team doesnot share the reviewer's data.

6. Disclosure and conflict of interest
Confidential information or ideas arisingfrom a review must be kept confidential and may not be used for personal gain. Reviewers should not review works that are subject to conflicts of interest arising from relationships or other connections to the author, company or workplace.

7. Confirmation of information sources
Reviewers should indicate publications that have not been referred to by the author. Any statement that the observation, source, or argument was previously discussed should be supported by a suitable quote. The reviewer should also inform the editor-in-chief of any significant similarity, partial overlap of reviewed work with any other published or known work or suspicion of plagiarism.

IV. Statement by the Publisher
In cases of alleged or verified scientific research, unfair publication or plagiarism, the publisher, in close cooperation with the editor-in-chief of the journal, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and make amendments to a particular article. This includes the rapid publication of the errata or, in justified cases, the full withdrawal of the work from the journa


The Linguistica Silesiana peer-referees 2017-2020

  • Beata Abdallah-Krzepkowska
  • Magdalena Bartłomiejczyk
  • Magdalena Bator
  • Monika Bielińska
  • Bogusław Bierwiaczonek
  • Krzysztof Bogacki
  • Jan Čermák
  • Bożena Cetnarowska
  • Magdalena Charzyńska-Wójcik
  • Grzegorz Drożdż
  • Radosław Dylewski
  • Henryk Fontański
  • Danuta Gabryś-Barker
  • Piotr Gąsiorowski
  • Łukasz Grabowski
  • Ireneusz Kida
  • Robert Kiełtyka
  • Marcin Krygier
  • Marcin Kuczok
  • Katarzyna Kwapisz-Osadnik
  • Czesław Lachur
  • Andrzej Łyda
  • Ewa Miczka
  • Ewa Myrczek-Kadłubicka
  • John G. Newman
  • Mikołaj Nkollo
  • Jerzy Nykiel
  • Ewa Piechurska-Kuciel
  • Tadeusz Piotrowski
  • Adam Pluszczyk
  • Andrzej Porzuczek
  • Hans Sauer
  • Czesława Schatte
  • Piotr Stalmaszczyk
  • Monika Sułkowska
  • Konrad Szcześniak
  • Krystyna Warchał
  • Halina Widła
  • Krzysztof Witczak
  • Adam Wojtaszek
  • Marcin Zabawa

This page uses 'cookies'. Learn more