Preposition
1. All the major concepts of a preposition prevalent in the literature may be reduced to two distinct approaches. It is either assumed that 1. prepositions are lexemes and thus represent a part of speech, or that 2. they are morphemes, or – to be more specific – submorphemes of a discontinuous morpheme, the second submorpheme being the morpheme indicating the case of noun. The concept of a preposition as a morpheme comes from Jerzy Kuryłowicz
(1936/1979: 154, 1948/1987: 181) (cf. also Karolak 1965, 1966; Jurkowski 1972; Wójcik 1979). Kuryłowicz argued that preposition determines a noun and implies its case ending; in other words, he viewed prepositions as the main submorpheme of a discontinuous morpheme, implying an auxiliary submorpheme. In his approach, the stem of the noun would be the carrier of meaning (semanteme) in a prepositional phrase. Tadeusz Milewski (1965: 87) agreed with this view assuming that prepositions are not words, but rather morphemes, and as such do not constitute a part of speech of their own.
According to a widespread opinion prevalent in 20th century Polish grammar textbooks, prepositions are words and represent a separate part of speech. Stanisław Szober (1957: 96–97) believed that prepositions are non-independent words which determine the relations between heterogeneous parts of a sentence, combining main and dependent words. According to Łoś (1923: 360), a preposition is “a formal word expressing a relationship between a verb and a name or between two names,” “having the same syntactic function as a case ending.” Zenon Klemensiewicz (1960: 64) viewed prepositions as “invariable words, forming a syntactically indissoluble semantic unit with a noun or a pronoun.” Stanisław Jodłowski (1976: 20) defined a preposition as a denoting, mnemonic, non-naming word, marking non-coordinate relations between words. According to Zygmunt Saloni (1974), prepositions are invariable lexemes which are not used independently, having a connective function and governing the case of the word they bind to. Roman Laskowski (1984: 31, 1998: 58) characterised prepositions as synsyntagmatic lexemes with a connective function, acting as a marker of the syntactic dependency of a nominal group and implying the case of the noun. Henryk Wróbel (1996: 58) described prepositions as lexemes that do not function as a clause segment, linking and “governing the value of the case of the lexeme with which they form a phrase.”
The preferred concept of a preposition for the purpose of this study is the one that views prepositions as an uninflected (invariable) part of speech, and, more specifically, as a syntacteme capable of filling positions opened by other lexemes and implying a specific value of the grammatical category of case, while also opening a syntactic position, typically a righthanded one, for a nominal part of speech (Wajszczuk 2010: 28).
2. The hypothesis that prepositions are or are not meaning-carrying units has been discussed (or settled without any discussion) in the literature. Some scholars claim that prepositions have no independent meaning of their own; cf. e.g. Stanisław Karolak (1999: 472–475), Roman Laskowski (1999: 305), Krystyna Pisarkowa (1999: 305). This hypothesis is unacceptable in either its affirmative or negative form and requires further clarification.
If a specific preposition cooperates with two lexical units representing substitutive classes which are not closed from the formal and functional perspective (Bogusławski 1976) and the grammatical form of one of such units – usually the right-handed one – is governed by that preposition, the preposition is a meaning-carrying unit. Such a unit is referred to as a prepositional unit (Grochowski 1995). For instance, in such contexts as oddał
(drukarkę) do naprawy, przyniósł (rachunek) do podpisania, the preposition _do_ connects an action verb with an action noun, communicating that the purpose of the former activ-
ity is to cause (perform) the latter, while the preposition _bez_ in such contexts as spodnie bez mankietów, zegarek bez wskazówek connects two nouns naming material objects and communicates that the latter is not a part of the former. It is quite common in the literature to place semantic labels on prepositional units; in consequence, prepositions have been labelled as spatial, locative (niedzielę spędzają u teściów, zabawki leżą pod stołem), ablative
(goście odeszli od stołu), perlative (biegnie przez most), temporal (wyjechali na piątek), causal (nie zgasił światła przez zapomnienie), of intention (pojechał po córkę), of concession (pomimo choroby opiekowała się dziećmi); scholars also speak of prepositions with a temporal, or causal function, of locative, intentional, temporal meaning (Bluszcz 1980, 1987; Grochowski 1976; Grybosiowa 1979; Hammel 2003; Jurkowski 1972; Klebanowska 1971, 1981ab,
1982ab; Laskowski 2003, 2005; Lehmann 2003; Nowak 2008; Pasoń 1971; Przybylska 1985; Weinsberg 1970, 1973; Włodarczyk 2003). Although developed using a different research methodology, an analogous approach may be found in cognitive linguistics studies (Gasze-
wski 2019; Przybylska 2002).
If a preposition does not meet the foregoing criteria, it is not a lexical unit, but rather forms a component of yet another, larger unit. As such it does not convey any meaning on its own. For instance, the preposition _do_ in such contexts as zabrała się do szycia, przyzwyczaiła się do samotności is a component of two verbal units; the verbs governing do and the preposition itself both form closed classes. The question about the meaning may therefore only refer to the entire units containing the verb form and the preposition, rather than to their individual constituents. Cf. also the (verbal, adjectival, nominal, adverbial) units ręczy za_, podobny do_, wiara w_, daleko od_, containing a preposition which is not their constitutive component. It would be irrational to look for prepositions in strings traditionally
referred to as phrasemes or set phrases, cf. e.g. coś wychodzi na jaw, ktoś nie ma grosza przy duszy, na czczo, na bakier, w gruncie rzeczy, bez ustanku.
Prepositions are function words, which implies that they refer to the linguistic expressions with which they co-occur. They bear no reference to non-linguistic reality, even if they are meaning-carrying. A reference to the world of units containing a preposition is a problem
inherent to the description of these units.
3. A preposition governs one (e.g. dla, do, ku, od, u, wśród, zza) or more than one case (e.g. między, na, nad, o, po, pod, w, z, za). Certain prepositions take the nominative case; cf. e.g. co (alternatively with the accusative), jak, lada, niż in utterances of the following type: Co godzina / godzinę dostawał zastrzyk., Oczy ma takie jak matka., Wystawę zamkną lada godzina., Odkrył metal lżejszy niż powietrze. (Grochowski 1997, 2016, 2021; Kallas 1986, 1995). No preposition takes the vocative case (Topolińska 1973), which is classified as a case only in traditional grammar anyway.
The literature on Polish grammar distinguishes between prepositions proper (basic, simple, primary) and secondary (complex) prepositions (Wątor 1969, 1976; Wójcik 1979; Bajor
1988; Pasoń 1971; Przybylska 1988; Kosek 1995ab, 2000, 2001; Hentschel 1998; Czerwińska 2001; Deptuła 2003; Golanowska 1993; Łojasiewicz 1979; Milewska 1998, 2000, 2003ab; Menzel 2003; Przepiórkowski 2006; Weiss 2005; Nowak 2008, 2013; Janowska 2015; Lachur 1999, 2019; Grochowski 2020). The former are monosyllabic or asyllabic (e.g. bez, do, na, nad, o, po, pod, przez, u, w, z, za), while the latter contain at least two syllables (e.g. podczas, ponad, poprzez, sponad, spośród, spoza, znad, zza, dookoła, naprzeciwko, powyżej, przeciwko, spomiędzy), they are derived from the dependent cases of nouns (they are, for example, homonyms of the instrumental, cf. celem, drogą, kosztem, skutkiem, środkiem, tytułem, wzorem), or are created by combining prepositions proper with nouns and other nominal parts of speech (e.g. bez względu na, na mocy, na przekór, na rzecz, pod wpływem, rodem z, w imieniu, w pobliżu, w stosunku do, w ślad za, w zamian za, za pomocą, ze strony, z powodu, z uwagi na).
The classification of a specific string as a secondary preposition or a combination of a preposition proper with a noun is often arbitrary. However, the issue is quite relevant for the
purpose of grammatical description as it illustrates the opposition between a lexical unit and a syntactic structure. As such, it should be based on clearly defined criteria. This view is not
inconsistent with a widespread opinion shared by many scholars that sees secondary prepositions as not forming a closed class (Janowska 2015; Milewska 2003a). The same scholars argue that the combinations of prepositions proper and nouns are subject to prepositionalisation. In her monograph, Beata Milewska (2003a: 225–227) even placed “an index of expressions tending towards prepositionalisation” (e.g. na okoliczność, na znak, u wrót, w asyście, w okolicy, w rytm, z lat). This opinion was recently confirmed by Czesław Lachur in his research (2019: 72). Homonyms of certain secondary prepositions may be found in the class of adverbs, e.g.
blisko, naprzeciwko, obok, pośrodku, powyżej, wokół (Bańko 2002; Łoś 1923; Milewska 2000).
Prepositions occur in a linear position preceding the remaining components of a nominal group; cf. e.g. przed kilkoma godzinami, pod grubą warstwą kurzu, wśród starych modrzewi. The exceptions include temu, a post-positional preposition found in temporal structures (e.g. dwa dni, trzy miesiące, cztery lata temu) and prepositions naprzeciw, na przekór (governing the dative case) which may occur both in preposition and in postposition with respect to the nominal element of the group (e.g. wybiegli gościom naprzeciw v. wybiegli naprzeciw gościom, żyjemy swoją muzyką światu na przekór v. żyjemy swoją muzyką na przekór światu) (cf. Grochowski 1997: 17, 71; Bańko 2002: 113).
Numerous secondary prepositions represent “units with a component isolated in the lexical resource” (Lewicki 1986: 159); e.g. pod auspicjami, pod egidą, pod wodzą, w pobliżu, w poprzek, w przededniu, wraz z, w zamian za, z dala od. They are characterised by a fixed external and internal order. Certain prepositions allow for the inversion of the noun they connote, and for its substitution with an anaphoric or possessive pronoun (Lewicki 1989: 77; Grochowski 2020); cf wojska ruszyły pod wodzą króla v. … pod króla / jego wodzą; filharmonia powstała pod auspicjami marszałka v. … pod marszałka / jego auspicjami; oni będą w jego / naszym imieniu pilnować zgromadzonych. Emilia Kozarzewska (1970, 1982) recorded and described a number of verbal units (containing a preposition) with an isolated component; cf. e.g. ktoś zbija kogoś z pantałyku, ktoś idzie komuś w sukurs, ktoś przepadł z kretesem, ktoś
potępił kogoś (coś) w czambuł, ktoś ma fiu bździu w głowie, coś wychodzi na jaw, na chybił trafił.
4. A prepositional nominal phrase may be a component of the basic (canonical) predicate-argument structure and the non-basic (non-canonical) predicative expression structure. For
instance, in such sentences as Bez żartów!, Telefon na podsłuchu., Ręka w gipsie. it represents the basic predicate, in sentences such as Ewa jest skłonna do zwierzeń., Anna tęskni za synem.,
Torba wypadła z szafy. – the argument of the basic predicate, while in sentences Przeziębił się podczas spaceru., Śpiewała przez nos., Pomalowano całe mieszkanie oprócz przedpokoju. – a non-canonical predicative expression (Jurkowski 1972; Lewicki 1974; Topolińska 1984ab; Grochowski 1976, 1984).
Some prepositions with a consonantal ending have their vocalic equivalents, and their distribution is phonetically motivated; cf. e.g. bez – beze (e.g. beze mnie), w – we (e.g. we
Wrocławiu, we Francji), z – ze (e.g. ze złości, ze strachu, ze wstydu) or lexically motivated; cf. e.g. such units as przede wszystkim, ze wszech miar, coś daje się komuś we znaki, ktoś pa-
trzy na kogoś spode łba. The vocalic equivalents of prepositions with a consonantal ending, as well as prepositions ending with a vowel (e.g. dla, do, na) form a syntactic structure with
the unstressed form of the genitive and the accusative of the pronoun on, constituting one graphic whole, e.g. dlań, doń, nań, weń. Such constructions fill specific positions in a sentence structure (implied or added); cf. Ataki prasowe nie były dlań nowością., Odezwał się doń po imieniu., Tutaj czekała nań niemiła niespodzianka., Uderzyła weń kawałkiem żelaza.
(Bańko 2002: 78–79, 114–115).
A review of researchers’ views on the place and role of prepositions in grammar (in the context of Polish and other languages) may be found in the following studies (Karolak 1966; Jurkowski 1972; Lewicki 1974; Wójcik 1979; Grochowski 1984; Hentschel 2003; Przybylska 2002, 2005; Milewska 2003a; Weiss 2005).
Certain Polish prepositions have been thoroughly described from the perspective of semantics. The interpretations of their meanings followed a variety of methodological conventions – syntactic reductionist semantics; see przed, za (Bogusławski 2003); między (Grochowski 2003); w głębi, w obrębie, w środku, we wnętrzu (Nowak 2008), or cognitive semantics w, na, za, przed, pod, nad, po, przy, u, przez (Przybylska 2002).
