Syntacteme

A syntacteme (in Polish: syntaktem) is a term denoting a unit at the syntactic level of language, and was coined by analogy to such terms as phoneme, morpheme, lexeme (Nowak 2015: 127). In linguistic encyclopediae (Polański 1999a: 386, 1999b: 581), a syntacteme is identified with a constituent, laconically described as “a structure which makes part of a larger structure.” A structure, in turn, is defined as a constituent of something existing at a yet higher level, e.g. a clause. In traditional syntax, researchers narrowed the intuitively perceived concept of a constituent, and the same applies to the concept of syntacteme in structuralist syntax (not every constituent is a syntacteme).

According to Zenon Klemensiewicz (1963: 19), a constituent is “an independent word which remains in a direct and mutual syntactic relation with another independent word belonging to the same utterance.” Given the way in which this researcher defined a constituent, the scope of the concept is not inclusive of prepositions (it is the prepositional phrase as a whole that is a constituent), conjunctions, interjections as well as other intellectual (e.g. chyba, przecież, rzekomo), directional (e.g. panie woźny in vocative) and referential (e.g. ponadto, następnie) markers. A word representing the last of the abovementioned classes may be a constituent on condition that it remains in a syntactic relationship with another constituent of an utterance; e.g. words such as tymczasem, odtąd used as adverbials of time (Klemensiewicz 1963: 28; Grochowski 2011).

In Polish structuralist syntax, there are two prevailing concepts of a syntacteme. One was developed by Henryk Misz (1967, 1968b/1981b), while the other by Jadwiga Wajszczuk (2005, 2010, 2011).

1. Henryk Misz’s concept

Misz (1967: 22–26) was critical when it comes to the syntactic classifications of words presented in the studies by Mirowicz (1949), Milewski (1952), Jodłowski (1960) and Klemensiewicz (1963). Relying on the results of their research, he put forward his own classification. He assumed that the description and classification would focus on syntactemes – the elementary units of the syntactic system. According to Misz (1967: 30–31, 1968b/1981b: 186–187), syntactemes are a class of words and word forms with an identical syntactic value, and as such having syntactically relevant properties, used to form correct structures. Among syntactically relevant properties, the researcher distinguished class, category, and lexical properties.

While all words have class and lexical properties, only inflected forms have categorial properties (cf. more in Grochowski 2014).

Syntactemes are combined on the basis of direct dependency and such combinations are subject to class (e.g. czytając zasnął), categorial (e.g. stary chłop) or lexical (e.g. prawie trup) determination. Misz (1968b/1981b: 187–188) distinguished between several types of such dependencies, and in consequence identified as many as five syntactic functions performed by syntactemes: head (e.g. życie in: życie towarzyskie), dependent (e.g. towarzyskie in: życie towarzyskie), co-dependent (e.g. both elements in the sequence życie rozkwitło), argument (e.g. zgrabny, baletnica in: zgrabny jak baletnica) and functor [in Polish: funktor] (e.g. jak in: zgrabny jak baletnica).

In his monograph on syntactic groups, following a structural analysis of syntactemes carried out with the use of substitution methods, Misz (1967: 43–58), relying on the description of their connotation and distribution, distinguished – by enumeration – the following 17 classes of syntactemes: 1. nouns (two subclasses: nouns in nominative and in dependent cases), 2. verbs (four subclasses: personal, impersonal, infinitives, adverbial participles), 3. adjectives and adjectival participles, 4. adverbs, 5. pronouns (two subclasses: pronouns in nominative, e.g. kto, co, nikt, nic, ja, ty, on, and in dependent cases), 6. pro-adjectives and adjectival numerals (e.g. jakiś, ten, nasz, żaden, niczyj; drugi, dwojaki, kilkakrotny), 7. pro-adverbs (e.g. tak, tu, tam, wtedy, gdzie, wszędzie, nigdy, nigdzie), 8. nominal numerals (e.g. dwa, pięć, kilka, wiele, mało, sporo, trochę, pół; tysiąc, milion), 9. auxiliary verbs-connectors (być, stać się, zrobić się, zostać), 10. auxiliary verbs-modifiers (require infinitive, e.g. musi, może, powinien, należy, wypada, można), 11. intensifiers (e.g. bardzo, całkiem, dosyć, nadzwyczaj, trochę, zbyt, zanadto), 12. prepositions, 13. identifying functors (e.g. to, czyli, równa się, znaczy), 14. connecting functors – conjunctions, 15. comparative functors (e.g. jak, jakby, niby, niczym, niż, niżby, aniżeli), 16. indirectly determining syntacteme (a single-element class represented by co in contexts such as przechodził co chwila / chwilę), 17. auxiliary verbs in analytic forms (e.g. będę, będziesz, byłbym, byłbyś).

There are three classes of words and forms that have no syntactic value, and as such are not included into the set of syntactemes (Misz 1967: 40, 58–60). These are (a) words with form-formative value (e.g. się, było, by, niech in combinations such as śpi się (nieźle); można było (zrobić); można by (zrobić); niech zginie (marnie)); (b) words with word-formative value (e.g. words bądź, indziej, się in combinations (położy) gdzie bądź; (położy) gdzie indziej; śmiał się (głośno)); (c) words with lexicon value (e.g. choć, dopiero, może, nawet, przynajmniej). The latter do not enter “into dependencies with syntactemes of a structure and they do not become dependent on the syntactemes of any class” (Misz 1967: 59). The author lists 48 single-segment as well as 11 two– and three-segment elements belonging to class (c) (cf. e.g. akurat, aż, jedynie, naprawdę, niejako, no, oto, poniekąd, przynajmniej, szczególnie, toć, widocznie, właściwie, wszakże, zresztą; bądź co bądź, co najmniej, na pewno, na przykład, po prostu, przede wszystkim, w ogóle).

2. Jadwiga Wajszczuk’s concept

Jadwiga Wajszczuk (2005, 2010, 2011) proposed a semantically-motivated syntactic classification of lexemes, centred around the following two oppositions: connectivity v. the lack of connectivity and the syntax of dependency v. the syntax of co-occurrence. The scholar contrasted lexemes with paralexemes – units that are not capable of opening any positions. This class consists of interjections, appeals and phatic signals. In the set of lexemes, Wajszczuk (2010: 25) distinguished between syntactemes – units which open semantically marked positions or fill one of such positions – and paratactemes, units with none of these properties, referring to the theme-rheme structure level of an utterance. The latter may co-occur with other expressions and open for them positions that are neither grammatically nor semantically marked, without entering with them into any syntactic dependencies. As noted by Adam Dobaczewski (2014, 2020), co-occurrence is neither linearly nor prosodically homogeneous.

Syntactemes are described using weak alternative, and include units with a property determined either by one or by two segments of the alternative. In two steps, Wajszczuk (2010: 27–28) divided syntactemes into: 1. lexemes which do not open any position, but fill positions opened by other lexemes (terms); 2. lexemes that open positions, but do not fill positions opened by other lexemes (independent predicates) and 3. lexemes that open positions and fill positions opened by other lexemes (dependent predicates). Each of these three major groups is subdivided into several other subgroups of a narrower scope, described by enumeration. And thus, the subgroup of terms consists of: a) referential expressions: proper nouns, pronouns (e.g. ja, ty, to, tamto, ktoś, coś) and spatial-temporal pro-adverbs (e.g. tu, teraz, tam, wtedy, stamtąd), b) simple predicates: names of natural species (e.g. brzoza, sasanka, lew, wiewiórka) and artifacts (e.g. dom, stół, filiżanka).

Independent predicates include: a) personal and impersonal forms of verbs (e.g. zarządzono [zbiórkę], należało [to zrobić], chce mi się [płakać], łamie [mnie w kościach]), b) predicatives (defective verbs, in Polish czasowniki niewłaściwe, literally ‘improper verbs’), e.g. miło mi, duszno tu, zimno tu; dnieje, świta, zagrzmiało, c) adverbial participles, d) numerals, adjectives, adjectival participles, adverbs, e) metapredicative operators (intensifiers, imitators, approximators), e.g. bardzo, niemal, prawie, całkiem, zbyt, dość, około [stu], tuż [za płotem]. Unlike in the case of other subgroups that are semantically marked, units from this subgroup enter into unilateral relations determined only semantically; cf. Wajszczuk’s opposition (2005: 111–118) proposed in her monograph on metatext: autosyntagmatics (syntactemes proper) v. synsyntagmatics (metapredicative operators) (cf. also Walusiak 2011).

Dependent predicates include: a) verbal and relational nouns, e.g. pranie, odpoczynek, przerwa, sąsiad, środek, b) infinitives, c) comparatives, e.g. lepiej [niż ja], szczuplejsza [od niej], d) prepositions, e) ‘includers’ [in Polish: włączniki], e.g. że, żeby, aby, czy. This final term was coined by Wajszczuk (1997: 39–46, 2011: 271) to indicate syntactemes that open a position for a subordinate utterance and in a place semantically and syntactically determined by the main predicate. Cf. e.g. the subordinators że, żeby in utterances Piotr wie, że Toruń leży nad Wisłą., Anna chciała, żeby Piotr wrócił. determined by the meanings of the predicates ‘wiedzieć’ (know) and ‘chcieć’ (want). In recent years, the distribution of includers in the context of nominal predicates was examined by Alicja Wójcicka (2017, 2018; cf. also Żabowska 2017). Cf. also the opposition between complex sentences with an implied clause (e.g. Jan namawia Piotra, żeby sprzedał samochód.) and a non-implied clause (e.g. Jan wynajął Piotrowi mieszkanie, ale zapomniał przekazać mu kluczy.) in “Składnia wyrażeń polipredykatywnych” (Grochowski 1984: 244).

3. Metapredicative operators

A metapredicative operator is a syntacteme which opens a single semantically marked syntactic position for grammatically diverse expressions, but does not fill any positions opened by units from other classes, except for particles. Wajszczuk divided the class of metapredicative operators into three subclasses – the operators of gradation, approximation, and limitation. Other scholars have elaborated on the units belonging to all or some of these groups (cf. e.g. Grochowski, Kisiel, Żabowska 2014, 2018).

The gradation operators (cf. e.g. bardzo, całkiem, coraz, dostatecznie, dosyć, dość, nader, nadzwyczaj, nazbyt, nieco, o wiele, sporo, trochę, wielce, wysoce, zanadto, zbyt, znacznie, zupełnie) open positions for phrases that are semantically scalable and form with them unilateral relationships (cf. e.g. Bałabaniak 2013; Bałabaniak, Mitrenga 2015). In older literature, they used to be classified as adverbs (cf. e.g. Grzegorczykowa 1975; Janus 1981; Jurkowski 1976; Węgiel 1995).

The approximation operators (e.g. bez mała, blisko, gdzieś, koło, mniej więcej, niemal, niespełna, około, plus minus, ponad, prawie, przeszło, z górą) open positions for phrases that describe a specific value from the perspective of quantity, number and measurement, and as such are also referred to as “adnumerative operators” (cf. e.g. Bogusławski 2010; Doboszyńska- Markiewicz 2013; Duszkin 2010; Grochowski 1996).

Finally, the operators of limitation (e.g. aż, dopiero, już, ledwie, ledwo, najdalej, najmniej, najprędzej, najwyżej, zaledwie) open positions for phrases describing a property that occupies a high or a low place on a scale (in the context of speaker’s expectations) (cf. e.g. Bańkowski 1975, 1976; Grochowski 2007, 2020). In comparison to the other two classes, restrictive operators have been the least studied.

4. Summary

The concept of a syntacteme put forward by Henryk Misz and the one proposed by Jadwiga Wajszczuk were developed nearly half a century apart. The former relies on distributive criteria, while the latter is based on the syntax of dependence. In Misz’s concept, syntactemes form a class of words and forms with identical syntactic value, while Wajszczuk perceives syntactemes as lexemes which fill or/and open a syntactic position. In their studies the authors operate on incomparable levels of abstraction. A comparison between the class of syntactemes in these two concepts may only be attempted from the point of view of the scope of reference of this term. If we disregard the words which, according to Misz, have form-forming and word-forming value (1967: 58–59) – these values not having been explained by the author – we may assume that the only class of units excluded from the scope of syntactemes by both authors are particles, referred to by Misz (1968a/1981a), following Klemensiewicz (1963: 26), as “additional intellectual markers.” However, in his syntax, Misz classified conjunctions – units excluded by Klemensiewicz (1963: 22) from the set of constituents of an utterance – as syntactemes, while Wajszczuk (2005, 2010, 2011) considered them as paratactemes. Misz (1967: 55), as the first Polish structuralist, distinguished the class of intensifiers, which corresponds to what is now referred to as scalarity operators. Jadwiga Wajszczuk’s concept of syntactemes has been accepted, developed, and elaborated upon by numerous scholars in their studies on syntax and semantics.