"O, mowo polska, ty ziele rodzime...". Wokół refleksji nad kształtem polszczyzny

Abstract

The book presents linguistic reflections of some outstanding personalities of the broadly understood Polish culture from the 19th and 20th centuries: three representatives of science and a dozen or so selected representatives of fine literature. All of them are characterized by sublime social awareness of language, based on the collective experience, and almost bordering on linguistic awareness. The analysis of the writings shows almost unanimous concern for the proper shape of the Polish language, which is usually treated as national good and cultural good, all of which can be summarized in an eliptical way as follows: 1) The native language is the mainstay of existence of a nation and the center of its spirit; 2) Language threads are closely connected with the history of the Polish society, the civilizational development of the nation and its culture. Linguistic reflections – often taking a form of smaller or larger scientific treatises – revolve around two fundamental issues: what is the Polish language like and what should it be like? Nonlinguists, great admirers of the Polish language, and at the same time its conscious users, spread the culture of the word, present their ideas about the national language, and teach others how to understand the rules and laws governing the language. Many of these suggestions are based on closeness or even on identity of views shared by the people of science and the people of pen, when it comes to linguistic issues. What they have in common in depicting the Polish language is opi­nions, suggestions and conclusions, sometimes maybe too emotional and subjective, but certainly consistent with specialized knowledge. These conclusions can be defined in the shortest way using statements which are either of directive nature or which are only postulational and wishful. The semantic centre of such syntactical structures are modal categories, expressing the relation of the text’s originator to the object which the sentence refers to. The forms “should”, “it is necessary”, “one needs to”, “one ought to” explicate the will of the sender and his or her conviction about possibility and, above all, about the need for a particular situation to arise: 1) When determining the correctness of linguistic forms, one should take into account both the linguistic habit and the new tendencies resulting from the development of the civilization and the dynamism inscribed into the language; 2) It is necessary to think of a language in terms of an analogy and variability; 3) One ought to protect and cultivate the language of the common people, which is an integral part of the general language, as it conceals the original treasures and traces of the ancient ethnic culture; 4) The form of expression should be adapted to the situation in which this expression comes into being. Language users must be aware of the multidimensional, multi­partite and dynamic nature of elements influencing the diversity of the Polish language; 5) It is absolutely necessary to develop language awareness and knowledge of the Polish language among its users. The awakening of this consciousness is the role of outstanding writers and great scholars, who should be considered codifiers of the linguistic standard. It is in their works where one should look for models of perfect Polish, both in practical and theoretical aspects. It must also be remembered that the state of a language is a determinant of the degree of a nation’s cultural development, and that languages collapse with the fall of authority figures. The authors of the writings presented in this work do not lack such authorities and inspirers, for example: Lelewel refers to, among others, Bentkowski, Brodziński, Knapiusz, Kopczyński (although often critically), Linde, Meniński, Mickiewicz, Moniuszko, Mroziński, Parkoszowic, Staszic; Karłowicz – among others, to Deotyma, Knapiusz, Lenartowicz, Linde, Łapczyński, Mickiewicz, Moniuszko, Mroziński, Orgelbrand; Gloger – among others, to Bandtkie, Feliński, Karłowicz, Knapiusz, Kolberg, Kopczyński, Lelewel, Linde, Małecki, Mesgnien Meniński, Mickiewicz, Moniuszko, Mroziński, Orgelbrand, Parkoszowic, Walicki; Tuwim – to Brückner, de Courtenay, de Saussure, Doroszewski, Feliński, Kopczyński, Rozwadowski, Sławski; Wańkowicz – among others, to Brückner, Buttlerowa, Doroszewski, Gloger, Kna­piusz, Kolberg, Kopczyński (also critically), Linde, Mickiewicz, Mroziński, Norwid, Orgelbrand, Parkoszowic, Pisarek, Rozwadowski, Siatkowski, Tuwim, Żeromski; poets and writers dressing their linguistic reflections in the form of metaphorical costumes – refer to nameless monks and medieval authors, Kochanowski, Mickiewicz, Rej, Słowacki, etc. As it appears from the above list of names, some autho­rity figures are almost iconic. They constitute an interdisciplinary, timeless model regardless of generation. But it is also worth mentioning that some of the admirers and propagators of elegant Polish, described in this book, become such icons for next generations: Lelewel, Karłowicz, Gloger or Tuwim. Some of the reflection can be expressed by means of definitions. It is, therefore, even more difficult to deny their genuineness. 1) Languages are subject to evolutionary transformations, and speech with its users goes through a complicated development path conditioned by both internal and external factors; moreover, language – in the course of civilizational progress – becomes an increasingly precise tool for communicating thoughts; 2) The linguistic standard is not something that is fixed, it is not an established constant, but it is continually being improved; 3) Formation and transformation of a language consists in a difficult reconciliation process between faithfulness to tradition and an overwhelming desire and need for innovation, as well as a natural tendency of a language to systemic changes at all levels; 4) There is a natural human tendency to look for similarities and differences between languages, grammars and, consequently, ways of communication; 5) Artistic language is one of the most important elements of discovering the past of a language. What differentiates the people of science and the people of pen in their view on language, comes down to just a few aspects: 1) Artistic statements about a language are in the overwhelming majority “a poetry of sententiae”, catchy phrases, allusions to phrases or images wellsettled in the Polish literature; it is a verbal virtuosity based on a game of meanings, unconventional phrases and associations; 2) Artists, mainly poets, often valuate other modern languages from the perspective of their own speech; they are characterized by their Polishfocused egocentrism and pathos in a metaphorical reflection on the language; 3) The statements of scientists about the language are less emotional, and from the structural and semantic perspective they are more formalized and rationalized; grammar is for them the essence which defines the rules of correct speaking and writing. The difference in how language is treated among people representing different humanistic disciplines is due to the traditionally wellestablished stylisticemotional dissimilarity between scientific discourse and artistic expression. Order, balanced judgment, rationalism and stylistic harmony have been imposed on the former, while the latter has been allowed elements far beyond the commonsense framework, that is, superiority of subjectivism over objectivism, and breaking the existing grammatical rules, sometimes changing into moments of tameless linguistic madness. This monograph does not claim to be a complete study of the problem. Its purpose was to present fragments of linguistic awareness highlighted in the texts of several eminent Poles, showing how they describe the currently operative supra­subjective knowledge of a language, how they show what is common and what is individual in a language, what deserves admiration and what deserves reprimand, what can be valued unequivocally, and what seems to be debatable. But undoubtedly indisputable is the fact that respect for one’s mother tongue, sensitivity to the word, linguistic experience of a language user, supported by good knowledge of rules governing the language, determine fluent use of the mother tongue and allow for the creation and understanding of every utterance. Moreover, they all stimulate constant work on the improvement of language awareness, and conse­quently – often also the improvement of linguistic awareness. And this was, arguably, what the admirers of the Polish language had in mind.