The principle of least effort within the hierarchy of linguistic preferences: external evidence from English

The thesis is an investigation of the principle of least effort (Zipf 1949 [1972]). The principle is simple (all effort should be least) and universal (it governs the totality of human behavior). Since the principle is also functional, the thesis adopts a functional theory of language as its theoretical framework, i.e. Natural Linguistics. The explanatory system of Natural Linguistics posits that higher principles govern preferences, which, in turn, manifest themselves as concrete, specific processes in a given language. Therefore, the thesis’ aim is to investigate the principle of least effort on the basis of external evidence from English. The investigation falls into the three following strands: the investigation of the principle itself, the investigation of its application in articulatory effort and the investigation of its application in phonological processes. The structure of the thesis reflects the division of its broad aims. The first part of the thesis presents its theoretical background (Chapter One and Chapter Two), the second part of the thesis deals with application of least effort in articulatory effort (Chapter Three and Chapter Four), whereas the third part discusses the principle of least effort in phonological processes (Chapter Five and Chapter Six). Chapter One serves as an introduction, examining various aspects of the principle of least effort such as its history, literature, operation and motivation. It overviews various names which denote least effort, explains the origins of the principle and reviews the literature devoted to the principle of least effort in a chronological order. The chapter also discusses the nature and operation of the principle, providing numerous examples of the principle at work. It emphasizes the universal character of the principle from the linguistic field (low-level phonetic processes and language universals) and the non-linguistic ones (physics, biology, psychology and cognitive sciences), proving that the principle governs human behavior and choices. Chapter Two provides the theoretical background of the thesis in terms of its theoretical framework and discusses the terms used in the thesis’ title, i.e. hierarchy and preference. It justifies the selection of Natural Linguistics as the thesis’ theoretical framework by outlining its major assumptions and demonstrating its explanatory power. As far as the concepts of hierarchy and preference are concerned, the chapter provides their definitions and reviews their various understandings via decision theories and linguistic preference-based theories. Since the thesis investigates the principle of least effort in language and speech, Chapter Three considers the articulatory aspect of effort. It reviews the notion of easy and difficult sounds and discusses the concept of articulatory effort, overviewing its literature as well as various understandings in a chronological fashion. The chapter also presents the concept of articulatory gestures within the framework of Articulatory Phonology. The thesis’ aim is to investigate the principle of least effort on the basis of external evidence, therefore Chapters Four and Six provide evidence in terms of three experiments, text message studies (Chapter Four) and phonological processes in English (Chapter Six). Chapter Four contains evidence for the principle of least effort in articulation on the basis of experiments. It describes the experiments in terms of their predictions and methodology. In particular, it discusses the adopted measure of effort established by means of the effort parameters as well as their status. The statistical methods of the experiments are also clarified. The chapter reports on the results of the experiments, presenting them in a graphical way and discusses their relation to the tested predictions. Chapter Four establishes a hierarchy of speakers’ preferences with reference to articulatory effort (Figures 30, 31). The thesis investigates the principle of least effort in phonological processes, thus Chapter Five is devoted to the discussion of phonological processes in Natural Phonology. The chapter explains the general nature and motivation of processes as well as the development of processes in child language. It also discusses the organization of processes in terms of their typology as well as the order in which processes apply. The chapter characterizes the semantic properties of processes and overviews Luschützky’s (1997) contribution to NP with respect to processes in terms of their typology and incorporation of articulatory gestures in the concept of a process. Chapter Six investigates phonological processes. In particular, it identifies the issues of lenition/fortition definition and process typology by presenting the current approaches to process definitions and their typology. Since the chapter concludes that no coherent definition of lenition/fortition exists, it develops alternative lenition/fortition definitions. The chapter also revises the typology of phonological processes under effort management, which is an extended version of the principle of least effort. Chapter Seven concludes the thesis with a list of the concepts discussed in the thesis, enumerates the proposals made by the thesis in discussing the concepts and presents some questions for future research which have emerged in the course of investigation. The chapter also specifies the extent to which the investigation of the principle of least effort is a meaningful contribution to phonology.

Transmission Easement and Adverse Possession of Transmission Easement in the Polish Law

The object of analysis in the text are the issues concerned with the transmission easement and the adverse possession thereof on the grounds of the Polish law. The text features: (1) a historical outline of the solutions concerned with easements in the Polish law following 1945, (2) the institution of transmission easement introduced in 2008 and the solutions concerned with the claims for the establishment thereof at court, (3) the institution of adverse possession of transmission easement pursuant to civil law regulations, judicature and the legal doctrine. On account of the need to elaborate the wide-ranging legal issues concerned with the transmission easement in this text, the analysis embraces two research questions giving rise to the following conclusions: (1) What function is performed by the institution of transmission easement in the system of civil-law relations in the Polish law? The legislator in the articles introducing a transmission easement ossified the solutions functioning in the judicature of the Polish courts before 2008. The legal interpretation took a turn for clarification, that is for the establishment of a norm in the situation where its comprehension was dubious. It is noteworthy that in the period prior to 2008, the law provided for easement appurtenant, and on account of the usual course of judicial decisions also for easement appurtenant with the content corresponding to transmission easement. In 2008 these two “legal existences” were supplemented with a transmission easement, which nevertheless failed to resolve all the legal problems; nay, this gave rise to even more problems, e.g. the one of non-establishment of interpolar norms which would address the issues arising in connection with the use of various easement institutions in legal transactions. While amending the civil law, the legislator aimed to bring order to legal transactions by streamlining the unregulated actual state of easement in relation to transmission infrastructure, but also in relation to the situations where an easement was yet to be established and a facility yet to be constructed. Thus, such action is intended to regulate the disorderly legislation in force as well as to safeguard investment processes. This is of particular significance, for example, for energy companies which are burdened with statutory public-law obligations as regards securing energy supplies and providing for the development of energy infrastructure. Hence, the de facto introduced civil-law solutions indirectly served to realise the principles of the doctrine of easement in the public interest. (2) What legal problems in the civil-law relations does the application of the institution of transmission easement by adverse possession entail? On account of the functioning of various institutions of easement, that is (1) an easement appurtenant, (2) an easement appurtenant with the content corresponding to a transmission easement, and as of 2008 (3) a transmission easement, a problem arose as to which of the given easements companies exercised in particular periods, all the more so because before 1989 the State Treasury owned them and many of the transmission facilities were put in place by virtue of administrative decisions. The commonly held belief is that in the period of “society-oriented economy” as well as up to 2008 infrastructure companies could exercise an easement appurtenant which corresponded to the content of a transmission easement. Therefore, in such a case the running of the prescriptive period should allow for the general rules laid down for an easement appurtenant. Apart from the problem of the relation of a capacity to exercise a right to property and the free development of civil-law relations before 1989, the recognition of the running of prescriptive periods – given the functioning of the three various easements as legal institutions – became a significant legal problem. By way of illustration, the recognition – against the period of exercising transmission easement – of the period required for the acquisition thereof by adverse possession, whereby before 3 August 2008 the real estate featured the legal state corresponding to the content of this right, is debatable. One cannot recognise that within that period a transmission easement was exercised, because such a right was not in existence as yet. Therefore, the institution that might be employed is the running of the period as regards the adverse possession in relation to an easement appurtenant with the content of a transmission easement. Still, the problem remains as to whether the period of the exercise of the easement appurtenant with the content corresponding to a transmission easement can be recognised against the period of possession required for the adverse possession of a transmission easement pursuant to the regulations introduced in 2008. One might incline to the position whereby in such a case it would be right to fully recognise – against the period of exercising a transmission easement – the period of exercising an easement appurtenant corresponding thereto in respect of its content. That being so, the adverse possession of a transmission easement might ensue in such a situation on 3 August 2008 at the earliest, that is the moment the regulations governing this right come into effect. Conversely, if the prescriptive period expires before that date, the entrepreneur would acquire an easement appurtenant with the content corresponding to the transmission easement. Such an interpretation is aligned with the purpose intended by the legislator, which is to bring order to the actual state of the broadest scope with the aid of a new legal instrument. The text, while analysing the issue of a transmission easement and an adverse possession thereof as a institution of the civil law, presents only some selected problems. Hence, the analysis does not include, for example, the issues concerned with claims for remuneration (for usufruct without contractual basis or usufruct fees), or claims for compensation (redress or amends). Furthermore, the text does not conduct a more profound analysis of the relation between the provisions regulating public-law relations (e.g. acts of law introducing the institution of dispossession) and the provisions regulating civil-law relations (the easements in question).