A couple of recent interviews with the popular linguist Professor Jerzy Bralczyk, in particular this one on Kanal Zero, have gone viral.
Bralczyk has for many years been a popular writer and charismatic lecturer often attempting to "adjudicate" what proper Polish is in controversial cases. Often these controversial cases concern changes in language and he has often come down on the side of conservatism.
For example, like many languages, Polish has formal and informal modes of address. Formal address uses Pan/Pani/Państwo (approximately: "Sir/Madam/Ladies and Gentlemen") and the third person, while informal address uses regular second person forms - "you" in singular or plural.
In recent decades, however, a mixed form has become popular, something like "Would you like, Sirs, to follow me?" ("Czy zechcielibyście Panowie podążyć za mną?") And Bralczyk was against this innovation as it mixes second and third person forms. People in daily life find it useful as a way of negotiating situations requiring both formality and informality.
In the interviews which have sparked controversy, however, Bralczyk has touched on sensitive issues of feminism and animal rights.
As in English, there is an awareness today of the connotations of using masculine or feminine endings. In English, there is a broad consensus to move to "actor" and "flight attendant" because especially "stewardess" invokes particular connotations of women serving men and looking pretty while they do it.
Actor is to be used, we are told, for example in this LA Times article, because there were (rather long ago) associations of dubious morals with the word "actress".
In Polish, somewhat ironically, the same increase of dignity in addressing professional women is said to be achieved by adding a new feminine form. Instead of just having "Profesor" which is a masculine word in Polish, we should add "Profesorka" to the language - rather than the traditional "Pan Professor", "Pani Profesor". To some ears, including Professor Bralczyk's, these innovations can sound comical or strange - quite contrary to their intended goal.
A second area of controversy, one where Bralczyk seems to really be going against the grain, is his insistence on using separate words for common (?) experiences and identifications of animals and people. In Polish you can say an animal has died ("zdechł") in a way which is according to the dictionary but which offends animal lovers and animal rights activists alike.
Most people today in Poland would use similar language for the death of a pet or a family member. A similar situation in English arises with using he, she or it for an animal. If you use the word "it" for a friend's animal, knowing full well it is a male or female, you will be perceived as insensitive - or perhaps joking.
Where Professor Bralczyk seems again to have stronger arguments on his side, is his resistance to highly politicised phrases like "human or animal person". Following Australian philosopher and animal rights activist Peter Singer, this kind of language implies both people and animals can enjoy personhood. Certainly there are those who support Singer and those who oppose him, but it does not seem to be a matter of proper language which view to accept.
There have also been legal reasons to create terms distinguishing e.g. dolphins and octopuses whose intelligence and general level of life is much higher than previously known.
Here the question is whether people are free to use the language they wish to declare the opinions they hold (ignorant or not), or whether "proper language", "politically correct language" will seek to impose the "right opinions" on speakers - a textbook case of the Orwellian use of language.
Sources: PAP, LA Times, Kanal Zero
pt