VESLAVA ČIŽIK-PROKAŠEVA

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

Research interests: syntactic hierarchies, free secondary predicatives.

THE MARKING OF DEPICTIVES IN LITHUANIAN

Marking of Depictives in Lithuanian

ABSTRACT

The article examines the marking of free non-resultative secondary predicatives (depictives) in Lithuanian and briefly surveys the classification of depictives in foreign-language linguistic studies. The article divides depictives into two groups—syntactic and semantic—and discusses in detail the forms of expression of each group. It seeks to show how Lithuanian depictives differ from depictives in other languages and to supplement the data presented in Lithuanian grammars and studies of syntax. On the basis of frequency, hierarchies are established for depictive forms and the parts of speech used to express them.

ANNOTATION

The article deals with the marking of secondary non-resultative predicates (depictives) in Lithuanian language. In this article, depictives are divided into two groups: syntactic depictives and semantic depictives, each group is discussed in detail: by every possible form of depictive. In this article, I laboured to show how depictives in Lithuanian language are different from depictives in other languages, and to supplement the data given in Lithuanian language grammars and studies of syntax. Based on the frequency of the use of certain depictives, two hierarchies are given: a hierarchy of cases of depictives and a hierarchy of forms of depictives.

0. INTRODUCTION

Authors representing structural and functional grammar in Lithuanian linguistics (most notably Adelė Valeckienė’s article (1967), Lietuvių kalbos gramatika (1976), Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika (1996)) have already examined secondary

KEYWORDS: secondary predicative, depictive, marking of depictives.

KEYWORDS: secondary predicate, depictive, marking of depictives.

128

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII

ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 128

2011.06.17 08:24:08

Marijampolės apskrities asmenvardinės kilmės agronomų darbys bruožai

predicatives¹, but they did not employ the concept of secondary predication in their work: a sentence-level syntactic phenomenon—the secondary predicate—was, at best, merely a part of the verb phrase (predicative modifier), but often simply the nominal part of a compound predicate or a component of a complex object. Perhaps the established concept of a binary syntactic relation in the Lithuanian grammatical tradition most of all prevented these predicatives from being regarded as a sentence-level phenomenon². The most recent works on syntax (articles by Axel Holvoet and his co-authors, and by Loreta Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė) employ the concept of secondary predication, but

¹ In foreign scholarly literature, secondary predicates are also called praedicativum, predicative attributes, predicative adjuncts, copredicates, copredicatives, labeled adjuncts, attributes, predicate nominals, predicate modifiers, postnominal and postverbal adjectives (Nichols 1978b: 114; Schultze-Berndt, Himmelmann 2004: 60; Himmelmann, Schultze-Berndt 2005: 4 and the literature cited there). In Lithuanian linguistics, the term predicative modifier used to name them is unsuitable because, in Axel Holvoet’s words, every adjective functioning as an attribute is predicative (the predication has merely been shifted to the noun-phrase level), whereas a secondary predicate is not an attribute in the sense that it does not form a noun phrase with a noun (Holvoet 2003: 74; Holvoet 2009b: 99). Comparing the concept of a secondary predicate used in foreign literature with the concept of a predicative modifier established in the Lithuanian tradition shows that the former defines additional sentence-level predication, while the latter suggests that a predicative is merely an integral part of the verb phrase or even of the sentence predicate. Although proponents of the predicative-modifier concept also speak of a new, separate sentence constituent, the label is nevertheless oriented toward the attribute—as if this were a special type of attribute. In fact, this sentence constituent differs greatly from an attribute (see also Labutis 1998: 250–251). Therefore, this article uses the term predicative.

² The concept of a binary syntactic relation should be rejected for several reasons. First, in earlier linguistic works (e.g., Valeckienė 1967; Ulvydas, ed., 1976; Ambrazas, ed., 1996), predicative modifiers were considered to include not only modifiers agreeing in case but also those that do not agree in case, which contradicted the definitions provided: it was emphasized that predicative modifiers are characterized by binary relations, one with the verb (adjunction), the other with the subject or object (agreement); yet predicative modifiers that do not agree in case are connected in the sentence by only one syntactic relation—with the verb—and therefore should not be considered predicative modifiers in the cited works. Second, since earlier linguistic works discussed only free secondary predicates in sections on predicative modifiers, while obligatory, verb-governed ones were not discussed, those works addressed only adjunction. It was assumed that the verb and the predicative were linked by a syntactic relation, and, since this relation was neither agreement nor government, it was described as adjunction. Thus, in traditional grammar, the relation between the verb and the predicative was established without reference to a morphosyntactic feature. In more recent works (in the Lithuanian Grammar research series), adjunction as a syntactic dependency relation has been abandoned because there is no morphosyntactic feature indicating a syntactic relation, and the concept of modification has been introduced, allowing both case-agreeing and non-case-agreeing predicatives to be regarded as predicatives. This article follows the more recent approach, that is, it assumes that free secondary predicates constitute neither a predicative modifier nor part of a secondary predicate, but a separate sentence-level constituent; syntactically they depend only on the main verb, while semantically they are related to an argument of the main predicate. Therefore, the article uses the term depictive, not predicative modifier.

Straipsniai / Articles

129

ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 129

2011.06.17 08:24:08

VESLAVA ČIŽIK-PROKAŠEVA

these works do not cover the full morphosyntax of the phenomenon. This article discusses the marking of free non-resultative secondary predicates³—depictives—in Lithuanian. It aims to show how Lithuanian depictives differ from depictives in other languages and to supplement the data presented in Lithuanian grammars and syntactic studies. On the basis of frequency⁴, hierarchies are established for the forms of depictives and the parts of speech by which depictives are expressed.

Depictives⁵ have dual relations in a sentence: the syntactic relation is between the depictive and the main predicate, while the semantic relation is between the depictive and an argument of the main predicate that the depictive characterizes⁶ (cf. Schultze-Berndt, Himmelmann 2004: 74–77). This semantic relation between the depictive and an argument of the main predicate is one of the most important criteria for distinguishing depictives from other sentence constituents (grammatical functions). Another very important criterion distinguishing depictives (verb modifiers⁷) from verb-required arguments (valents) is that depictives are not obligatory; cf. (1) The cheese was lying in the refrigerator wrapped in paper and (2) The cheese was lying in the refrigerator, (1) Juozas left the party angry and (2) Juozas left the party, where the meaning of the second sentences is the same as that of the first ones, and the sentences Luiza seems tired and The child will become a painter, in which the participle and the noun are obligatory predicatives and the sentences would be incomplete without them: *Luiza ap-

³ For the concepts secondary predicate, free (resultative/non-resultative) secondary predicate, see Veslava Čižik-Prokaševa 2010.

⁴ A total of 991 examples of depictives were collected. They were drawn from Jonas Jablonskis’s Lietuvių kalbos sintaksės (1911) and Linksnių ir prielinksnių (1928), Jonas Balkevičius’s Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos sintaksės (1963), Adelė Valeckienė’s 1967 article, Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos (1976), Vitas Labutis’s Lietuvių kalbos sintaksės (1994) and 1992 article, Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatikos (1996), Jonas Šukys’s book Lietuvių kalbos linksniai ir prielinksniai: vartosena ir normos (1998), articles by Holvoet and co-authors, Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė, and foreign linguists discussing secondary predicates, the Kaunas Vytautas Magnus University Corpus of Contemporary Lithuanian (available online http://donelaitis.vdu.lt), and the Google web search (available online http://www.google.lt).

⁵ In this article, depictives are understood in the broad sense, that is, they include depictives in the narrow sense and circumstantial secondary predicates (see Čižik-Prokaševa 2010 for more detail).

⁶ Cf. “...the predicative modifier is connected by dual syntactic relations with a verb of independent lexical meaning functioning as a predicate, with a verb phrase containing such a verb or another word performing the corresponding function, and with the nominative subject or the case forms of the object” (Valeckienė 1967: 115); “a predicative modifier is a sentence constituent which, at the same level of sentence expansion, has dual subordinate relations: with the predicate and also with the subject or object” (Ambrazas, ed., 1996: 490); “free secondary predicates are predicative words (adjectives, participles, and nouns) that function as verb modifiers in the sentence and are linked by a special semantic and morphosyntactic relation to one of the arguments of the main predication” (Holvoet, Mikulskas B: 1).

⁷ Government and modification are understood in this work as they are in the collections of the Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbų series (see Holvoet, Judžentis 2003: 12–15; Holvoet, Judžentis 2005: 16 for more detail).

130

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII

ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 130

2011.06.17 08:24:08

Marijampolės apskrities asmenvardinės kilmės agronomų darbo bruožai

shows and *The child will become. In languages where agreement helps link a secondary predicative to an argument of the main predicate, agreement is also considered one of the most important criteria—it indicates that a word is being used as a depictive (cf. Himmelmann, Schultze-Berndt 2005: 62). In Lithuanian, the case of a depictive is most often determined by the case of the agreement controller⁸. A depictive's agreement with the agreement controller reflects the semantic relationship of the agreement target in the sentence, rather than indicating that the depictive and agreement controller form a noun phrase (Schultze-Berndt, Himmelmann 2004: 82). In Lithuanian, case helps avoid ambiguity by clearly showing which word in the sentence the depictive is related to. For example, the sentence I will choose a groom, alert and nimble clearly shows that the depictives alert and nimble describe the direct object, not the subject⁹.

In foreign-language scholarly literature, depictives are divided into groups according to the grammatical function in the sentence of the main predication's argument described by the depictive. It is most often stated that depictive secondary predicates relate to the subject (English subject) or direct object (English direct object) (Brown, Miller, ed. 1999: 325; Marušič, Marvin, Žaucer 2003: 375; Schultze-Berndt, Himmelmann 2004: 72; Himmelmann, Schultze-Berndt 2005: 54; Holvoet, Mikulskas B; Šarić 2008: 297–298). Languages in which depictives describe an indirect object (English indirect object), an oblique (English oblique), or a prepositional construction are rare¹⁰. It is generally claimed that, for example, in English a depictive cannot describe an indirect object (sentences (3), (5)) or a prepositional construction (sentence (4)); only sentences in which depictives relate to the subject (sentences (1), (5)) and direct object (sentence (2)) are possible:

⁸ Since a secondary predicate is usually case-agreeing with an argument of the main predicate, the latter is appropriately called the agreement controller (English agreement controller, agreement trigger), and the secondary predicate the agreement target (English agreement target). Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė (2007b: 116–117) uses these terms. For the understanding of these terms, see also Corbett (1998: 1; 2003: 110).

⁹ The notions of subject, direct, indirect, and oblique object used in this article correspond to the English semantic terms subject, direct / indirect / oblique object (see also Morkūnas, ed., Ambrazas, ed., 2008: 378, 515).

¹⁰ For example, in the Warlpiri (Varlpiri) language, the agreement controller may take the form of a dative object or another oblique object. An agreement controller in the form of a dative object is also found in the Kartvelian languages. In Australian languages, the agreement controller is often the indirect object of a passive sentence; in Finnic languages, it is also possible to use a depictive describing an argument denoting an indirect object (see further Schultze-Berndt, Himmelmann 2004: 73–74; Himmelmann, Schultze-Berndt 2005: 54 and the literature cited there). In Croatian, a depictive can describe dative and instrumental objects and a locative adjunct (Šarić 2008: 298); in Slovak, it can describe the subject, direct object, indirect object, and a prepositional construction (Šarić 2008: 298–299). This is also the case in Romance and Albanian languages (see Irimia 2005). In Slovenian, it can describe the subject, direct and indirect objects, genitive and instrumental objects, a locative adjunct, and a prepositional construction (Marušič, Marvin, Žaucer 2003: 373–375).

Straipsniai / Articles

131

ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 131

2011.06.17 08:24:08

VESLAVA ČIŽIK-PROKAŠEVA

(1) John_i drank the coffee tired_i. (Marušič, Marvin, Žaucer 2003: 376)

‘Jonas drank the coffee tired’

(2) John drank the coffee_i hot_i. (Marušič, Marvin, Žaucer 2003: 376)

‘Jonas drank the coffee hot’

(3) *I gave Mary_i the meat hungry_i. (Irimia 2005: 21)

‘I gave food to Mary hungry’

(4) *I talked to Sue_i drunk_i. (Irimia 2005: 21)

‘I talked to Sue drunk’

(5) John_i gave Mary_i the coffee tired_i/*i. (Marušič, Marvin, Žaucer 2003: 376)

‘Jonas gave Mary coffee tired / *tired (feminine)’

The fact that in English a depictive cannot refer to an indirect object (a dative object), for example in the sentence *The nurse gave John_i the medicine ill_i ‘The nurse gave the medicine to John ill’, Susana Rothstein (1985) explained by arguing that a depictive can refer to an agent or a patient (experiencer), but not to a benefactive¹¹. In fact, more than one author offers counterexamples (e.g., Marušič, Marvin, Žaucer 2003; Himmelmann, Schultze-Berndt 2005).

In some languages, there are certain features, constructions, and devices that make it possible to clearly distinguish depictives from other sentence constituents (Schultze-Berndt, Himmelmann 2004: 81–94). Whether a depictive is used with a controller other than the subject, direct object, or indirect object may depend on the speaker, context, genre, whether the language is written or spoken, the distribution of theme and rheme, and word order (cf. Himmelmann, Schultze-Berndt 2005: 54; Nichols 1982: 320). In Lithuanian, depictives may be oriented not only toward the subject and direct object, but also toward other indirect and more remote objects and adjuncts. If grammatical functions are classified according to the tradition of foreign linguistics, one can say that in Lithuanian depictives may be semantically related to:

a) the subject, e.g.:

(6) To everyone’s surprise, after seven days Taraila returned almost alive. DLKT¹²

b) the direct object, e.g.:

(7) As spring came in March, I saw Bilaišis—Perkūnelis again, tired, but cheerful. DLKT

¹¹ Taip buvo aiškinamas depiktyvų tinkamumas ir vokiečių kalboje (Wunderlich 1997). Hubert Haideris (1985) tokius atvejus aiškino tuo, kad vardininkas ir galininkas yra struktūriniai linksniai, o naudininkas – leksinis (daugiau apie tai žr. Müller 2001: 3–4).

¹²Depictives are highlighted in the examples. The sources of the examples are indicated immediately after each example (the list of sources is provided at the end of the article together with the bibliography). Examples without a source reference were devised by the author; those marked DLKT are taken from the contemporary Lithuanian language corpus of Kaunas VDU, while those citing a particular website are taken from the web-based Google.

132

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII

ALL_62_63 maketas.indd 132

2011.06.17 08:24:08

Marijampolės apskrities asmenvardinės kilmės agronomų darbo bruožai

c) the indirect object, e.g.:

(8) “Now,” says Elvidijus, “I no longer feel any suffering; only small I used to have terrible depression. That is gone now. I have hope.” DLKT

d) more remote objects, e.g.:

(9) The sculptor admitted that it had not been easy for him to create a sculpture of a person whom he had never seen alive¹³. DLKT

(10) Atsakiau aš, stebėdamasis tų vaikų smalsumu nežabotu.

(11) ...many plants know me personally, just as I know them; I sowed or planted them myself, some sprouted on their own, and I met them when they were still babies¹⁴... (http://toltikkontaktai.blogas.lt/kvieciu-i-svecius-2.html)

e) an adjunct, e.g.:

(12) I got going and ran, and with a single breath I found myself in the entryway, still warm¹⁵.”

Since case is one of the main formal criteria for identifying grammatical functions, depictives are discussed not according to the grammatical function of the controller, but according to a formal criterion—the cases and forms of the controller and the controllee (as in, for example, the already mentioned Francas Marušičiūs, Tatjana Marvina, and Rokas Žauceris (2003); see footnote 15). In the most extensive descriptions of free secondary predicatives in Lithuanian, depictives are likewise discussed according to their case (Valeckienė 1967; Ulvydas, ed.,

¹³ Apie kilmininko linksnio kaip tolimesnio objekto traktavimą žr. Holvoet (2009c).

¹⁴The depictive refers to a prepositional construction.

¹⁵ Cf. Lithuanian examples with Slovenian examples (Marušič, Marvin, Žaucer 2003: 373–374): Subject: Peteri je dal Meti piškote vse polomljeni. ‘Peteri gave Meta some biscuits all broken (= back-sore).’ Direct object: Peter je dal Meti piškote vse polomljenei. ’Peter gave Meta some biscuitsi all brokeni (= crumbled).’ Indirect object: Peter je dal Metii piškote vsej polomljenii. ’Peter gave Metai some biscuits all brokeni (= back-sore).’ Dative subject: Budweiser Vidiu ugaja pijanemu, ne pa tudi treznemu. ’Vidi may like Budweiser drunk, but certainly not sober.’ Locative: Peter je dal piškote v košarico vso polomljeno. ’Peter put the biscuits into the basketi all brokeni.’ Genitive: Sliki se je dotaknil še vseh mokrih. ’He touched the paintingsi still all weti.’ Instrumental: Mučil se je s sekiroi že vso topoi. ’He struggled with the axei when it had already gone all blunti.’ For Croatian examples with depictives describing the subject, direct object, indirect object, instrumental object, locative adjunct, and prepositional phrase, see Ljiljana Šarić (2008: 298).

Straipsniai / Articles

133

ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 133

2011.06.17 08:24:08

VESLAVA ČIŽIK-PROKAŠEVA

1976). First, syntactic (agreeing) depictives will be discussed according to the case of the agreement controller (instances in which the cases of the agreement controller and agreement target are the same), followed by semantic depictives according to the form of the depictive (instances in which the depictive is oriented toward one of the main predicate’s arguments, in some cases agreeing with it in gender and/or number, but morphosyntactically expressed in a case different from that of the main-predicate argument to which it refers).

1. SYNTACTIC DEPICTIVES

1.1. Nominative

As mentioned earlier, one of the most common depictives, possible in many languages, is the free secondary predicate associated with the nominative subject of a sentence. In Lithuanian, the typical form of the subject is a noun or pronoun in the nominative; accordingly, the depictive also takes the nominative case through agreement. Free secondary predicates in the nominative case are expressed by various parts of speech:

• a depictive expressed by an adjective, e.g.:

(13) 100 g of flaxseed is poured over with half a glass of boiling water, left to stand for half an hour, then the swollen seeds are shaken out while still warm¹⁶... (http://www.ekopasaulis.com/index.php?cid=591&new_id=833&page_nr=)

Adjectives and adjectival phrases are identified by linguists as the group most frequently occurring as depictive secondary predicates; in other words, they are prototypical depictives, expressing a physical or emotional condition, state, position, posture, pose, or behavior (cf. Schultze-Berndt, Himmelmann 2004: 95–97; Himmelmann, Schultze-Berndt 2005: 8, 57).

• a depictive expressed by a participle, e.g.:

(14) From the railway station, after seeing Saulė off, Ignas returned sad and pensive. DLKT

The syntactic and semantic properties of participial depictives are the same as those of adjectival and nominal secondary predicates (Nichols 1978b: 123–124). In Lithuanian, only participles expressing a state that temporally coincides with the action expressed by the main predicate are considered depictives, whereas participles that

¹⁶ It should be mentioned that there are cases in which a noun phrase serves as the agreement controller, while an adjective or participle serves as the agreement target. In such cases, the depictive agrees in case with the head of the phrase, and in gender and/or number with the dependent word in the phrase, e.g.: Most of the girls survived barefoot. I will not be able to feed such a herd of pigs while shut in (Jablonskis 1911: 467).

134

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII

Marijampolės apskrities asmenvardinės kilmės agronomų darbovės bruožai

denotes a secondary action that does not coincide with the action denoted by the main predicate (usually one that occurred earlier than the action denoted by the main predicate), e.g.: Having returned home, I hid all the sweets. He woke up upon hearing someone enter through the unlocked door and lay down on the sofa (DLKT), are to be considered not depictives but adjuncts (for more, see Valeckienė 1967: 110; Sirtautas, Grenda 1988: 91). Valeckienė also does not regard nominative present passive participles and half-participles as predicative modifiers, that is, depictives, since they “almost always have a more pronounced sense of a secondary action rather than a state, coinciding temporally with the main action of the sentence” (Valeckienė 1967: 111). Several sentences are provided, e.g.: The old man, without being asked (=although nobody had asked him), sat down on a bench by the window. Juras ran away from the fence to see how the woman, shrieking, threshed (=she shrieks and threshes) the godless man. Present passive participles cannot in fact be considered depictives, since the secondary action expressed by them in such cases is performed by another person or persons. Further research is needed to determine whether half-participles in Lithuanian should be considered depictives. In the example given by Valeckienė, Jurgis Martynaitis stands by his cart in the market, in the pig square, and, bored, chews a straw, the half-participle nuobodžiaudamas means a state more than a secondary action (cf. nuobodžiauti ‘to feel bored’, LKŽ). Foreign linguists tend to regard half-participles as depictives. For example, Johanna Nichols (1978a: 330–331) considers the form sidja ‘sitting’ in the sentence On spit sidja ‘he sleeps sitting’ a secondary predicate¹⁷. Half-participles in Lithuanian could also be considered depictives for several reasons: the main predicate and the half-participle have the same agent, the two states coincide temporally, the half-participle agrees with an argument of the main predicate, and it indicates a characteristic or state of the entity during the action expressed by the main predicate (Schultze-Berndt, Himmelmann 2004: 97–99).

• a depictive expressed by a numeral, e.g.:

(15) He did not want to give in and agree that Skinderis firstwould break into the secret room. DLKT

Such ordinal numerals as first, second, fourth, and so on, are undoubtedly oriented toward a participant in the main action, agree with an argument of the main predicate, and express a property that is relevant during the main action. In Latin, ordinal numerals agree with the arguments they describe and are treated as predicatives. In other languages, e.g., German, ordinal numerals functioning as predicatives are marked in the same way as prototypical function/role

¹⁷ For a possible depictive analysis of half-participle constructions with būti, e.g., būdamas girtas, vaikas būdamas, see Vaičiulytė-Semenienė (2010).

Straipsniai / Articles

135

ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 135

2011.06.17 08:24:08

VESLAVA ČIŽIK-PROKAŠEVA

and depictives expressing a life-stage meaning¹⁸ (Himmelmann, Schultze-Berndt 2005: 36). Nichols (1981: 137–139) considers ordinal numerals and the adjective last to be depictives (the term predicate nominal is used). She distinguishes two semantic types: temporal type and spatial type. Temporal-type depictives indicate the order or sequence in which participants in an action are involved in it, e.g., Lyuba was the first to jump into the cabin, while spatial-type depictives indicate the position that participants assume during the action, e.g., Our team started first. Ordinal numerals are considered depictives (the terms predicative attribute, secondary predicate, and depictive are used) by Valeckienė (1967: 98–99), Kazys Ulvydas (1976: 447, 449–450), Vytautas Ambrazas (1996: 627), Labutis (1998: 250), and Vaičiulytė-Semenienė (2007b: 124).

a depictive expressed by a pronoun, e.g.:

(16) Yes, everyone has somewhere to live, but can she alonewithstand the whole hostile world? DLKT

Pronouns such as one, all, oneself should be considered depictives because they clearly show orientation toward an argument of the main predicate, agree with their agreement controllers, and because they are free modifiers and express a property relevant during the main action. Pronominal depictives indicate the number of participants involved in an action (for more on such depictives, see Himmelmann, Schultze-Berndt 2005: 35; Boeder 2005: 211; Kutscher, Genç 2005: 254–255; McGregor 2005). Pronouns are also considered depictives by Valeckienė (1967: 98–99), Ulvydas (1976: 447–448, 450), Ambrazas (1996: 627), Labutis (1998: 250), and Vaičiulytė-Semenienė (2007b: 124).

a depictive expressed by a noun, e.g.:

(17) Big, dressed in a gray homespun coat and wrapped in a black shawl, she went out into the yard, where she had grown up and run around as a little girl. (Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 448)

Depictives expressed by nouns are also widely recognized; such depictives denote a life stage or indicate an object's temporary role, state, or position (Schultze-Berndt, Himmelmann 2004: 95ff.; Himmelmann, Schultze-Berndt 2005: 57–58). Grammatical markers help distinguish nouns functioning as depictives from nouns serving other grammatical functions. In L. Vaičiulytė-Semenienė’s view, the grammatical markers dar, jau indicate depictive function and can help identify depictives.

¹⁸ Eva Schultze-Berndt ir Nikolaus P. Himmelmannas (2004: 120) nustatė tokią depiktyvo reikšmių hierarchiją: BŪSENA (angl. Condition / State) > KIEKIS (angl. Quantity) > DRAUGĖ (angl. Concomitance) > LYGINIMAS (angl. Comparison) > BŪDAS (angl. Manner) > VIETA (angl. Location) > LAIKAS (angl. Time). Apie visas įmanomas depiktyvo reikšmes žr. Himmelmann, Schultze-Berndt (2005: 29).

136

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII

Marijampolės apskrities asmenvardinės kil mės agronimų darbo bruožai

tyvą atskirti nuo kitų gramatinių funkcijų (žr. Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė 2007b: 119 ir ten nurodytą literatūrą). Palyginkite su Nichols (1982: 339) nuomone, jog rusų kalbos esče ‚dar‘ yra tam tikros konstrukcijos gramatinis rodiklis, o ne visavertis semantinis elementas, kad jis traktuotinas kaip predikatinės vardažodinės konstrukcijos gramatinis laiko rodiklis¹⁹.

• a depictive expressed by the construction as + noun / adjective, e.g.:

(18) Joniškiečiai nuo seno garsėjo kaip gerų žemių, miežių augintojų ir puikių aludarių kraštas. DLKT

(19) Surely the rooster sometimes, as the bravest of all, having leapt onto a fence post, would crow angrily. (Žukauskaitė 1961: 251)

Valeckienė straipsnyje (1967) pateikia tik lyginimą reiškiančių konstrukcijų kaip + daiktavardis pavyzdžių. Lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje pateikiami lyginimą reiškiančios ir jo nereiškiančios šios konstrukcijos pavyzdžiai (Ulvy das, red., 1976: 448, 450). Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje požiūris į tokio tipo konstrukcijas su jungtuku kaip skiriasi. Vienoje vietoje rašoma, kad tokio tipo vardažodžių linksnių formos su jungtuku kaip „nereiškia lyginimo, tik žymi subjekto ar objekto būseną veiksmo atžvilgiu“ (Ambrazas, red., 1996: 627), kitoje vietoje tokios konstrukcijos laikomos lyginamaisiais posakiais, „kuriais lyginami dalykai nurodant tapatumą tam tikru atžvilgiu“ (Ambrazas, red., 1996: 634). Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė (2007b: 122–123) mano, kad lyginimo reikšmės konstrukcijos laikytinos (būdo) aplinkybėmis, kadangi jos nenusako tikrosios daiktui ar būtybei būdingos būsenos (požymio) pagrindiniu predikatu reiškiamo vyksmo metu, o tik nusako tos būsenos panašumą (dar žr. Schultze-Berndt, Himmelmann 2004: 112 ir ten nurodytą literatūrą; Šarić 2008: 306–307), plg. sakinį (18) ir sakinį Vienas vargas būdavo tokiomis valandomis su juo: atsisės kaip koks rukata skiedryne, dirvoje, žiūrės į tolį rankas nuleidęs, nebylys lyg akmuo (Valeckienė 1967: 99); sakinį (19) ir sakinį Kiškeliai kaip lapas prikrito, guli ant vietos kaip negyvi (Ulvy das, red., 1976: 445). Depiktyvinėmis konstrukcijomis šiame straipsnyje laikomos tik tokios konstrukcijos su kaip kurios nereiškia lyginimo, ir kurios yra susijusios su sakinio predikatu ir su vienu jo argumentų²⁰.

• a depictive expressed by an adjectival or participial construction, e.g.:

(20) They returned to Vilnius full of strength, health, and energy. DLKT

(21) The child lay lifeless, having lost all color, white as a spider’s thread. (Valeckienė 1967: 101)

¹⁹ Dar apie depiktyvų rodiklius žr. Schultze-Berndt, Himmelmann (2004: 91–93).

²⁰ For more on depictive constructions with as in Lithuanian, see Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė (2007a) and cf. Rolandas Mikulskas (2007, 2009).

Straipsniai / Articles

137

ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 137

2011.06.17 08:24:09

VESLAVA ČIŽIK-PROKAŠEVA

Such constructions are considered typical syntactic (agreeing) depictives, since the heads of these constructions agree in number, gender, and case with their agreement controllers.

1.2. Genitive

In Lithuanian, depictives expressed by the genitive case and agreeing with an argument of the main predication are used in sentences both with negative verbs and with verbs that require the genitive case. Such instances also occur, for example, in Slovenian (see footnote 15). Schultze-Berndt and Himmelmann discuss only “non-agreeing” genitive depictives, since in many languages, such as English, the genitive is used in a noun phrase to indicate the possessor (English possessor). Genitive-case depictives can be expressed by various parts of speech, for example:

• a depictive expressed by an adjective, for example:

(22) It is known that they can live at depths of as much as 1,500 km, but no one has ever seen such a large squid alive. DLKT

• a depictive expressed by a participle, for example:

(23) Not bound you will not hold me back. (Šukys 1998: 119)

• a depictive expressed by a numeral, for example:

(24) As soon as he saw me, he would literally leap into my arms, beside himself. He would bare his terrible teeth out of jealousy if I did not run up to him first. DLKT

• a depictive expressed by a pronoun, for example:

(25) His peers did not want to leave him alone, but when they saw the young man turn into the courtyard of his home, they calmed down. DLKT

• a depictive expressed by a noun, for example:

(26)He had long since become independent: his parents had not seen him in the evenings since he was still a teenager.

• a depictive expressed by a construction with like, for example:

(27) We were afraid of Vladimir Ivanovich as a very strict teacher. (translation from Křížková 1969: 17)

Depictives bearing the genitive case can also be associated with a prepositional construction, which, as mentioned above, is in principle impossible in languages such as English and German. Such depictives are not distinguished in Valeckienė’s article (1967),

138

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII

ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 138

2011.06.17 08:24:09

Marijampolės apskrities asmenvardinės kilmės agronomų darbo bruožai

nei Lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje (1976), nei Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje (1996), nei Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedijoje (2008). Kaip ir jau išvardytais atvejais, šie depiktyvai reiškiami skirtingomis kalbos dalimis bei derinami su prielinksninės konstrukcijos vardažodžiu, pvz.:

• a depictive expressed by an adjective, e.g.:

(28) Why are you angry with me, innocent?

• a depictive expressed by a numeral, e.g.:

(29) Never laugh at him when you are first with him; you may regret it.

• a depictive expressed by a pronoun, e.g.:

(30) Everyone makes fun of me only when I am alone.

1.3. Dative

Axel Holvoet and Rolandas Mikulskas argue that “some depictives expressed in the dative are characterized by an adverbial concessive or temporal meaning, which pushes their depictive meaning into the background,” and give the following examples: Even when he was young, nobody had ever said a kind word to him, and Even when I was hungry, I wouldn’t feel like eating such a vile thing (Holvoet, Mikulskas B: 6, footnote 3). There are grounds for disagreeing with them: depictives denoting a stage of life are expressed not only in the dative but also in other cases (see examples (17), (26), (47)); in foreign-language literature, they are cited as some of the most typical depictives (Schultze-Berndt, Himmelmann 2004: 8). According to Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė, nouns denoting a stage of life indicate the depictive function more than that of an adverbial (Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė 2007b: 123). Moreover, although dative depictives may have shades of adverbial meaning, their orientation toward the controller of agreement is clearly shown by their function as depictives. Dative-case depictives may be associated with a dative subject (English dative subject) and an indirect object²¹. Such depictives receive the dative case through agreement with an argument of the main predication and can be expressed by various parts of speech, e.g.:

Describes the dative subject:

• a depictive expressed by an adjective, e.g.:

(31) I breathe in the tobacco- and zacirka-scented air of the cottage, and it is so pleasant to me, youngin the nest of my fledgling brothers, that I feel positively lulled. DLKT

²¹ As is the case, for example, in Slovenian; see footnote 15.

Straipsniai / Articles

139

VESLAVA ČIŽIK-PROKAŠEVA

a depictive expressed by a participle, e.g.:

(32) How wonderful it was to stand then snow-covered in the forest. (Ul vydas, ed., 1976: 451)

a depictive expressed by a numeral, e.g.:

(33) Nevertheless, with 15 minutes left before the end of the match, R. Žalys, in the scrum near the “Žalgiris-2” goal, first managed to dash to the ball and score the much-desired goal from close range. DLKT

a depictive expressed by a pronoun, e.g.:

(34) – Dabar greta yra nauja pretendentė? – Ne. Man dabar labai gera gyventi vienam. Tuo mėgaujuosi. Gyventi kartu – labai didelis įsipareigojimas. DLKT

a depictive expressed by a construction with as, e.g.:

(35) He as a student should not have behaved that way toward the principal.

(36) I, of course, as an outsider and a small child, got the most trouble from everyone. (Balkevičius 1963: 438)

It describes a dative object (an indirect object):

a depictive expressed by an adjective, e.g.:

(37) Prisimenu, Motina man mažam sakydavo: jei būsi kunigu, baltos mėsytės valgysi tiek, kiek panorėsi. DLKT

a depictive expressed by a participle, e.g.:

(38) He advised her to sleep without being covered.

a depictive expressed by a numeral, e.g.:

(39) His own theory gives Soros the opportunity to first plunge into the whirlpool of financial events and pluck the ripe fruits at the most opportune moment. DLKT

a depictive expressed by a pronoun, e.g.:

(40) ...even after specifying when the thieves would call again, V. Čižauskas received no help. He was advised to act alone. “I was advised to act by myself, and if I managed to reach an agreement with the thieves, to call the police.” DLKT

a depictive expressed by a noun, e.g.:

(41) His parents advised him, still quite a child, to start learning Latin.

a depictive expressed by a ¹construction with as, e.g.:

(42) The Queen has such thoughts, which, I think, are quite unbecoming to her as a mother. (Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 556)

140

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII

ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 140

2011.06.17 08:24:09

Marijampolės apskrities asmenvardinės kilmės agronomų darybos bruožai

1.4. Accusative

As has already been mentioned, a depictive is most often oriented toward the subject and the direct object. Depictives that receive the accusative case through agreement, like depictives in other cases, can be expressed by various parts of speech, e.g.:

a depictive expressed by an adjective, e.g.:

(43) Cool the water slightly and, while still warm, pour it over the cabbage. (http://gyvenimas.delfi.lt/cooking/article.php?id=11115441)

a depictive expressed by a participle, e.g.:

(44) After fleeing, E. Rancovas's companions left him lying unconscious on the bloodstained pavement. DLKT

a depictive expressed by a numeral, e.g.:

(45) Take pity on the person kneeling on the other side of the puddle; repent yourself too, and do not give in to pride; by your signs encourage him to get up first. DLKT

a depictive expressed by a pronoun, e.g.:

(46) Sometimes I had to leave the harnessed dogs alone for half an hour or longer. (Labutis 1998: 277)

a depictive expressed by a noun, e.g.:

(47) I knew him already as a student. (Ambrazas, ed., 1996: 627)

a depictive expressed by the construction as + noun / adjective, e.g.:

(48) But what could I take now as I leave, as a pledge, I wonder... (Žukauskaitė 1961: 271)

(49) He was returned to the flock as a penniless man. (translated from Křížková 1969: 17)

As in the case of genitive-case depictives, an accusative depictive can also refer to a prepositional phrase; it agrees with the noun phrase in the prepositional phrase, e.g.: he spoke about him as about his best friend. (translated from Křížková 1969: 17)

1.5. Instrumental

Instrumental-case depictives are also widely used in many languages, but most often depictives take this form not because of agreement (in the narrow sense)²² with an argument of the main predication, but for certain semantic reasons (such depict-

²² Agreement in the narrow sense is understood as copying the form of the agreement controller, whereas agreement in the broad sense is understood as selecting the form of the agreement target according to the agreement controller. Cf. Labutis’s (1994 I: 18–19) full and partial agreement.

Straipsniai / Articles

141

ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 141

2011.06.17 08:24:09

VESLAVA ČIŽIK-PROKAŠEVA

Examples of depictives will be discussed later.) However, Lithuanian uses not only “non-agreeing” instrumental-case depictives, but also agreeing depictives, which take the instrumental case precisely because they agree with an argument of the main predicate (as, for example, in Croatian (see Šarić 2008: 298) and Slovenian (see footnote 15); such cases are mentioned neither in Valeckienė’s article (1967), nor in Lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje (1976), nor in Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje (1996), nor in Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedijoje (2008)). These depictives can be expressed by various parts of speech, e.g.:

a depictive expressed by an adjective, e.g.:

(50) Turnip porridge is like potato porridge; it (still warm) should be applied to the sore spot and wrapped warmly. These measures help reduce the pain. (http://www.sveikaszmogus.lt/index.php?pa grid=rudens&lid=2&rodyti=str&strid=36585&subtema=118)

a depictive expressed by a participle, e.g.:

(51) Rejoice in your son not yet grown up. (Labutis 1992: 53)

a depictive expressed by a numeral, e.g.:

(52) She trusted him first.

a depictive expressed by a pronoun, e.g.:

(53) To be poor in spirit means to understand one’s helplessness and insignificance before God, to trust in Him and in Him alone. DLKT

a depictive expressed by a noun, e.g.:

(54) The mother is proud of her son as a top student.

a depictive expressed by a construction with like, e.g.:

(55) She trusted him as a benefactor.

As in the case of genitive- and accusative-case depictives, an instrumental depictive can also refer to a prepositional phrase; it too agrees with the nominal in the prepositional phrase and is expressed by various parts of speech, e.g.:

a depictive expressed by an adjective, e.g.:

(56) You won’t get anywhere with him drunk. (Labutis 1992: 53–54)

a depictive expressed by a pronoun, e.g.:

(57) Jesus says: go and talk to him alone. DLKT

a depictive expressed by a noun, e.g.:

(58) The neighborhood children, still quite a young girl, also wanted to play with me as they grew up.

142

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII

ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 142

2011.06.17 08:24:09

Marijampolės apskrities asmenvardinės kilmės agronomų darbo bruožai

1.6. Locative

In some languages, locative-case depictives also occur, but, as with the instrumental, this case is most often not acquired by the depictive through agreement with an argument of the main predication (examples of such depictives will be given later). In Lithuanian, however, as in, for example, Slovenian (see footnote 15) and Croatian (see Šarić 2008: 298), agreeing locative depictives are also possible (such cases are mentioned neither in Valeckienė’s article (1967), nor in Lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje (1976), nor in Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje (1996), nor in Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedijoje (2008)). They are very rare; only 5 examples of locative depictives were found. As in the cases listed above, they are expressed by various parts of speech, e.g.:

• a depictive expressed by an adjective, e.g.:

(59) I set off running at a gallop and, in a single breath, found myself in the entryway, still warm.

• a depictive expressed by a participle, e.g.:

(60) A terrible piece of news was still hidden in the unopened letter.

• a depictive expressed by a construction with as, e.g.:

(61) After all, in Lithuania, as a democratic state there should be freedom of speech.

Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė also mentions such agreeing depictives; because of their connection with an oblique case of adverbial meaning, she calls them oblique (adverbial) depictives (Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė 2007b: 116).

The summarized cases of use of cases and forms of syntactic depictives are presented in Table 1.

¹ T A B L E. Syntactic depictives

Form of agreement controller | Case of the depictive (agreement controller) | Total | Nom. | Gen. | Dat. | Acc. | Instr. | Loc. | Adjective | 128 | 25 | 28 | 67 | 5 | 2 | 255 | Participle | 104 | 24 | 11 | 81 | 5 | 2 | 227 | Numeral | 28 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 2 | | 43 | Pronoun | 36 | 9 | 15 | 15 | 1 | | 76 | Noun | 20 | 3 | 11 | 18 | 7 | | 59 | as + noun | 64 | 9 | 6 | 40 | 6 | 1 | 126 | as + adjective | 6 | | 1 | 2 | | | 9 | Total | 386 | 72 | 78 | 228 | 26 | 5 | 795

Straipsniai / Articles

143

VESLAVA ČIŽIK-PROKAŠEVA

2. SEMANTIC DEPICTIVES

Depictives are not always case-agreeing with an argument of the main predication. Such depictives, like typical (agreeing) depictives, are associated with one of the arguments of the main predication, but are morphosyntactically marked by a case other than that of the argument: they may be expressed by a noun or numeral in the instrumental or locative, a participle, a prepositional phrase, or a nominal construction (an instrumental or genitive with dependents). Another fact that allows such predicates to be regarded as depictives is that in some cases they agree with the arguments of the main predication in gender and/or number (this will be discussed below). If agreement is understood in a broad sense²³, as described in section 2.5, such depictives could also be considered agreeing (syntactic) ones. Since not all the depictives discussed here show agreement in gender and/or number, in this study all depictives oriented toward one of the main predicate’s arguments but morphosyntactically expressed in ways other than those of a typical (agreeing) depictive—that is, by non-agreement (in the narrow sense)—will be called semantic depictives²⁴. In addition, such predicates significantly supplement the main predication and, unlike obligatory predicates, may be omitted, which motivates treating them as free predicates²⁵.

2.1. Predicates expressed by a noun in the instrumental and associated with a controller bearing a different case (usually, as the examples collected show, with the subject of the sentence) are considered depictives both in foreign and in recent Lithuanian linguistics, cf.:

(62) In 1976 she went to the USA to join her husband and became a member of the Boston Lithuanian ensemble. She works as a computer programmer at an insurance company. She is raising two sons. DLKT

(63) The twelve brothers by day as black ravens flew about, at night as people they lived on a mountain.

(Balkevičius 1963: 109)

(64) There should be no shortage of helpers for the work. Whether you came alone or in a group, you worked hard, signed the Belvederis restoration book, and... see you again soon. (DLKT)

²³ Cf. also Himmelmann and Schultze-Berndt’s statement: “Agreement, as usually understood, involves the categories of gender, number and / or case” (Himmelmann, Schultze-Berndt 2005: 62).

²⁴ Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė uses this term only to refer to secondary predicates expressed by nominal or prepositional constructions (Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė 2007b: 116).

²⁵ Holvoet and Mikulskas note that in certain cases, if the depictive were omitted, the sentence could be considered complete only with considerable reservations, since the word order in the sentences “reflects a different information structure than that of the original sentences” (Holvoet, Mikulskas A: 3). In fact, when determining whether a depictive was free or obligatory, consideration was given to whether, after omission of the depictive, the sentence remained fully adequate and grammatical in terms of structure and meaning. Cf. Nichols (1981: 17): “the removal of non-governed predicate nominals affects the communicative structure and completeness of sense, but does not render the construction ungrammatical”.

144

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII

ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 144

2011.06.17 08:24:09

Marijampolės apskrities asmenvardinės kilmės agronomų darbų bruožai

The predicatives programuotoja, juodvarniais, žmonėmis, būriu in these sentences would be considered depictives by Nichols (1978b: 122), Schultze-Berndt and Himmelmann (2004: 87–88), Winfried Boeder (2005: 203), Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė (2007b: 117), and Holvoet and Mikulskas (B: 4–5; Holvoet 2008: 126)²⁶. Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė notes that “the use of an agreeing case and/or the instrumental is a formal indicator that a noun phrase functioning as a modifier in a sentence can be a depictive” (Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė 2007b: 117). Nichols also singles out the instrumental as a special means of marking secondary predicates in Russian (see Nichols 1978b, 1981). Holvoet argues that “despite lexical restrictions, there seems to be no reason to recognize such instrumentals as obligatory predicates governed by verbs: although this instrumental is regularly used with some verbs, it is not required by them” (Holvoet, Tamulionienė 2005: 135). Moreover, other languages also show a tendency to mark secondary noun predicates with the instrumental. Nichols (1978b: 124) considers the factor determining whether a secondary predicate takes an agreeing or non-agreeing case to be semantic rather than syntactic²⁷ (for more on this issue, see also Filip 2001: 3–4). She identifies the following factors in Russian²⁸ that can affect agreement / non-agreement: the tense and aspect of the verb, whether the verb is affirmative or negative, word order, gender, the part of speech expressing the secondary predicate, and the case of the main argument with which the predicate is associated (for more on the instrumental marking of depictives, see Schultze-Berndt, Himmelmann 2004: 87–88; Himmelmann, Schultze-Berndt 2005: 64–65; Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė 2007b: 121; Heringa 2009: 3–4 and the literature cited there). Such depictives occur not only with predicates denoting the performance or assignment of various functions, e.g., My husband works as a dak-

²⁶ The definitions and examples given by Valeckienė, Ulvydas, and Ambrazas suggest that these authors consider only predicates expressed by the instrumental and accompanied by structurally obligatory dependents to be predicative attributes—that is, depictives (see Valeckienė 1967: 100; Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 451; Ambrazas, ed., 1996: 490, 627). It is unclear how, in their view, a lone instrumental without dependents should be treated.

²⁷ „The factors determining the choice of agreement vs. non-agreeing case are subtle and primarily semantic rather than syntactic“ (Nichols 1978b: 124); „copredicates may or may not be morphologically dependent on the controller (a word is morphologically dependent on another if it takes its morphological form from the latter by government or agreement), depending on language typology and the morphological nature of the copredicate itself“ (Nichols 1978a: 331).

Gerdas Hentschelis (2005) nustatė predikatyvų hierarchiją – PIRMINIS (DAIKTAVARDŽIO) PREDIKATYVAS < ANTRINIS PREDIKATYVAS (< DEPIKTYVAS < KOMPLEMENTAS) – pagal kurią, kuo dešiniau hierarchijoje skiriamas predikatyvas, tuo dažnesnis daiktavardžio įnagininkas. Daugiau žr. Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė (2007a).

²⁸ In Russian, nominal secondary predicates are either in the instrumental case or agree with their controller.

Straipsniai / Articles

145

ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 145

2011.06.17 08:24:09

VESLAVA ČIŽIK-PROKAŠEVA

taru²⁹, but can also have some of the most prototypical depictive meanings: life stage (sentence (65)), function or role (sentences (62), (68)), quantity or collectivity (sentence (64)), distribution (sentence (66)), and a particular state (sentence (67))³⁰. Instrumental depictives can be associated with the subject and with dative and accusative objects, e.g.:

• the depictive describes the subject:

(65) The shepherdess was content with a bed in the trough. (Šukys 1998: 235)

(66) First-graders walk in pairs. (translation from Himmelmann, Schultze-Berndt 2005: 35)³¹

• the depictive describes the dative object:

(67) It is hard to live in Moscow as a bachelor.

• the depictive describes the accusative object:

(68) The director hired his mistress as a secretary. (Holvoet, Mikulskas B: 4)

Such depictives always agree in number with the arguments of the main predicate, and most often in gender as well.

2.2. Locative is also known as one of the markers of depictives (see Schultze-Berndt, Himmelmann 2004: 88–90, 115–117; Himmelmann, Schultze-Berndt 2005: 38–39). Locative depictives do not describe the location of the entire situation, as adjuncts do, but express the state of one of the arguments of the main predication, e.g., in the sentence The cook prepared the chicken in a sweet-and-sour sauce, the chicken's state is indicated, rather than the action itself being said to take place in the sauce (for more, see Himmelmann, Schultze-Berndt 2005: 38–39, 65; Šarić 2008: 322). Such predicates are also treated as predicative attributes—that is, depictives—in Valeckienė's article (1967: 100–101) and in The Grammar of the Lithuanian Language (Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 451–452), but are not mentioned in The Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian (1996) or The Encyclopedia of the Lithuanian Language (2008). Locative depictives can express the most prototypical state meaning (sentences (69), (71)), quantity meaning (sentences (70), (72)), and life-stage meaning (sentence (73)).

29 Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė (2007a: 86) linkusi manyti, kad su funkcionavimo reikšmės veiksmažodžiais vartojami įnagininkai laikytini tų veiksmažodžių komplementais, vadinasi, būtinaisiais predikatyvais. Jai pritarė ir Mikulskas (2007: 126, 130). Vėliau pasiūlyta tokius predikatyvus laikyti tarpiniais tarp laisvųjų ir būtinųjų antrinių predikatyvų (Holvoet, Mikulskas B: 5). Autorė linkusi šiuos predikatyvus laikyti laisvaisiais, nes juos praleidus sakiniai netampa netaisyklingi ir beprasmiai (dar žr. 25 išnašą), o pavartotas sakinyje predikatyvas papildo, patikslina pagrindinę sakinio mintį (plg. faktą, kad iš 521 sakinio su veiksmažodžiu dirba, pateikto vienoje DLKT dalyje, tik keturiuose sakiniuose buvo pavartotas įnagininko predikatyvas).

30 The hierarchy of depictive meanings is presented in section 2.1, footnote 18.

31 Adjuncts of quantity distribution (English distributivity) are also considered depictives (see Himmelmann, Schultze-Berndt 2005: 35; Kutscher, Genç 2005: 254; Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė 2007b: 124–125).

146

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII

ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 146

2011.06.17 08:24:09

Marijampolės apskrities asmenvardinės kilmės agronomų darybos bruožai

(69) A tree stands in fear until morning. (cf. frightened) (Šukys 1998: 312)

(70) Five of them they returned along the highway. (Ambrazas, ed., 1996: 423)³²

Locative depictives can be associated with the subject, dative and accusative objects, and a prepositional construction, e.g.:

• the depictive describes the subject:

(71) Monika woke up in the heat, having freed herself from the dream with great effort, and rushed to look for her husband. (Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 452)

• the depictive describes the dative subject:

(72) – It is possible for two, three, or five to live together in a huddle, and the houses will be empty, says Danielius. DLKT

• the depictive describes the accusative object:

(73) As an idealistic worldview was taking shape, teachers, classmates—in short, those who surrounded me in my youth (cf. young)³³. DLKT

• the depictive describes the prepositional construction:

(74) The eyes gaze and cannot gaze enough at those mountains in the sunlight. (Šukys 1998: 320)

2.3. Predicatives expressed by converbs can also be included among these semantic depictives. Jonas Jablonskis and Jonas Balkevičius discuss converb predicatives together with agreeing accusative and genitive predicatives and regard them as complex complements (see Jablonskis 1911: 472–474; Balkevičius 1963: 193–195). Valeckienė (1967: 114–115) regards such predicatives as a separate case of the use of predicative modifiers. V. Labutis considers them complex complements; he writes: “there are complex compound complements that form a secondary predicative center. Such a complex object consists primarily of a genitive or accusative with a converb or an active participle used in its place” (Labutis 1994 II: 57–58, 1998: 276–277).³⁴

³² Several facts allow the numeral five (of them) to be regarded as a depictive: first, the numeral is oriented toward an argument of the main predicate (the subject they), rather than toward the event (returned); second, the state expressed by the depictive coincides temporally with the action expressed by the main predicate; third, the numeral is not required by the verb, and is therefore non-obligatory; fourth, the numeral does not form a noun phrase with the subject; fifth, the paraphrase characteristic of true depictives: They returned along the highway and they were five; sixth, the position of the numeral in the sentence. For more on depictive numerals, see Schultze-Berndt, Himmelmann 2004: 108ff.; Boeder 2005: 212; McGregor 2005: 178–196; Šarić 2008: 320–321.

³³ In this sentence, in my youth is not an argument required by the verb surrounded. This locative describes the pronoun me, indicating a property of it: they surrounded me when I was young.

³⁴ Such cases are mentioned neither in Grammar of the Lithuanian Language (1976), nor in Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian (1996), nor in the Encyclopedia of the Lithuanian Language (2008).

Straipsniai / Articles

147

ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 147

2011.06.17 08:24:09

VESLAVA ČIŽIK-PROKAŠEVA

V. Labutis proposes including among these summary complements also “all complements with adjectives in a double relation,” that is, constructions with double case marking. Since the article’s author regards all the cases mentioned as depictives, she is also inclined to classify predicatives expressed by converbs as depictives. The fact that converbs are optional and not required by the verb, that they indicate a state of an object or being occurring at the same time as the main action, and that they are oriented toward an argument of the main predicate shows their similarity to typical syntactic (agreeing) secondary predicates. Moreover, they have the most prototypical depictive meaning of state. Depictives of this type are most often associated with accusative and genitive objects, but can also refer to the subject, e.g.:

the depictive describes the subject:

(75) Far away, perhaps on the other side of the lagoon, a larger ship can be seen passing. (Ulvydas, ed., 1971: 395)

the depictive describes the genitive object:

(76) Nobody saw him dying (cf. dying [participle]). (Šukys 1998: 120)

the depictive describes the accusative object:

(77) He saw a little light flickering (cf. flickering [participle]). (Labutis 1998: 277) (78) When I noticed the clock striking (cf. having struck) at quite the wrong time, I burst out laughing. (Ulvydas, ed., 1971: 392)

2.4. Predicatives formed by nominal (instrumental or genitive with dependent words) or prepositional constructions are also regarded by A. Valeckienė as predicative modifiers, and thus as depictives (see Valeckienė 1967: 100–101)³⁵. In Lithuanian grammars, such predicatives are classified as non-de-

³⁵ Valeckienė notes that there are predicative modifiers expressed by nominal and prepositional constructions which “are not linked to the subject nominative and do not express a state, but merely indicate how the action of the predicate takes place” (Valeckienė 1967: 112–113). Valeckienė proposes treating them as adverbials. The following examples are given: I’ll break my own neck; let him just get by without a horse. Džiugas came home empty-handed, having handed over all the day’s toil to the German lad. It seems that in both cases the constructions under discussion should be considered depictive, since they are more closely related to the clauses’ subjects than to the verbs. In the first case, the predicative does not describe the manner of returning, but indicates what will happen if the man returns alone, without a horse. In the second case, it indicates that Džiugas came home and, in addition, had nothing. Compare the example given by Boeder, in which the construction empty-handed agrees with the agreement controller and is treated as a depictive: Tkvenistana pativ­sacem kac-s xel-cariel-s ver gavistumreb ‘I cannot send off such a respected person as you without a meal (empty-handed)’ (Boeder 2005: 203), as well as the sentence Col-švil-ian-ad movida ‘He came with his wife and children’ (Boeder 2005: 222), in which the construction with his wife and children is likewise regarded as an accompaniment-meaning depictive construction (see also Schultze-Berndt, Himmelmann 2004: 110–111; Himmelmann, Schultze-Berndt 2005: 36–37).

148

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII

ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 148

2011.06.17 08:24:10

Marijampolės apskrities asmenvardinės kilmės agronomų darbo bruožai

rinamųjų predikatinių / tarininių pažyminių (žr. Ulvydas, red., 1976: 451–454; Ambrazas, red., 1996: 490–491)³⁶. Labutis (1994 II: 41–42) veiksnio daiktavardines konstrukcijas laiko papildomu tariniu. Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė (2007b: 116) juos vadina semantiniais depiktyvais, o Holvoetas ir Mikulskas šių predikatyvų depiktyvais nelaiko. Jie tokius junginius siūlo vadinti orientuotomis aplinkybėmis, kadangi jų orientacija pasireiškia tik semantiškai, o ne morfosintaksiškai (Holvoet, Mikulskas B: 3–4). Su jais nesutikti leidžia keli faktai: pirma, tų konstrukcijų reikšmė, antra, kartais įžiūrimas derinimas skaičiumi ir, trečia, jau minėta orientacija į pagrindinio predikato argumentą. Pvz., sakinyje Jau viena bonka stovėjo aplupta galva ir ištraukta kamščiu (Valeckienė 1967: 100) akivaizdu, kad konstrukcijos aplupta galva ir ištraukta kamščiu pažymi sakinio subjektą bonka, o ne nurodo stovėjimo būdą. Jeigu šio sakinio subjekto vienaskaitos formą pakeistume daugiskaitos forma, tai ir daiktavardinės konstrukcijos turėtų būti pavartotos daugiskaita: Jau dvi bonkos stovi apluptomis galvomis ir ištrauktais kamščiais. Daiktavardinės konstrukcijos orientacija į subjektą šiame sakinyje akivaizdi, vadinasi, tokio tipo konstrukcijos laikytinos depiktyvais. Dėl derinimo skaičiumi dar plg.:

(79) You look strange with that beard (cf. unshaven). / You look strange with those beards.

(80) Then she got up again with difficulty, shuffled to the bathroom, from where she returned in an unbuttoned robe. DLKT / Then the patients got up with difficulty, shuffled to the bathroom, from where they returned in unbuttoned robes.

(81) Many returned home with broken hearts. (translation from Boeder 2005: 207) / The guy returned home with a broken heart.

Such constructions can express an emotional or mental state (sentences (81), (82), (88)), appearance (sentences (80), (83), (84), (85), (86)), and being a friend / not a friend (sentences (89), (87)). These constructions are also regarded as depictives by foreign linguists, e.g., Nichols (1978a: 330); Müller (2001: 2); Schultze-Berndt, Himmelmann (2004: 89–90); Enfield (2005: 387, 389); Boeder (2005: 220–223); Šarić (2008: 321–322). These depictives can take various forms and be associated with the subject, genitive and accusative objects:

• the depictive describes the subject, and the construction is expressed in the genitive case:

(82) After spending time with the children, she always returns home in a good mood (cf. cheerful).

• the depictive describes the subject, and the construction is expressed in the instrumental case:

(83) Iš po lovos berniukas buvo ištrauktas nuogas, surištomis rankomis ir kojomis (plg. supančiotas), skudुरais užkimšta burna. DLKT

³⁶ Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedijoje (2008) (skyrius parašytas Ambrazo) prielinksninės konstrukcijos nelaikomos nederinamaisiais tarininiais pažyminiais (Morkūnas, sud., Ambrazas, red., 2008: 536–537).

Straipsniai / Articles

149

VESLAVA ČIŽIK-PROKAŠEVA

the depictive describes the subject, and the construction is expressed by a prepositional phrase:

(84) She without glasses (cf. smiling) looks younger.

the depictive describes the accusative object, and the construction is expressed by the genitive case:

(85) Looking both at the near and the distant past, we see here and there the very same people as ourselves, or, in other words, there we see ourselves, only in a somewhat different form (cf. changed). (Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 452)

the depictive describes the accusative object, and the construction is expressed by the instrumental case:

(86) Often (Monika) would find Kaziukas in tears, with swollen eyes. (Valeckienė 1967: 100)

the depictive describes the accusative object, and the construction is expressed by a prepositional phrase:

(87) Then everyone ate bread without butter (cf. alone). (Ambrazas, ed., 1996: 627)

(88) He was terribly afraid that they would take his mother away unconscious (cf. having fainted), that... What if mother dies? DLKT

the depictive describes the genitive object, and the construction is expressed by a prepositional phrase:

(89) Juras did not abandon her with a child – he will not abandon her even with five. (Valeckienė 1967: 100)

All the summarized instances of the use of cases and forms of semantic depictives are presented in Table 2.

TABLE 2. Semantic depictives

Case of agreement controller | Case / form / construction of depictive (agreement target) | Noun Instr. | Loc. Noun Numeral | Converb | Noun construction Gen. Instr. | Prepositional construction Gen. Acc. Instr. | Total | Nom. 22 26 3 2 2 29 12 3 17 116 | Gen. 20 1 21 | Dat. 2 2 4 | Acc. 3 6 33 2 8 3 55 | Total 27 34 3 55 4 37 12 3 21 196

150

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII

ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 150

2011.06.17 08:24:10

Marijampolės apskrities asmenvardinės kilmės agronomų darbo bruožai

3. CONCLUSIONS

Of the 991 collected examples of depictive secondary predicates, 795 are syntactic depictives and 196 are semantic depictives. Thus, typical syntactic (agreeing) secondary predicates are used most frequently in Lithuanian (see Tables 1 and 2).

Case agreement should be considered a typical means of expressing depictives, but not a necessary condition, since there are also instances of secondary predication that are not expressed by agreement. In both syntactic and semantic depictives, the most important factor is their semantic relation to the subject, object, or adverbial (in other words, their conceptual relation to the referent—that is, to what is described, whether the verb or one of its arguments), rather than whether the depictive agrees in case with a verbal argument; this is determined primarily by semantics.

It was found that depictives are most often expressed in the nominative case (386 examples), somewhat less often in the accusative (231 examples), still less often in the instrumental (111 examples), and least often in other cases: the genitive (88 examples), dative (78 examples), and locative (42 examples). They may also be expressed by a non-case form—gerunds (55 examples). Thus, we obtain the following hierarchy of depictive forms: NOMINATIVE > ACCUSATIVE > INSTRUMENTAL > GENITIVE > DATIVE > GERUND > LOCATIVE. Thus, the most likely depictive forms are the nominative, accusative, or instrumental case, while the least likely is the locative case (see Table 3).

The distribution of depictives across parts of speech is also noteworthy. Most examples were collected of depictives expressed by adjectives (255 examples) and participles (227 examples), somewhat fewer of depictives expressed by the construction like + noun / adjective (135 examples) and by nouns alone (120 examples), still fewer of those expressed by pronouns (76 examples) and gerunds (55 examples), and the fewest of those expressed by numerals (46 examples), noun constructions (41 examples), and prepositional constructions (36 examples). The following hierarchy of parts of speech can be established: ADJECTIVE > PARTICIPLE > LIKE + NOUN / ADJECTIVE > NOUN > PRONOUN > GERUND > NUMERAL > NOUN CONSTRUCTION > PREPOSITIONAL CONSTRUCTION. Thus, in Lithuanian depictives are most often expressed not only by adjectives and participles, but also by nouns and constructions of the form like + noun.

Lithuanian differs from many languages in that it uses free non-resultative secondary predicates (depictives), expressed not only by various parts of speech (adjectives, participles, numerals, pronouns, nouns, gerunds), but also by various cases (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, instrumental

Straipsniai / Articles

151

ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 151

2011.06.17 08:24:10

VESLAVA ČIŽIK-PROKAŠEVA

and locative) and constructions (noun constructions, prepositional constructions, and like + noun / adjective). In contrast to previous studies, which discussed depictive marking to varying degrees, the following findings were established:

1. Syntactic (agreeing) depictives, although rarely, may take instrumental and locative case forms (see Sections 2.5, 2.6);

2. Only noun or adjective constructions with like that do not express comparison should be considered syntactic depictives;

3. Syntactic depictives in all cases may be expressed by various parts of speech (adjectives, participles, numerals, pronouns, nouns; see Section 2 and Table 1);

4. Semantic depictives include not only noun constructions (an instrumental or genitive noun with a dependent word), but also prepositional constructions, a bare instrumental or locative (not agreeing in case with the main predicate’s argument to which it is oriented), and gerunds (see Section 3);

5. Semantic depictives are most often expressed by nouns and gerunds, somewhat less often by noun and prepositional constructions; they may also be expressed by numerals (see Section 3 and Table 2).

TABLE 3. Cases and forms of agreement targets and controllers

Agreement target case | Agreement target form / construction | Nom. | Gen. | Dat. | Acc. | Instr. | Loc. | Gerund | like + noun / adjective | Noun constr. | Prepos. constr. | Total | Agreement controller case | Nom. | 315 | 22 | 29 | 2 | 71 | 2 | 29 | 12 | 3 | 17 | 502 | Gen. | 63 | 20 | 9 | 1 | 93 | Dat. | 72 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 82 | Acc. | 186 | 3 | 6 | 33 | 42 | 2 | 8 | 3 | 283 | Instr. | 20 | 6 | 26 | Loc. | 4 | 1 | 5 | Total | 315 | 63 | 72 | 186 | 47 | 41 | 55 | 71 | 9 | 6 | 42 | 6 | 1 | 4 | 37 | 12 | 3 | 21 | 991 | 135 | 41 | 36

152

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII

ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 152

2011.06.17 08:24:10

Marijampolės apskrities asmenvardinės kilmės agronomų darybos bruožai

LITERATURE AND SOURCES

Ambrazas Vytautas, red., 1996: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Balkevičius Jonas 1963: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos sintaksė. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

Boeder Winfried 2005: Depictives in Kartvelian. – Secondary predication and Adverbial Modification: The typology of depictives, ed. by Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, Eva Schultze-Berndt. Oxford University Press, 2005, 201–236.

Brown Keith, Miller Jim, ed., 1999: Concise encyclopedia of grammatical categories. Elsevier.

Corbett Greville G. 1998: Agreement in Slavic. www.indiana.edu/~slavconf/linguistics/corb.pdf.

Corbett Greville G. 2003: Agreement: Terms and Boundaries. – The Role of Agreement in Natural Language: TLS 5 Proceedings, ed. by William E. Griffin, Texas Linguistics Forum 53, 109–122. www.surrey.ac.uk/LIS/SMG/ projects/ agreement/Papers/texas.pdf.

Čižik-Prokaševa Veslava 2010: Laisvieji antriniai predikatyvai. – Lietuvių kalba 4, 1–19. http://www.lietuviukalba.lt/index.php?id=160.

DLKT – the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language of the Centre of Computational Linguistics at Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas. http://donelaitis.vdu.lt.

Enfield Nicholas J. 2005: Depictive and other secondary predication in Lao. – Secondary predication and Adverbial Modification: The typology of depictives, ed. by Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, Eva Schultze-Berndt. Oxford University Press, 379–391.

Filip Hana 2001: The Semantics of Case in Russian Secondary Predication. – Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 11. Ithaca: CLC Publications, Department of Linguistics, Cornell University, 192–211.

Griffin William E. 2003: The Role of Agreement in Natural Language: TLS 5 Proceedings. Texas Linguistics Forum 53.

Haider Hubert 1985: The Case of German. – Studies in German Grammar (Studies in Generative Grammar 21), ed. by Jindřich Toman. Dordrecht: Foris Publications Holland, 23–64.

Hentschel Gerd 2005: Morphosyntaktische Markierung sekundärer Prädikate (rankraštis).

Heringa Herman 2009: How depictives and appositive adjectives are different. http://www.let.rug.ne/~heronga/handout_tabu2009.pdf.

Straipsniai / Articles

153

VESLAVA ČIŽIK-PROKAŠEVA

Himmelmann Nikolaus P., Schultze-Berndt Eva 2005: Issues in the syntax and semantics of participant-oriented adjuncts: an introduction. – Secondary predication and Adverbial Modification: The typology of depictives, ed. by Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, Eva Schultze-Berndt. Oxford University Press, 1–67.

Himmelmann Nikolaus P., Schultze-Berndt Eva, eds., 2005: Secondary predication and Adverbial Modification: The typology of depictives. Oxford University Press.

Holvoet Axel 2003: Laisvieji predikatyvai ir jų sintaksiniai ryšiai. – Sintaksinių ryšių tyrimai (Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai 1), red. Axel Holvoet, Artūras Judžentis. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 67–78.

Holvoet Axel 2009a: Argumentų hierarchijos ir gramatinės funkcijos. – Gramatinių funkcijų prigimtis ir raiška (Acta Salensia 1), red. Axel Holvoet, Rolandas Mikulskas. Vilnius: Vilniaus Universitetas, Asociacija „Academia Salensis“, 1–36.

Holvoet Axel 2009b: Bendrosios sintaksės pagrindai (Bibliotheca Salensis 4). Vilnius: Vilniaus Universitetas, Asociacija „Academia Salensis“.

Holvoet Axel 2009c: Difuziniai subjektai ir objektai. – Gramatinių funkcijų prigimtis ir raiška (Acta Salensia 1), red. Axel Holvoet, Rolandas Mikulskas. Vilnius: Vilniaus Universitetas, Asociacija „Academia Salensis“, 37–67.

Holvoet Axel, Judžentis Artūras 2003: Sintaksinių ryšių tipai. – Sintaksinių ryšių tyrimai (Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai 1), red. Axel Holvoet, Artūras Judžentis. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 11–35.

Holvoet Axel, Judžentis Artūras 2005: Sintaksinės priklausomybės tipai: papildymai ir patikslinimai. – Gramatinių funkcijų tyrimai (Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai 3), red. Axel Holvoet, Rolandas Mikulskas. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 11–38.

Holvoet Axel, Judžentis Artūras, red., 2003: Sintaksinių ryšių tyrimai (Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai 1). Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Holvoet Axel, Mikulskas Rolandas A: Obligatory Predicatives. www.lki.lt/LKI_LT/images/padaliniai/Gramatikos_skyrius/Būtinieji%20predikatyvai.pdf.

Holvoet Axel, Mikulskas Rolandas B: Free Secondary Predicatives. www.lki.lt/LKI_LT/images/Padaliniai/Gramatikos_skyrius/Laisvieji%20antriniai%20predikatyvai.pdf.

Holvoet Axel, Mikulskas Rolandas, red., 2005: Gramatinių funkcijų tyrimai (Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai 3). Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Holvoet Axel, Mikulskas Rolandas, red., 2009: Gramatinių funkcijų prigimtis ir raiška (Acta Salensia 1). Vilnius: Vilniaus Universitetas, Asociacija „Academia Salensis“.

154

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII

ALL_62_63 maketas.indd 154

2011.06.17 08:24:10

Marijampolės apskrities asmenvardinės kilmės agronomų darbovėžai

Irimia Monica-Alexandrina 2005: Types of secondary predication. – Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 25, 20–29.

Jablonskis Jonas 1911: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė. – Jonas Jablonskis. Rinktiniai raštai 1, sud. Jonas Palionis. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1957, 435–548.

Jablonskis Jonas 1928: Linksniai ir prielinksniai. Jų vartojimas mūsų kalboje. – Jonas Jablonskis. Rinktiniai raštai 1, sud. Jonas Palionis. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1957, 549–672.

Křížková Helena 1969: Предикативное определение и структура предложения в современном русском языке. – Slavia 38, 1–35.

Kutscher Silvia, Genç Sevim N. 2005: On depictive secondary predicates in Laz. – Secondary predication and Adverbial Modification: The typology of depictives, ed. by Nikolaus Himmelmann, Eva Schultze-Berndt. Oxford University Press, 237–258.

Labutis Vitas 1992: Rūpinkimės linksnių ir prielinksnių dėstymu mokykloje. – Lietuvių kalba mokykloje, sud. Adomas Šoblinskas. Kaunas: Šviesa, 40–57.

Labutis Vitas 1994 I–II: Lithuanian Syntax 1–2. Vilnius: Vilnius University Press.

Labutis Vitas 1998: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

LKŽe – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, electronic version. Editorial board: Gertrūda Naktinienė (editor-in-chief), Jonas Paulauskas, Rasutė Petrokienė, Vytautas Vitkauskas, Jolanta Zabarskaitė. Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2008. www.lkz.lt.

Marušič Franc, Marvin Tatjana, Žaucer Rok 2003: Depictive secondary predication in Slovenian. – FASL (Formal Approaches to Slavic Languages) 11. Michigan Slavic Publications, 373–392.

McGregor William B. 2005: Quantifying depictive secondary predicates in Australian languages. – Secondary predication and Adverbial Modification: The typology of depictives, eds. by Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, Eva Schultze-Berndt. Oxford University Press, 173–200.

Mik ulskas Rolandas 2007: Dėl daiktavardinės kaip konstrukcijomis reiškiamos antrinės predikacijos pobūdžio. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 57, 123–155.

Mik ulskas Rolandas 2009: Daiktavardinės apozicijos vaidmuo antrinės predikacijos raiškoje. – Gramatinių funkcijų prigimtis ir raiška (Acta Salensia 1), red. Axel Holvoet, Rolandas Mikulskas. Vilnius: Vilniaus Universitetas, Asociacija „Academia Salensis“, 99–124.

Morkūnas Kazys, sud., Ambrazas Vytautas, red., 2008: Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Straipsniai / Articles

155

ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 155

2011.06.17 08:24:10

VESLAVA ČIŽIK-PROKAŠEVA

Müller Stefan 2001: An HPSG Analysis of German Depictive Secondary Predicates. – Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 53.

Nichols Johanna 1978a: Double dependency? – CLS 14, 326–329.

Nichols Johanna 1978b: Secondary predicates. – Berkeley Linguistic Society 4, 114–127.

Nichols Johanna 1981: Predicate Nominals. A partial surface syntax of Russian. – Linguistics 97, California, 1–397.

Nichols Johanna 1982: Prominence, cohesion, and control: object-controlled predicate nominals in Russian. – Syntax and Semantics 15, 319–350.

Palionis Jonas, sud., 1957: Jonas Jablonskis. Rinktiniai raštai 1. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

Rothstein Susana D. 1985: The Syntactic Forms of Predication. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Schroeder Christoph, Hentschel Gerd, Boeder Winfried, eds., 2008: Secondary predicates in Eastern European languages and beyond (Studia Slavica Oldenburgensia 16). Oldenburg: BIS-Verlag.

Schultze-Berndt Eva, Himmelmann Nikolaus P. 2004: Depictive secondary predicates in cross-linguistic perspective. Linguistic Typology 8(1), 59–131.

Sližienė Nijolė 1994: Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių junglumo žodynas 1. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Sirtautas Vytautas, Grenda Česys 1988: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė. Vilnius: Mokslas.

Šarić Ljiljana 2008: Secondary predicates in Croatian. – Secondary predicates in Eastern European languages and beyond (Studia Slavica Oldenburgensia 16), ed. by Christoph Schroeder, Gerd Hentschel, Boeder Winfried. Oldenburg: BIS-Verlag, 295–326.

Šukys Jonas 1980: Dvejbiniai linksniai ir jų varžovas įnagininkas. – Kalba ir mintis. Vilnius: Mokslas, 22–29.

Šukys Jonas 1998: Lietuvių kalbos linksniai ir prielinksniai: vartosena ir normos. Kaunas: Šviesa.

Toman Jindřich, ed., 1985: Studies in German Grammar (Studies in Generative Grammar 21). Dordrecht: Foris Publications Holland.

Ul vydas Kazys, red., 1971: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 2. Morfologija. Vilnius: Mintis.

156

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII

ALL_62_63 maketas.indd 156

2011.06.17 08:24:10

Marijampolės apskrities asmenvardinės kilmės agronomų darbo bruožai

Ul vydas Kazys, red., 1976: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 3. Sintaksė. Vilnius: Mintis.

Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė Loreta 2007a: Daiktavardinės kaip konstrukcijos kaip analitinis predikatyvų žymėjimo rodiklis. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 56, 73–101.

Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė Loreta 2007b: Depiktyvų semantiniai tipai ir jų morfosintaksinis žymėjimas. – Baltų Filologija 16(1/2), 113–131.

Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė Loreta 2010: Konstrukcijų su būdama semantika ir morfosintaksės raiškos polinkiai. – Lietuvių kalba 4 (spausdinamas).

Valeckienė Adelė 1967: Predikatyvinis pažyminys kaip atskira sakinio dalis. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 9, 97–116.

Wunderlich Dieter 1997: Cause and the structure of verbs. – Linguistic Inquiry 28, 27–68.

Marking of Depictives in Lithuanian

SUMMARY

The article deals with the marking of secondary non-resultative predicates (depictives) in Lithuanian language. In this article, depictives are divided into two groups: syntactic depictives (a depictive agrees with its controller in case) and semantic depictives (a depictive does not agree with its controller in case, but sometimes it agrees with its controller in gender and / or number). In this article, I laboured to show, how depictives in Lithuanian language are different from depictives in other languages, and to supplement the data given in Lithuanian language grammars and studies of syntax. In the end of article, I give two hierarchies: a hierarchy of cases of depictives and a hierarchy of forms of depictives.

In Lithuanian language depictives can be expressed by different parts of speech (adjectives, participles, numerals, pronouns, nouns and gerunds (indeclinable active participles)), they may be used in different cases (in the nominative, in the genitive, in the dative, in the accusative, in the instrumental and in the locative) and can be expressed by noun and prepositional phrases or as ‘kaip’ + noun / adjective constructions. It has been determined that:

1. in Lithuanian language syntactic (in concord) depictives are used most commonly;

2. syntactic depictives can be used in the form of the instrumental and the locative cases (agreeing with controller);

3. syntactic depictives can be expressed by adjectives, participles, numerals, pronouns and nouns;

4. semantic depictives can be expressed by nouns (in the instrumental or the genitive) phrases and prepositional phrases, by the instrumental and the locative (doesn’t agreeing with controller) and gerunds;

Straipsniai / Articles

157

ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 157

2011.06.17 08:24:11

VESLAVA ČIŽIK-PROKAŠEVA

5. depictives (syntactic and semantic) mostly have the nominative and the accusative forms, not so often the instrumental forms and most rare – the locative forms. This may be present by the following hierarchy: NOM > ACC > INSTR > GEN > DAT > INDECLINABLE FORM (GERUND) > LOC;

6. depictives aligns by form so: ADJECTIVE > PARTICIPLE > KAIP + NOUN > NOUN > PRONOUN > CONVERB > NUMERAL > NOUN PHRASE > PREPOSITIONAL PHRASE. Consequently, in Lithuanian language depictives are mostly expressed by adjectives, participles and noun or as + noun constructions.

Received on 2 December 2010.

VESLAVA ČIŽIK-PROKAŠEVA

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lietuva

Email – [email protected]

158

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII