Axel Holvoet, Rolandas Mikulskas, red. „Gramatinių funkcijų tyrimai“

AxeEL HoLvoet, Rolandas Mikulskas, RED. Vilnius: Lietuviy kalbos institutas, 2005, 199 p., ISBN 9986-668-85-9 (Lietuviy kalbos gramatikos darbai, The third volume of Lithuanian language grammar works aims to discuss Lithuanian language 3.) sentence structure units, usually referred to as sentence parts, and to solve problems related to their definitions. These units are discussed in separate articles prepared by the work supervisor Axel Holvoet with several contributors. The seven articles of the series are written according to a general plan and can be considered as chapters of a continuous work. SusipaZinus su With this set ir of additional notes from the workbook (Holvoet 2005) becomes clearer the concept of the planned development of Lithuanian language syntax definition. Grammatical functions, discussed in the book with a broad perspective of the current theoretical work in linguistics, have fundamental significance for the study of sentence structure. This presents many new solutions, which should be thoroughly and comprehensively considered by Lithuanian language researchers. The book begins with a chapter on syntactic dependence. It further develops the first set of works on Lithuanian grammar, focusing on two types of syntactic relations — controlling and modifying. Different roles of tu type in the logical structure of the sentence (predicate and argument) are shown. Attention is drawn to the uneven semantic function of the main and dependent démens in the combination. Syntactically dependent démus may in certain cases form the semantic premises of the compound, i.e., be a semantic function. For example, in the compound grazi gélé, the dependent demu graii, modifying the principal démenj gélé, acts as the semantic function. Considering its semantics, it is necessary to distinguish two subtypes of syntactic relationships: specification and determination. ir In the first subtype the main dému is a semantic imperfect (for example, the verb may in the conjunction may rain), in the second subtype the semantic imperfect is the dependent dému displaying noun (the hat). In general, in this chapter syntactic relationships are clearly differentiated from the logical and semantic structure of the sentence unit and a good example of analysis of the relationship of different conjunctions is given. By control or modification, supplements are distinguished from circumstances. Controlled dependent entities are regarded as complements, and modifying entities as circumstances. However, the adjectives and direct complements are defined on a different basis. In the second chapter of the book, which deals with these functions, it is stated that the substantive and the direct adjective savoky cannot be formulated solely on the basis of syntactic relationships.,,- Describing these propriony often takes into account their syntactic, morphosyntactic and semantic properties“ (63-64). The most important sub-signs of the substantive and direct complement are considered to be the grammatical (or structural) syllables of the nominative tr ending, which are closely related to each other in the structure of the transitive sentence and, according to their participation in syntactic processes, occupy the highest place in the syllable »accessibility* (accessibility) hierarchy. The noun or suffix corresponds to the syntax and only changes the semantics,,on the top of the sentence. Semantic verb ~ the origin of an undefined quantity or negation, e.g. : Atėjo sveciai /sveciy; I read this article / I did not read this article (53). This is the function of the denominator and the adjective. This is a precise observation. That the originator ia has a direct complement REVIEWS | 12% function, confirmed by the relationship with the denominator in passive construction, cf. my scouted / unread article. However, the originator, controlled by the verb to wait, to beg, to demand, and the utilitary, controlled by the verb to help, to direct, are no longer considered direct adjectives as,,not meeting the structural verb criterion” (60). This does not take into account the fact that these verbs also relate to the denominator in passive constructions, e.g. He was expected / requested / helped / guided / feared. The form of the adjective is considered to be so important as a sub-sign of a factor or direct complement that it is even concluded that factors »differ from complements not syntactically, but morphosyntactically* (137). In intransitive sentences, which are discussed in the seventh chapter of the collection, the preposition of the factor is the direct complement néra, so it is believed that,,the category of the intransitive factor is quite undefined“ (160). Only in locative sentences (e.g., The notebook is on the shelf), the noun is a prototypical factor that coincides with the non-Zyméta subject. In the case of an existential sentence, the factor in the unsigned subject does not coincide. ir (145), On the desk is a sqbook. In the delto and intransitive sentences, the verbs are distinguished by their formal postpositions (146), i.e., firstly by the noun. The relationship of the complement to the circumstances is discussed in Chapters 3 and 4. They focus on the different roles of the units in the logical structure of the sentence. The adverb is the argument of the predicate, and the circumstances of its predicate component are not taken into account, functioning as a secondary predicate. This is based on the circumstance, rather than the complement, suggesting to consider instrumental meaning jnagininka or preposition with construction. Since the location-referring constructions with verbs indicating the direction of movement, the so-called dynamic locatives,,cannot be perceived as an additional predicate“ they are assigned to the (73), complement, e.g. : He went to the j city; It is also known as laiskq. Otherwise, we understand j local meaning constructions with verbs biti, jeinanéias 1 main locative sentence predicate, e.g. : The house is at exer, Although the construct is syntactically compatible with eZero Gia (so according to the criteria of the syntactic relationship it must have a bit complement), for semantic reasons it is considered a,,bit modifier,, and the obviously syntactical term bit circumstances is used to describe its function (74-78). The authors are prevented from considering such constructions as controlled by the fact that the verb bit dél for its purpose does not require a certain defined addition, its syntactic requirements are rather vague* (75). However, a noun associated with the same conjunction in the present time and with the same »undefined requirements* in the past (e. g. : John is a cheerful teacher), is / now boldly considered,- ,a verb-subject of the word, a verb-subject or adjective* (80). Based on the logical and semantic structure of the predicate, aiSkinamos and with the predicate associated utilitarian functions. When, according to the need of the verb, the utilitary can be considered as the argument of the predicate, it is attached to the complement (John presented Géliy to his wife), when it cannot — to the circumstances (John brought wine to his wife). Meanwhile, the characteristic noun together with its suffix (e.g.: The children kissed grandmother's hand), in the author's opinion, forms a kind of split argument; whether such a user is to be considered part of the add-on is not stated. The dative alsocantis, which is not called adjective, is apparently attached to circumstances. Circumstances that modify sentences are called sentence circumstances. In many cases, it is difficult to distinguish them from circumstances associated with the preposition, because the preposition represents the sentence. Apparently, this is why among the circumstances of the sentence the most mentioned are modal, especially interjective, words and word combinations (turbat, alas, laimet, certainly, etc.). Here we can add that they also do 128 | REVIEWS are sometimes associated with individual parts of a sentence, e.g. : Near the house grew a large, but unfortunately crooked lime tree. The fifth chapter deals with predicatives, which are divided into three groups: primary (conjunction) predicates, denoting the main predicate (John is lmksm), free secondary predicates, requiring additional predication (Jonas grigo linksas), biological ir secondary predicates, denoting secondary predicate as the main argument of the predicate (John pretends to be cheerful). According to syntactic relations, free predicates correspond to word modifiers, o verbs, but — they are not classified either as circumstances or as complements. Predicatives are considered separate Zodziy syntactic class, which is defined as follows: ,Predicate is a noun used as a predicate, but syntactically dependent on the verb* (121). According to the authors, free predicates differ from circumstances only in the pronunciation of nouns in syllables, »The difference is not syntactic, but categorical and morphosyntactic« (123). In many places in the book it is stated that the authors' submissions differ: from ,,tradicinés grammatos“. The term is ambiguous. In America it's often called distribution (L. Bloomfield, C. C. Frieso ir kt.) analysis, Europoye ~ K. P. Beckerium 19th-century a. popularized way of describing part of a sentence by joining meaningful ir forms, Lithuania — Jablonski's works are based on school grammar. Authors of the collection The term,,tradicinés gramatikos* is used in a special way: it refers to all basic studies of the Lithuanian language grammar until m., kat pasirodé ir 2003 Syntax relations studies. 18 I'm not sure there's such a straight line. Gramatinés minties raida There was a long, varied summer in ir Lithuania. The grammar structure of the Lithuanian language has been studied particularly intensively in the last decades. XX a. In the definitions ir ju prepared on the basis of these studies, it was tried to define grammatical classes and categories as consistently as possible, to differentiate syntactic, logical, semantic and pragmatic analysis. ir ir ty units. Tolesniy Zingsniy ta direction could be observed in the ir first In the set of Lithuanian language grammar works this - is a positive site to distinguish syntactic relationships from speech bidy indicators, jy to abandon formal ir pofiiirio control difference from i Pour into ir the pan. (plg. aut. 2005). However, in the third set, the definition of sentence ir structure units on equal grounds was abandoned. As already mentioned, the authors of the distinguishing signs of the direct ir complement of the (resp. structurtiirmiais) funny — nominative ir suffix. The subordinate ir circumstance is distinguished by syntactic links. Predicatives — on a new basis: according to the predicative use and expression of ir the nameZodziy funny, depending on the verbazodzio. Such a variation of criteria inevitably leads to confusion. For example, according to the concept of syntactic relationship, the factor turéty byiti is considered as one complement, i8 the direct o complement is also a complement class. Also to the complementiy turety biti ir allocated vad. primary predicates, which the authors consider actionZodzio bin servants. Syntactic non-bitness is recognized as a distinctive circumstance after the Gia also talks about the circumstances in sentences with a conjunction. Obvious categorical confusion arises from the principle of aprago, not i8 from the characteristics of the subject language. The authors were prevented from defining sentence structure units on a uniform basis by the restriction of the concept of syntactic ir relationships by control j modifications, which were raised to the highest classification rank. Management Gia corresponds to what up Siol was called a bit connection, modification of a o non-bit connection — (plg. ‘DLKG 430). By choosing such a broad concept of management ir modification, management has to be regarded as a ir su a direct complement, ir su 129 factor, and with a bit predicate. That is, the syntactic differences remain unrevealed, and the authors have to look for other criteria. In the recent definitions of Lithuanian syntax, the same basis for the division of sentence parts has been considered by differentiating syntactic relations according to their directionality (unilateral — two-way affiliation) and unilateral or bilateral relationships, and by distinguishing control from fusion in terms of the level of unilateral affiliation (see Valeckiené 1998: 18-22; Labutis 1998: 26 -29; ‘DLKG 478-482). That these types of connection are syntactic, not morphological, semantic or otherwise, is not necessary to show. Such a view of syntactic relationships is rejected a priori by some authors, who believe that the nature of the two-way syntactic relationship and the interconnection (respectively, the two-way dependence) “is unnecessary and arose from the confusion of syntactic and morphosyntactic phenomena” (24, 64, cf. also 123). 18 to ensure no confusion Gia néra, it is an obvious fact that syntactic relationships, thus interconnection, have certain morphosyntactic indicators. The role of morphosyntactic indicators is often mentioned in the context of management, e.g. :,,Morphosyntax control can be considered as an indicator of syntax control. If one Word imposes the form of a verb on another, then there is probably a syntactic relationship ir between you and it* (19). The role of the indicator of coordination is well defined in the first set of works on Lithuanian grammar:,,the coordination of one Word form with another Word form reflects the syntactic relationship between two Words* (Semeniené 2003: 38). In the third set it is already stated differently:,- ,harmonization... does not constitute a syntactic connection“ (28);,,harmonization can, but must not necessarily be an indicator of a syntactic connection* (29). Similarly, in the notes of the thesis, it is stated:,, the nature of the interrelationship and the bilingual syntactic relationship is based on the erroneous assumption that the coordination is a syntactic relationship, or presupposes a syntactic relationship* (Holvoet 2005: 153-159). Strangely combined statements about the existence of a syntactic connection and its presumption have completely different meanings: the coordination presupposes (or rather — suggests) a syntactic connection between sentence units, but is by no means a syntactic connection or a type of connection. Rejecting the combination as an indicator of the syntactic relationship, it is attempted to deny the syntactic relationship itself between the adjective and the predicate in such sentences as He parverbrolj aukstielninkq or té (28) I saw a jj funny plg. (129), : Parverté brothers, high school teachers; I thought they were funny. However, in another place it is already suggested,,to associate the term of the second predicate with the secondary predicates containing the corresponding morphosyntactic positions (i.e., combined -V.A.)“ (126). Discussing the sentences We play with the ball and Children play with the ball about the relationship of the factor (we; children) with the predicate (We play; Children play with the ball) it was said even more clearly: the denominator's- ,,syntactic relationship with the verbs is formally determined by two morphosyntactic indicators ~ the control and coordination of the playful* (24). Thus, a mutual syntactic relationship is established when the démen — noun or pronoun — which depends on the principal démen — verb — determines the form of the numerals of the principal démen. Such a relationship is usually called mutual connection (or condominium). The criteria by which the authors try to define the units of sentence structure not only vary, but also belong to different fields of analysis. In terms of syntactic and morphosyntactic similarity, the sub-signs are defined as complement, circumstance, factor and direct complement. The predicates are distinguished from the other units and further subdivided according to predicate logic. Utilitarian forms of complements are distinguished from circumstances by: Considering the role of the argument or additional predicate. The predicate is usually called the preposition as the syntactic center of the sentence. Another semantic criterion is used to distinguish between circumstances 130 | REVIEWS syntax8when bitinas nearby constructkeijas, turinéias space needs (75-77). Also dél semantic motifs of nouns with lexical needs of place or time in such sentences as Tolimas kelias nueitas; Already the whole day is considered an,,intermediate category between circumstances and actions“ (58), although the explicit function of the factor Gia shows the same syntactic positions recognized by the authors, first of all the relationship of the active construction with the final of the direct complement (Nueyau tolimq keliq; Slaukiau visq dieng), which becomes a pronoun in the corresponding construction with the negation (Nenuéjo tolimo kelio; — Neislauké dienos). It is also advisable su to use the actual part of the sentence, for example, to consider as a factor the main grammar result of the theme of the unsymmetrical sentence (62-63), although Lithuanian language data do not confirm the direct correlation of the actual part of the sentence unit (theme, frame) with the syntactic units (conjunction, factor, complement, etc.). The use of the criteria of predicate logic, semantics, actual sentence division for identifying syntactic units is presented by the authors as a,,prototypical way of defining grammatical functions* (49). Based on the proposal of Keenan (1976) to define the subject of a sentence according to a whole set of formal, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic Signs, and to consider the Words containing all these Signs as prototypes of the category, and the others (which only have some of the Signs) as peripheral cases. This method, widely discussed in the 19th century, is still used in linguistic typology when it is necessary to show differences in the correction of a certain part of a sentence in different languages. Applying it to the Lithuanian language syntax was abandoned, because defining the sentence structure units according to different terms, the subsequent analysis of the unit's use would inevitably lead to a vicious circle ty ir j (plg. aut. 1984: 13-14). For example, if we define a verb according to syntactic features, we will have to define its place in the predicate structure of jo the sentence, describe its semantic functions, determine in jo which sentences it is a theme, etc. ea ar ir It is possible to analyze the structure of the sentence ir by going the following way: determine which syntactic units are used to realize the predicate structure of the sentence, how the semantic roles are played (agent, patient, instrument, etc.). However, if we try to define the syntactic units by ir form, by semantic ir function, by role) in the predicative ir structure of the sentence or in the actualizing section (or one part of the sentence by one, another by another sub-sign), it will be very difficult to consistently deal with the structure of the sentence. Language categories have a field structure that allows you to distinguish the center of the category in most cases (resp. prototypir e) periphery. Based on this, it can be stated, for example, that the factor (resp. prototypiné) form is the noun of the adverb, ar circumstance adverb. o — However, this does not by any means give up the precise differentiation of the same category ir ,,accept the idea su that the definitions in the ir syntactic category will not be sufficiently sharp* (51). Furthermore, the complexity of the language system of the subject of — study and its multi-dimensionali- — ty require precise research tools and ir clearly defined in each field of analysis. — Su hereby agrees 1r Holvoetas (2005: 160): ,,the most important thing is that the researcher used bitty aStriis. The definition of grammar should only state the requirements of ne a new language system, but to model the system j according to differentiated criteria specific methodological principles. ta ir This is prevented by the crossing of the above-mentioned analysis, approximately ar ,,complex* basic grammatical function definitions. So we must agree with the author's own opinion that ,,with the mentioned functions definition and equipment related problems they were unable to resolve satisfactorily“ (8). Let us hope that this will happen in the future. 131 LITERATURA Amurazas,V. 1986: Syntactic and semantic structure units of Lithuanian speech. Lietuviy kalbotyros klausimat 25, 4-44. Amprazas,V. 2005: Rec. Holvoet A., Judzentis A. (eds.). Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 52, 167-170. Houvoer, A. 2005: Del sintaksimiy rysiy skirstymo. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 52, 157-161. Krewan, E. and L. 1976: Towards a universal defimtion of “subject”. Li, Ch., ed., Subject and Topic, New York: Academic Press, 303-333. Lasunis, V. 1998: Lithuanian language syntax, Vilnius: Vilmaus University Press. Sementent, L. 2003 Coordination of Bidward. Bolvoet A., JudZentis A. (ed.). Vaueckrent, A. 1998: Funkeine hetuviy kalbos gramanka, Vilnius: 37-66. Mokslo ir enciklopedijy lexdybos institutas. Vytautas Ambrazas Lithuanian Language Institute P. Vilei8io g. 5, 10308 Vilnius, Lithuania