Intranzityvinio subjekto žymėjimas vardininku ir / arba kilmininku

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA LII (2005), 67 – 82 Marking the intransitive subject with the nominative and/or genitive* LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language, Vilnius In this paper the factors determining the use of the nominative and the genitive as markers of the intransitive subject in Lithuanian are examined. The following preliminary conclusions are formulated: subjects which are prototypical with regard to categorial properties are marked with the nominative, though this rule may be overridden by other factors connected with number, referentiality etc. Less prototypical subjects may be marked with the nominative or genitive; animacy is not the most prominent factor determining the choice. Definiteness and word order are important factors. Definite subjects in sentences with unmarked word order show a strong preference for the nominative. In less typical configurations such as VSdef or SindefV, the nominative and the genitive are often used as markers of definiteness and indefiniteness respectively. 0. INTRODUCTORY NOTES 0.1. The subject1 of negative intransitive sentences in Lithuanian is expressed in three ways: i) in negative intransitive sentences, as in affirmative intransitive sentences, the nominative case is used for the intransitive subject (hereafter also subject), e.g.: (1) Jonas miega. (2) Jonas nemiega. * The article was prepared for publication in 2003 during a research stay in Germany (Carl von Ossietzky University, Oldenburg). The author sincerely thanks her research supervisor, Prof. habil. Dr. Gerd Hentschel, for his generous help and advice, as well as the DAAD foundation (Germany), which funded the research stay. I thank Prof. habil. Dr. Axel Holvoet for comments made during the Grammar Seminars. I am sincerely grateful to Dr. Rolandas Mikulskis and the article’s reviewers for carefully reading the article and for their valuable comments and corrections. 1 In studies of Lithuanian grammar, the concepts of subject (veiksnys) as a syntactic category and subject (subjektas) as a semantic category are used (Balkevičius 1963: 74ff.; Paulauskienė 1994: 107ff., 115). In some grammatical works, the nominative and genitive subjects of affirmative and negative intransitive sentences are regarded as syntactic subjects (veiksniai) (Ambrazas, ed., 1997: 476; Balkevičius 1963: 77); elsewhere, the genitive subject of negative intransitive sentences is syntactically analyzed as an object, while the nominative subject of affirmative intransitive sentences is regarded as a syntactic subject (veiksnys) (cf. Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 291; Ambrazas, ed., 1994: 606, 625; Labutis 1998: 220; Sirtautas, Grenda 1988: 25, 107; Paulauskienė 1983: 190ff.). The syntactic subject (veiksnys) is traditionally defined on the basis of the formal—case—criterion and the type of syntactic relation: it is generally taken to be a nominal expressed in the nominative case and linked to the predicate by a relation of mutual agreement (agreement in the broad sense) (Ambrazas, ed., 1994: 487; cf. Jablonskis 1957: 453ff.; Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 279ff.; Sirtautas, Grenda 1988: 54, 57, 86; Ambrazas, ed., 1997: 475ff.; Labutis 1998: 211ff.). In this article, the concept of intransitive subject (subject) is understood from a typological perspective; such an intransitive subject denotes the sole argument of one-place predicates, which, syntactically, may be expressed not only by the nominative but also by other cases (genitive, dative, accusative, etc.) (for a fuller discussion, see Holvoet 1991: 50f., 80). 68 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ ii) in affirmative intransitive sentences, the subject genitive replaces the subject nominative2, e.g.: (3) Jonas is at home. (4) Jono is not at home3. iii) in negative intransitive sentences, unlike affirmative ones, either the subject nominative or the genitive can in principle be used, cf.: (5a) At first, when I said goodbye to Žalgiris, it was difficult. While I was still playing, I nurtured the hope: once I finished, I would take up coaching. But then in Kaunas no one turned up who could offer me such a position. If they don’t invite you, surely you don’t start asking for a job yourself? KT (5b) When physician Regina Valatkienė was replaced by a colleague from Šiauliai, more than one medical professional wondered: why can’t R. Valatkienė continue as chief physician; surely in Kaunas no one turned up who could replace her? County chief physician K. Stankaras says today that he regrets dismissing R. Valatkienė. KT (6a) The artist was buried in Rasos Cemetery, but the grave has not survived, although the location where scholars, distinguished artists, and public figures were buried is known. KT (6b) The poet and educator died in 1897 in Warsaw, where he was receiving treatment at the time. His grave has not survived. During the Soviet era, S. Gimžauskas’s name was suppressed, and not one of his poems was published. KT (7a) The French, Poles, and Germans were not in danger of disappearing; moreover, they absorbed other peoples and grew at their expense. Nor did the question arise for them: who are we? It was self-evident. KT (7b) While reading Jurgis Jankus’s letters, not once did the question arise: how much of this is the everyday person, and how much the writer—that is, a person whose talent helps them see everything […] from above. KT 0.2. As stated in the literature, in the latter cases the use of one of the cases depends on the semantic type of the intransitive sentence. Leonard Babby (1980a; 1980b: 225ff.), taking into account the case in which the subject is marked in negative intransitive sentences, distinguishes negative declarative sentences (English negated declarative sentences) with a nominative subject from negative existential sentences (English negated existential sentences) with a genitive subject. The subject marked with the genitive in negative existential sentences is said to be indefinite, and such sentences are usually rhemes, although a facultative theme, marked by a locative expression, is sometimes possible. In negative declarative sentences, the sentence theme is expressed by the nominative of a definite subject, while the predicate, together with a necessary locative expression, marks 2 For cases in which the nominative of an affirmative sentence is replaced by the genitive of a negative sentence (negation genitive), see: Ambrazas, ed. (1994: 584), Šukys (1998: 107ff.); cf. Ambrazas, ed. (1997: 668ff.). 3 Plg. Jono Šukio (1998: 68) teiginį: „Dėl vokiečių kalbos įtakos arčiau buvusios Prūsijos sienos ir žemaičių paribiais klaidingai pasakoma ir Ji nėr namie (= Jos nėr(a) namie), […] taigi nepaisoma, jog neiginys linksnį čia turi keisti“. Akademinėje lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje (Ambrazas, ed., 1997: 666tt, plg. Ambrazas, red., 1994: 625) teigiama, kad intranzityviniai sakiniai, kuriuose neigiama ko nors egzistencija (visų pirma sakiniai su būti), dažniau reikalauja kilmininko, o ne vardininko. INTRANZITYVINIO SUBJEKTO ŽYMĖJIMAS 69 the rheme of the sentence. Cases in which a referentially definite subject is marked with the negation genitive are also considered negative declarative sentences (cf. sentence (4)). Vladimiro Borschevo ir Barbaros Partee (2002a: 5tt, 2002b: 8tt; 2002c: 8tt) nuomone, egzistenciniai sakiniai visada susiję su eksplicitiniu ar implicitiniu, t. y. paaiškėjančiu iš platesnio konteksto, vietos nurodymu, žyminčiu sakinyje temą. Kitaip tariant, semantiniu požiūriu egzistencija visada susijusi su buvimu tam tikroje vietoje (angl. being in a location). Skirtingai nei Babby, autoriai laikosi nuomonės, kad skirtumas tarp neigiamų lokatyvinių sakinių (pagal Babby, konstatuojamųjų sakinių), kuriuose subjektas paprastai žymimas vardininku, ir neigiamų egzistencinių sakinių, kurių subjektas tipiškai reiškiamas kilmininku, greičiau susijęs ne su temos vs. temos skirtumais, bet su sakinio perspektyva, t. y. intranzityvinių sakinių skirtumai remiasi egzistencinėje / lokatyvinėje situacijoje (angl. existence / location situation) pasirenkamu perspektyvos centru (angl. Perspectival Center) (Babby terminais kalbant, tema). Egzistencinių sakinių perspektyvos centras yra vieta, o lokatyvinių sakinių – daiktas. Esama sakinių, interpretuotinų kaip tarpiniai lokatyvinių ir egzistencinių sakinių atvejai. Tokiais galima laikyti lokatyvinius sakinius su subjekto kilmininku (dar žr. Holvoet 2005: 3t)⁴. 0.3. Without going into the history of the question or the differing views of researchers⁵, one might, on the one hand, argue that the use of two different cases to mark the subject in marked negative intransitive sentences of types (5a)–(7b) indicates some kind of (semantic, syntactic, or other) contrast between the sentences. In other words, this claim would rest on the assumption that marking a syntactic function (the subject) belonging to the sentence nucleus⁶ with different cases is not accidental, but motivated. On the other hand, one might suppose that the differences between sentences marked with two different cases are essentially insignificant, and that the use of the two cases in parallel is fundamentally synonymous and equivalent; that is, the nominative and genitive of the intransitive subject are used as morphosyntactic variants⁷. Based on the assumption that under certain semantic- 4 Elena Padučeva (1997: 103) neigiamus intranzityvinius sakinius su neiginio kilmininku skiria į du – egzistencinių ir percepcinių – sakinių tipus. Egzistenciniais sakiniais teigiama, kad „X (daiktas) neegzistuoja tam tikroje vietoje ar apskritai pasaulyje“; percepciniais sakiniais teigiama, kad „X nėra stebėtojo percepcijos lauke (rus. перспективное пространство Субъекта сознания)“. Percepcinių sakinių X (subjektas) gali būti žymimas ne tik kilmininku, bet ir vardininku; egzistencinių sakinių X (subjektas) paprastai (bet ne visada) žymimas kilmininku (t. p.: 106tt). Aldonos Paulauskienės (2001: 159) manymu, „yra tokių atvejų, kai neiginys leidžia vardininką ir kilmininką vartoti sinonimiškai. Taip esti, kai loginis subjektas nesutampa su gramatiniu veiksniu ir reiškiamas naudininku: Ar neliko ir man koks kąsnelis (kokio kąsnelio)?“⁴ 5 For a review of studies offering different interpretations of the accusative/genitive and nominative/genitive in negative transitive and negative intransitive sentences, see Hentschel (1992a). See also the bibliography compiled by Greville G. Corbett (1986) on the use of the accusative/genitive in negative transitive sentences in Russian. 6 Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje (Ambrazas, red., 1994: 587t) sakinio branduolys apibrėžiamas kaip kiekvienam sakiniui gramatiškai būtinos žodžių formos, t. y. tarinys (predikatas) su gramatiškai būtinomis sakinio dalimis. 7 The discussion draws on Gerd Hentschel’s concept of morphosyntactic variants. Morphosyntactic variants are several (at least two) different morphosyntactic forms of the same semantic argument used in one fixed structural position associated with the same perspective on a situation, and capable of replacing one another without a difference in meaning (for details, see Hentschel 1992a; 2001; cf. Valiulytė 1992: 50; Švambarytė 1992: 7ff.). According to Babby (1980a: 66ff.), even in cases where both 70 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ nally and/or formally conditioned by the sentence, one or the other case of the intransitive subject may be more likely, though not obligatory; it is necessary to determine what may influence the more frequent choice of one of the cases in a particular instance. The remainder of the article sets aside sentences of types (1)–(4) and, in light of research on other languages and the conclusions of individual researchers, focuses more specifically on the correlation between semantic criteria (animate/inanimate, definite/indefinite) and the syntactic criterion of word order, on the one hand, and subject case, on the other, in sentences of types (5a)–(7b). 1. CORRELATION OF ANIMACY AND DEFINITENESS WITH THE CASE OF THE INTRANSITIVE SUBJECT 1.0. In many studies discussing the influence of negation on the use of case (of the object or subject), links are often sought between animacy (or individuality) and definiteness, on the one hand, and inanimacy (abstractness) and indefiniteness, on the other8. 1.1. The animacy hierarchy is often distinguished according to the generalised feature of animacy animate vs. inanimate. In examining the forms of expression of the Lithuanian intransitive subject, it seemed appropriate to discuss the influence of the animacy hierarchy on the case of the subject of a negative clause with reference to three distinct hierarchies (person, noun [or word used nominally] type, and animacy feature) (for a fuller discussion, see Croft 1990: 111ff., 127ff.; cf. Comrie 1989: 128, 185ff.): 1ST AND 2ND PERSON PRONOUN > 3RD PERSON PRONOUN > PROPER NAME > COMMON NOUN DENOTING AN ANIMATE (HUMAN > ANIMAL) ENTITY > COMMON NOUN DENOTING AN INANIMATE (CONCRETE > ABSTRACT) THING. With regard to the animacy or individuality9 hierarchy, it is claimed that the nominative (or the accusative in negative transitive clauses) tends to express the referent denoted by a noun (or a word used nominally) that is as animate or individual as possible (cf. Babby 1980a: 11f.; Timberlake 1986: 339; Behnke 2005: 88ff.). 1.1.1. Indeed, it can be seen that when the subjects of negative intransitive clauses are personal pronouns ranked highest in the animacy hierarchy, they are generally marked with the nominative, regardless of whether they refer to animate (humans, animals) or inanimate (concrete, abstract) things, e.g.: (8) Would you like to teach me this game? Give me a call. The phone number is with Arūnas. “Vaida A. from ‘Exemplum’, this letter is for you. I no longer exist in your life, but you are like an elixir to my soul, sinking in the thick mire of everyday life.” KT the use of negative-case forms, there are certain (sometimes subtle) functional differences between sentences, and therefore, from a syntactic point of view, it is supposedly impossible to speak of “free variants” of cases (English free variation) (see also Haiman 1985: 19, 71). 8 For the influence of animacy and/or definiteness hierarchies on the subject case in negative intransitive clauses in Russian, see Babby (1980a); Hentschel (1992a); Behnke (2005); for a fuller discussion of the influence of the above hierarchies on the object case in negative transitive clauses, see Hentschel (1992a); Ueda (1992); Mustajoki, Heino (1991); Schaller (1978); Švambarytė (1992); Timberlake (1986); cf. Holvoet (1991: 99ff.). Cf. the criticism of the studies by Mustajoki, Heino (1991) and Ueda (1992) in Hentschel (1996, 1998). 9 On the basis of animacy (in the narrow sense), definiteness, number, concreteness, and other features, Alan Timberlake (1986) distinguishes a hierarchy of individuality (English individuation. INTRANZITYVINIO SUBJEKTO ŽYMĖJIMAS 71 (9) A hoard of coins was found in the village of Petroniškės near the hillfort. It did not survive. KT (10) The singer Deivis is featured in as many as three nominations: best performer, album, and song. “Such attention is really very pleasing. I think it did not come about without reason, because enough work had been done for me to end up where I am now.” KT The third-person personal pronoun in subject position is expressed not only in the nominative but also in the genitive when it has a marked plural form. Therefore, one might suppose that in the latter case the use of the genitive is motivated more by the marked plural form than by animacy, cf. sentences (11)–(13) (cf. Padučeva 1997: 112)¹⁰. This claim is supported by the fact that a proper name, lower in the animacy hierarchy, is usually expressed by the prototypical subject form—the nominative (cf. Timberlake 1986: 339; Babby 1980a: 11f.) (see also below), cf. sentences (14)–(15). (11) T. Kosciuszko is depicted in profile, and at his feet are the scythes that served as weapons for the insurgents. A. Vivulskis also created more works, but they did not survive. KT (12) It is difficult to say anything more specific about prostitution in Lithuania at the beginning of the nineteenth century. First of all, there is a lack of facts. This is so not only because they did not survive, but also because police control was weak at the time: no lists were compiled of either prostitutes or brothels, as was done in the second half of the century. KT (13) Abu šie tariamieji prielinksniai yra verstiniai iš kaimynų slavų kalbų (vardan – senesnis, ženklan – naujesnis). Tarmėse jų nepasitaiko, ypač ženklan. Prielinksniu arba polinksniu (KKP pripažįsta tik prielinksniu) pavartotą vardan linkstama toleruoti. KT (14) Raimondas has a wife, children, and a mother. We must know where he is. […] Raimondas did not turn up that morning either. The mother had the idea of checking whether all the helicopters were in their places. But she drove not to their deployment site, but to the repair facility. KT (15) [The star-caster] also told her the terrible news about the Black Moon. Seeing Dūnia’s fright, the star-caster explained that the Black Moon does not exist in everyday reality, but nevertheless inexorably affects a person’s fate. Dūnia thought of her own Black Hole, which likewise did not exist in reality. KT In cases where the intransitive subject is expressed by common nouns, both the nominative and the genitive are used alongside one another (cf. sentences (5a)–(7b)). It can be seen that in negative intransitive sentences, animate common nouns are even more often marked with the non-prototypical subject case (the genitive) than less prototypical subjects— inanimate common nouns (see Table 1; see also below). 10 Płg. Šukys (1998: 70; dar žr. t. p.: 100t) teigia tam tikra prasme priešingai: „neapibrėžto kiekio kilmininkas vartotinas, kai pirmą kartą pristatoma nežinomo ar nebūtino žinoti skaičiaus daiktų, reiškinių bei asmenų grupė, kartais – ir tam tikros visumos neapibrėžta dalis. […] Kai neapibrėžta grupė skaitytojui ar klausytojui jau buvo pristatyta, toliau apie ją kalbama kaip apie apibrėžtąja vartojamas vardininkas“. Toliau (Šukys 1998: 101) teigiama, kad „dalies (kiekio) kilmininkas dažniausiai reiškiamas daugiskaitos formą turinčiu konkrečiuoju daiktavardžiu. Paprastai toks kilmininkas vartojamas tik tada, kai nežinomo ar nebūtino žinoti kiekio vienarūšių daiktų grupė minima pirmą kartą. Toliau apie tą grupę jau kalbame kaip apie žinomą ir vartojame vardininką. […] Renkantis dalies kilmininką, daugiausia lemia veiksmažodžio reikšmė, nemaža – ir daiktavardžio skaičius, jo reikšmė; be to, svarbu kontekstas“. 72 | Loreta Semėnienė TABLE 1. CORRELATION BETWEEN ANIMACY AND CASE MARKING OF THE INTRANSITIVE SUBJECT EXPRESSED BY COMMON NOUNS11 ANIMATE (person, animal) INANIMATE (concrete, abstract) NOM 56 (44%) NOM 224 (64%) GEN 71 (56%) GEN 125 (36%) From what has been said, it is clear that nouns highest in the animacy hierarchy (personal pronouns, proper names) are generally marked with the nominative case as intransitive subjects, while nouns lower and lowest in the hierarchy may be marked with either the nominative or the genitive. In the latter case, the nominative and genitive of the intransitive subject are used as morphosyntactic variants. Pripažįstant Gerdo Hentschelio (1996: 276tt) kritiką, esą neiginio linksnio aiškinimas, remiantis gyvumo hierarchija, esąs tik faktų aprašymas ir būtina ieškoti kitų vieno iš neiginio linksnių pasirinkimo priežasčių, toliau aptariama apibrėžtumo ir intranzityvinio subjekto linksnio koreliacija. 1.2. Definiteness, according to Babby (1980a: 12; cf. Hentschel 1992a; Gladrov 1992: 240ff.; Plungian 2003: 286f.), tells us how the speaker assesses the hearer’s knowledge12. A definite noun phrase (a noun or a word used nominally) is understood as having already been mentioned in the discourse. The referent denoted by such a noun phrase is generally known to the hearer, who can identify it and distinguish it from other referents of the same class. Such a noun phrase conveys information that is already available, that is, old information. The definiteness of a noun phrase may become clear not only from the linguistic context, but also from the situation or the interlocutors’ shared knowledge (English general knowledge). In these latter cases, even though the noun phrase has not been mentioned in the preceding linguistic context, it is implicitly “active,” that is, inferable from the situational context13. The referent denoted by an indefinite noun phrase is generally unidentifiable in context: such a noun phrase conveys new information; its referent is not yet known to the hearer. 11 The tables were compiled on the basis of data from the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language maintained by the Centre for Computational Linguistics at Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas (available online: http://donelaitis.vdu.lt). 12 For more on definiteness, see Lyons (1999a; 1999b); Givón (1978a). Christopher Lyons (1999a: 253ff.) explains definiteness as a grammatical category; definiteness is the grammaticalization of identification (English grammaticalization of identifiability). Talmy Givón (1984: 399ff., 427ff.) distinguishes the opposition definite vs. indefinite with regard to the hearer’s ability to determine the referential definiteness of a noun phrase (English specify) and its referential identity (English referential identity). Little has been written about marking definite vs. indefinite in Lithuanian (see Ambrazas, ed., 1997: 142ff.; Ambrazas, ed., 1994: 174ff.; Grenda 1979; Valeckienė 1986; 1998: 261ff.; Rosinas 1980; Kalėdaitė 2002: 169ff.; cf. Lyons 1999a: 83). 13 Larsas Behnke (2005: 78t), remdamasis Givóno aktualumo (angl. topicality) sąvoka, skiria tris jo laipsnius: nauja informacija (vardažodis pirmą kartą minimas diskurse); implicitinė informacija (daiktavardis nėra minimas ankstesniame kontekste, bet yra implicitiškai numanomas (via asociacijas) iš situacijos), sena informacija (ankstesniame diskurse minėtas vardažodis). Daroma išvada, kad nė vienas iš aktualumo laipsnių neturi lemiamos įtakos intranzityvinio subjekto linksnio vartojimui. INTRANZITYVINIO SUBJEKTO ŽYMĖJIMAS 73 The definiteness hierarchy (DEFINITE > INDEFINITE14) is related to the animacy hierarchy: the more animate (individualized) an entity is, the more definite the noun phrase (a noun or a word used as a noun) denoting it is. Conversely, the more definite the noun phrase denoting an entity, the lower the likelihood of using the genitive of negation (Timberlake 1986: 339, 342; cf. Babby 1980a: 60ff., 67ff.)15. 1.2.1. First- and second-person personal pronouns in the intransitive subject position are inherently definite; as noted (see 1.1.1.), they are usually marked with the nominative (cf. sentence (8))16. The case marking of third-person personal pronouns, which are also definite, may be influenced by number: singular third-person personal pronouns are marked with the nominative (cf. sentences (9)–(10)), while plural third-person personal pronouns are marked with either the nominative or the genitive (cf. sentences (12)–(15)) (cf. Timberlake 1986: 342). Like personal pronouns, nominal demonstrative pronouns that, this, and so on, or relative pronouns who, which occurring in subject position in a subordinate clause, are also used; these too are definite: the intransitive subject is often expressed by the nominative (cf. Hentschel 1992a), e.g.: (16) Edvardas waited in Ignas’s office, but when this one did not show up, he himself went to his son’s room. Ignas was already getting ready for bed. “Why didn’t you come in?” his father asked. “What for?” the son asked indifferently. “I’m tired.” KT (17) Apaštalas, dar prieš mums žinomą I-ąjį laišką anksčiau minėtajį, buvo parašęs tai bendruomenei laišką, kuris iki mūsų laikų neišliko. Laiškas Korintiečiams (II-asis) buvo parašytas Makedonijoje 57 metų rudenį. KT The genitive is more likely in cases where a non-referential entity is denoted by nominal demonstrative pronouns or by relative pronouns occurring in subject position in a subordinate clause (cf. sentence (13)); cf.: (18) K. Regelis had foreseen this as early as December 1922, announcing in the foreign press that a specialist was needed for the position of gardener, since in Lithuania no such person could be found. Meanwhile, K. Grybauskas was appointed acting head gardener, and from 1924 P. Martynaitis, who had previously worked as steward at the Freda estate. KT (19) Moscow proposed awarding an anniversary badge to art workers as well, if they had depicted the work of the Soviet militia in their works. There were no such people in Lithuania. KT 14 Apie apibrėžtumo hierarchiją (apibrėžtas vs. neapibrėžtas) plačiau žr. Croft (1990: 115tt). 15 Babby (1980a: 12tt; plg. Hentschel 1992a; Padučeva 1997; Behnke 2005) manymu, neiginio kilmininkas intranzityviniuose sakiniuose yra neapibrėžtumo rodiklis. 16Special attention should be paid to such negative intransitive (locative) sentences as: surely you weren’t at home yesterday; surely you weren’t at home yesterday, in which a personal pronoun (or another referentially definite noun phrase) may be marked with either the nominative or the genitive. The question remains whether the nominative and genitive always mark semantic differences. If so, what are they; if not, when can the two cases be used as morphosyntactic variants? For more on the semantic differences involving a referentially definite subject marked with the nominative or the genitive, see Padučeva (1992: 56ff.); Borschev, Partee (2002b: 25ff., 32ff.; 2002c: 10ff.); Holvoet (2005: 3ff.). 74 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ (20) In Skinner’s view, no distinction can be made between moral and immoral social systems, only between those that have survived and those that have not. Survival is the highest social value. KT (21) Vase paintings depict many household objects which, because they were not durable, have not survived. These include tall, shallow bowls, in which the Greeks feasted reclining halfway, as they did on beds. KT Referents designated by proper names are usually definite; the nominative is most commonly used to mark an intransitive subject (cf. sentences (14)–(15)) (cf. Gladrov 1992: 255). In certain cases, the genitive of negation is also possible, cf.: (22) Historians claim that Prussian material culture was even more advanced than that of the Lithuanians. But they had no state of their own; they were merely an assemblage of tribes. No Mindaugas emerged among them. One can only wonder what might have happened had, say, Herkus Mantas appeared on the stage of history not in 1260. KT Here, unlike in the preceding sentences (14)–(15), the proper name designates a non-individual entity; the sentence is not about a specific (identifiable, individual) person named Mindaugas, but about the fact that no person of the same type as the Lithuanian king Mindaugas emerged among the Prussians. For similar reasons—that is, because it designates a non-individualized, non-referential entity—a proper name can also be marked with the genitive of negation when used together with a demonstrative pronoun, cf.: (23) Had they seen him, they might have changed their minds. “Apparently, you have no heart at all if you treat yourself like an executioner,” V. Š. wrote in a sonnet. Unfortunately, no such Hamlet emerged, a bold, capricious prophet-philosopher. For a Catholic, the question “to be or not to be” has been settled. To be! KT In terms of definiteness, common nouns denoting abstract entities, which are often indefinite, contrast most strongly with personal pronouns and proper names. In the latter case, one might expect the genitive of negation to be frequent (cf. Gladrov 1992: 255). But, as sentences (24)–(25) show, both the nominative and the genitive of negation are used (cf. also sentences (7a)–(7b)): the prototypical subject case—the nominative—is used even more often than the genitive¹⁷. Cf.: (24) One might think it was nothing much—a great many negotiations collapse and hundreds of deals fall through every day in business. This time, however, panic nearly broke out in Lithuania. Primarily because everything connected with “Mažeikių nafta” arouses almost as much passion as the approaching Christmas holidays. KT (25) Next week, a mandatory official offer to buy the remaining shares in Kaunas Brewery is due to be announced. Although no panic broke out on the market, securities brokers are actively considering how much the Estonian holding company will pay per share. KT 17Common nouns denoting abstract entities are marked NOM in 97 (61%) sentences and GEN in 62 (39%) sentences. INTRANZITYVINIO SUBJEKTO ŽYMĖJIMAS 75 In negative intransitive sentences, the nominative and the genitive of negation are used alongside one another even when common nouns denoting abstract things are contextually definite, cf.: (26) Had the thought ever crossed Captain Henrikas Žalandauskas’s mind to leave everything here and stay where people’s work is valued? No, he says, such a thought never occurred to him. The captain says he does not understand why people leave Lithuania. KT (27) But she’ll get terribly angry, start scolding me, and call me an egoist. I must wait for an opportunity when she won’t see or hear. And such an opportunity never comes along. KT (28) But traces of paganism still remained in the lands inhabited by Lithuanians. Thus the question arose among the Lithuanians themselves: who were they, after all? Such a question did not arise, for example, among the Poles, since they constituted a majority in their own state at the time, and before the Reformation almost all the inhabitants of Poland were Poles. KT Only the genitive of negation might be expected with the negative indefinite pronoun niekas ‘nobody/no thing’, which denotes abstract things (cf. Hentschel 1992a). But, as can be seen from sentences (29)–(30), not only the genitive but also the nominative of the intransitive subject is used, cf.: (29) I knew I was taking a risk. But fear, responsibility—everything disappears when the urge to steal comes over you. Nothing exists. KT (30) You have to give most of yourself—your feelings and experiences—to creative work. “When you create, it’s as if you find yourself in your own world, and around you nothing exists”, says A. Deltuva. KT Like definite and indefinite common nouns denoting abstract things (or the indefinite pronoun niekas), common nouns denoting definite and indefinite animate (persons, animals) and inanimate (concrete) things are expressed in the same way. It can be seen that, regardless of definiteness and animacy, both the nominative and the genitive are used (see also sentences (5a)–(6b)), cf.: (31) An instrument designed to demonstrate the motion of planets with their satellites around the Sun, that is, according to the Copernican system. This interesting instrument has not survived to the present day.At a later date another was acquired for teaching, and it can now be seen in the university library’s Science Museum. KT (32) He attempts to debate some of Cicero’s claims set out in the work “On the Orator.” The entire work by Caesar has not survived,and its fragments suggest that Caesar was a staunch advocate of analogy in language, seeking to establish uniform forms in Latin. KT (33) Every existence begins in Time: so long as the thing does not exist,its time cannot exist either. KT (34) I would so like to be at your performance tomorrow that I am resorting to a last measure—to bother you. It is a real pity that I couldn’t get a ticket at the theatre…I am writing just in case and ask you to forgive my purely childish persistence. In spirit, yours, J. Baltrušaitis. P.S. I will send someone to deliver the reply tomorrow. KT From what has been said, it can be seen that in marked negative intransitive sentences, prototypical nominative marking of the subject is characteristic of cases when the sub- 76 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ The subject is expressed prototypically by definite personal pronouns (especially first- and second-person pronouns) and proper names. There appears to be a tendency to use the genitive of negation when the object is denoted by a proper name (see sentence (22)), a demonstrative pronoun (see sentences (18)–(19)), a demonstrative pronoun with a proper name (see sentence (23)), or a common noun, and is non-individualized and non-referential18. When the intransitive subject is less prototypical in terms of categorical properties (i.e. inherent definiteness is not characteristic of its expression), it can be expressed by either the typical or the atypical subject case; that is, common nouns denoting animate or inanimate things are used synonymously in both the nominative and the genitive of negation19. In that case, with respect to context, either case of the intransitive subject can mark both a definite and an indefinite noun. It appears that the nominative tends to mark a definite (animate or inanimate) common noun, whereas the genitive marks an indefinite one (see Table 2a) (cf. below). It is true that where the genitive would be most expected—that is, with the least typical subjects, common nouns denoting abstract, indefinite things—its use is less frequent (cf. Table 2b). Thus, it may be assumed that in Lithuanian an indefinite common noun is most likely marked not only morphologically (by case), but also by other means (cf. Gladrov 1992: 242ff.). TABLE 2A. CORRELATION OF ANIMACY AND DEFINITENESS WITH THE CASE OF THE INTRANSITIVE SUBJECT EXPRESSED BY A COMMON NOUN Animate (person, animal) | Inanimate (concrete, abstract) | NOM | GEN | NOM | GEN | definite | 36 (71%) | 15 (29%) | definite | 130 (73%) | 47 (27%) | indefinite | 13 (22%) | 45 (78%) | indefinite | 57 (49%) | 59 (51%) 18 It would be inadvisable to draw more specific conclusions on this matter in the article, on the one hand because the empirical evidence is limited and, on the other, because the effect of referentiality on the case of the intransitive subject should be examined more specifically also in cases where the subject is expressed by less or least prototypical means—common nouns denoting animate (persons and animals) or inanimate things. However, this is not the aim of this article. 19 Nevertheless, the nominative of the intransitive subject is not always replaced by the genitive, or vice versa. There are cases where the use of one of the cases is determined by context, syntactic distribution, and so on, for example: [Varšui] was entrusted with the secret task of conveying Skirgaila’s threats to Vytautas: “you beware of me, and I of you.” It seems that nowhere else has this servant, Varšas, been mentioned by name. KT. It is hardly possible (at least stylistically) to use five genitives in a row; cf.: It seems that nowhere else has this servant, Varšas, been mentioned by name(?). INTRANZITYVINIO SUBJEKTO ŽYMĖJIMAS 77 TABLE 2B. CORRELATION OF ANIMACY AND DEFINITENESS WITH THE CASE OF THE INTRANSITIVE SUBJECT EXPRESSED BY A COMMON NOUN ANIMATE (person, animal) | NOM | GEN | INANIMATE (concrete) | NOM | GEN | INANIMATE (abstract) | NOM | GEN | definite | 36 | 15 | 79 | 24 | 51 | 23 | (71%) | (29%) | (77%) | (23%) | (69%) | 31%) | indefinite | 13 | 45 | 11 | 20 | 46 | 39 | (22%) | (78%) | (35%) | (65%) | (54%) | (46%) 1.3. What has been said so far about the genitive of negation with the intransitive subject can be represented as follows: NOM > NOM / GEN PERSONAL PRONOUN / PROPER NAME > COMMON NOUN DENOTING ANIMATE / INANIMATE THING DEFINITE > DEFINITE / INDEFINITE 2. CORRELATION BETWEEN WORD ORDER AND CASE MARKING OF THE INTRANSITIVE SUBJECT 2.1. The unmarked word order in Lithuanian intransitive sentences is SV20. The prototypical subject occurs at the beginning of the sentence and is expressed by personal pronouns (especially first- and second-person pronouns) and proper names in the nominative (Hentschel 1993: 105; 1992b: 238)21. Usually, the prototypical subject expresses old information: given, already known (definite) information tends to be stated before new, unknown (indefinite) information. In light of these claims, the question arises whether, in cases where the subject in negative intransitive sentences can in principle be expressed by morphosyntactic variants (nominative, genitive), the nominative (which, as mentioned, tends to mark definite nouns) occurs more often at the beginning of the sentence, that is, in the prototypical subject position22. In other words, in cases where the intransitive subject is expressed by a nominative marking definite common nouns, is the word order in the sentence unmarked—SV? 20 Cf. “In sentences with actual division whose nucleus consists of S and V, the prevailing and neutral word order is SV” (Ambrazas, ed., 1994: 648). 21 Dar apie prototipiškus subjekto požymius žr.: Givón (1984: 145–168, 422; 1990: 960); Keenan (1976); plg. Comrie (1989: 107, 110–122, 128tt); Sasse (1982). 22 On the effect of word order on the object in negative transitive sentences, see: Mustajoki, Heino (1991: 194ff.); Hentschel (1992a; 1992b: 240ff.); Švambarytė (1992: 11ff.; 1998: 55ff.); cf. Oginskienė (1979). 78 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ The available data show that a definite animate or inanimate common noun marked by the nominative does indeed tend to occur before the predicate. On the other hand, an animate or inanimate entity marked by the genitive of a definite common noun occurs at the beginning of the sentence almost as often (see Table 3). TABLE 3. CORRELATION BETWEEN WORD ORDER AND CASE MARKING OF THE DEFINITE INTRANSITIVE SUBJECT Definite animate (person, animal) | Definite inanimate (concrete, abstract) | SV | VS | SV | VS | NOM | 28 (78%) | 8 (22%) | NOM | 102 (78%) | 28 (22%) | GEN | 11 (73%) | 4 (27%) | GEN | 28 (60%) | 19 (40%) Given that a definite common noun expressed by the nominative or genitive most often occurs before the predicate, it may be hypothesized that an indefinite noun phrase is more often placed after the predicate (VS). It can be seen that an indefinite animate or inanimate entity expressed by a common noun tends to occur after the predicate, regardless of whether it is expressed by the nominative or genitive of the intransitive subject; that is, VS is the more characteristic word order for the sentence (see Table 4). TABLE 4. CORRELATION BETWEEN WORD ORDER AND CASE MARKING OF THE INDEFINITE INTRANSITIVE SUBJECT Indefinite animate (person, animal) | Indefinite inanimate (concrete, abstract) | SV | VS | SV | VS | NOM | 3 (23%) | 10 (77%) | NOM | 15 (26%) | 42 (74%) | GEN | 13 (29%) | 32 (71%) | GEN | 13 (22%) | 46 (78%) Taigi lietuvių kalbos duomenys patvirtina Babby (1980a: 115tt; 1980b: 227tt) mintį, esą neigiamuose intranzityviniuose sakiniuose su neiginio kilmininku žodžių tvarka atspindi apibrėžtos vs. neapibrėžtos informacijos žymėjimą: jei sakinio modelis yra SGenV, intranzityvinio subjekto kilmininku žymima apibrėžta informacija, jei sakinio modelis VSGen – tuomet intranzityvinio subjekto kilmininkas žymi neapibrėžtą informaciją. Tačiau duomenys rodo, kad neigiamuose intranzityviniuose sakiniuose su subjekto vardininku žodžių tvarka taip pat koreliuoja su apibrėžtos vs. neapibrėžtos informacijos žymėjimu: jei sakinio modelis yra SNomV, intranzityvinio subjekto vardininku dažniausiai pasakoma apibrėžta informacija, jei sakinio modelis VSNom – INTRANZITYVINIO SUBJEKTO ŽYMĖJIMAS 79 The nominative on an intransitive subject typically conveys indefinite information. In other words, in Lithuanian negative intransitive sentences, definiteness / indefiniteness is closely related to word order. It could be argued that, from the perspective of the information structure of the text, word order in negative intransitive sentences is not entirely free. When a marked word order is used in a sentence with respect to definiteness / indefiniteness, the nominative or genitive is then more often selected accordingly (see Table 5). In other words, according to the principle of isomorphism, there is a tendency for one case form to encode one meaning and another form to encode another. TABLE 5. CORRELATION BETWEEN WORD ORDER, DEFINITENESS / INDEFINITENESS, AND THE CASE MARKING OF THE INTRANSITIVE SUBJECT Sentence pattern | NOM | GEN Sdef V | 130 (77%) | 39 (23%) Sindef V | 18 (41%) | 26 (59%) VSdef | 36 (61%) | 23 (39%) VSindef | 52 (40%) | 78 (60%) 3. CONCLUDING REMARKS To summarize, it can be argued that in cases where the subject in negative intransitive sentences can in principle be expressed by the morphosyntactic variants of the nominative and genitive, the choice of one case may be influenced by several or a dozen factors: some have a greater influence on case in a particular instance of use, others a lesser one. The semantic and syntactic criteria briefly discussed here allow the following tentative conclusions: (i) With respect to categorical properties, prototypical subjects are marked with the nominative, except when case choice is determined by other criteria, such as number, referentiality, and so on. Less prototypical intransitive subjects with respect to categorical properties may be expressed by the morphosyntactic variants of the nominative and genitive, but more frequent use of one case is more likely influenced by properties other than animacy. (ii) More frequent use of one of the intransitive subject cases partly correlates with definiteness and word order in the sentence. There is a tendency to use the nominative for the intransitive subject in sentences that are unmarked in terms of definiteness and formally, and vice versa. In sentences in which a definite or indefinite common noun occurs in a position atypical for it (VSdef or Sindef V, respectively), there is a tendency to select the nominative in the former case and the genitive in the latter for the diacritic marking of definiteness vs. indefiniteness. 80 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ ŠALTINIAI KT – Kauno Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto Kompiuterinės lingvistikos centro dabartinės lietuvių kalbos tekstynas (prieiga internetu: http://donelaitis.vdu.lt). LITERATŪRA AMBRAZAS, V., red., 1994: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. AMBRAZAS, V., ed., 1997: Lithuanian Grammar, Vilnius: Baltos lankos. BABBY, L. H. 1980a: Existential sentences and Negation in Russian, Ann Arbor: Karoma. BABBY, L. H. 1980b: Word Order, Case and Negation in Russian Existential sentences. In: Chvany, C. V., Brecht, R. D., eds., Morphosyntax in Slavic, Columbus: Slavica Publishers. BALKEVIČIUS, J. 1963: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos sintaksė, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. BEHNKE, L. 2005: A discourse-functional perspective on the nominative-genitive-variation in Russian negated existential sentences. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 50 (1), 75–94. BORSCHEV, V., PARTEE, B. H. 2002a: Existential sentences, BE, and the Genitive of Negation in Russian. www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~partee/docs/ancy4.pdf BORSCHEV, V., PARTEE, B. H. 2002b: The Russian Genitive of Negation in Existensial sentences: The Role of Theme-Rheme Structure Reconsidered. www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~partee/GenNegTravaux.PDF BORSCHEV, V., PARTEE, B. H. 2002c: Genitive of Negation and Scope of Negation in Russian Existential sentences. www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~partee/docs/Partee-BorschevFASL10.pdf BRECHT, R. D., LEVINE, J. S., eds., 1986: Case in Slavic, Columbus: Slavica Publishers. COMRIE, B. 1989: Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Syntax and Morphology, 2nd ed., Oxford: Basil Blackwell. CORBETT, G. G. 1986: The Use of the Genitive or Accusative for Direct Object of Negated Verbs in Russian: A Bibliography. In: Brecht & Levine 1986, 361–371. CROFT, W. 1990: Typology and Universals, Cambridge etc.: University Press. GIVÓN, T. 1978a: Definiteness and Referentiality. In: Greenberg, J. H. e.a., eds., Universals of Human Language. Vol. 4: Syntax, Stanford: University Press, 291–330. GIVÓN, T. 1984, 1990: Syntax. A functional-typological introduction. Vols. 1–2, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. GLADROV, V. 1992: Определенность / неопределенность. In: Бондарко, А. В., ред., Теория функциональной грамматики. Субъектность. Объектность. Коммуникативная перспектива высказывания. Определенность / неопределенность, Санкт-Петербург: Наука, 232–266. GRENDA, Č. 1979: Apibrėžtumo / neapibrėžtumo požymių opozicija veiksmažodžių konstrukcijose su daiktavardžiu. Kalbotyra 30 (1), 32–38. HAIMAN, J. 1985: Natural Syntax: Iconicity and erosion, Cambridge etc.: University Press. HENTSCHEL, G. 1991: Drei Strategien zur Verdeutlichung der Subjektrolle in russischen Sätzen: Zu Variation und Wandel im Russischen und zur typologischen Differenzierung slavischer Sprachen. In: Klein, E., Duteil, E. P., Wagner, K. H., Hrsg., Betriebslinguistik und Linguistikbetrieb, Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 297–309. HENTSCHEL, G 1992a: Konstanten der Kasusvariation. Zum Nominativ-Instrumental- und Akkusativ-Genitiv-Wechsel im Russischen. Habilitationsschrift. Göttingen. [Rankraštis.] HENTSCHEL, G. 1992b: Zum Einfluß der Konstituentenfolge auf die Kasuswahl im Russischen. Lingua 87, 231–255. HENTSCHEL, G. 1993: Haben Kasus Bedeutungen oder sind sie diakritische Kategorie? Zeitschrift für Slavische Philologie 43 (1), 97–112. HENTSCHEL, G. 1996: О квантитативных препятствиях на пути к качеству: Замечания к: Mustajoki, A., Heino, H., Case Selection for the Direct Object in Russian Negative Clauses, Helsinki, 1991 (Slavica Helsingiensia, 9). Russian Linguistics 20, 265–281. INTRANZITYVINIO SUBJEKTO ŽYMĖJIMAS 81 Hentschel, G. 1998: [Rec.], Ueda, M.: The Interaction between Clause-level Parameters and Context in Russian Morphosyntax: Genitive of Negation and Predicative Adjectives, München: Verlag Otto Sagner, 1992 (Slavistische Beiträge, 295). Russian Linguistics 22, 333–340. Hentschel, G. 2001: On defining „variable marking“ or „marking variation with nominal groups“. In: Boeder, W., Hentschel, G., Hrsg., Variierende Markierungen von Nominalgruppen in Sprachen unterschiedlichen Typs, Oldenburg: BIS (Studia Slavica Oldenburgensia, 4), 15–28. Holvoet, A. 1991: Transitivity and Clause Structure in Polish: A Study in Case Marking, Warszawa, Slawistyczny Ośrodek Wydawniczy. (Prace Slawistyczne, 95.) Holvoet, A. 2005: Intransityvinių sakinių tipai: egzistenciniai, lokatyviniai ir posesyviniai sakiniai. www.lki.lt/php/files/intranzityv.pdf Jablonskis, J. 1957: Rinktiniai raštai 1, sudarė J. Palionis, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. Kalėdaitė, V. 2002: Existential sentences in English and Lithuanian: a contrastive study, Frankfurt am Main etc.: Peter Lang. (European University Studies, Series XXI: Linguistics, 248.) Keenan, E. 1976: Toward a universal definition of „subject“. In: Li, Ch. N., ed., Subject and Topic, New York: Academic Press, 303–333. Labutis, V. 1998: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Lyons, C. 1999a: Definiteness, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyons, C. 1999b: Definiteness. In: Brown, K., Miller, J., eds., Concise Encyclopedia of Grammatical Categories, Amsterdam etc.: Elsevier, 125–132. Mustajoki, A., Heino, H. 1991: Case Selection for the Direct Object in Russian Negative Clauses, Helsinki. (Slavica Helsingiensia, 9.) Oginskienė, E. 1979: Galininko vartojimas vietoj neiginio kilmininko. Kalbos kultūra 35, 25–31. Padučeva, E. V. 1992: О семантическом подходе к синтаксису и генитивном субъекте глагола быть. Russian Linguistics 16 (1), 53–63. Padučeva, E. V. 1997: Родительный субъекта в отрицательном предложении: синтаксис или семантика. Вопросы языкознания 1997 (2), 101–116. Paulauskienė, A. 1983: Lietuvių kalbos morfologijos apybraiža, Kaunas: Šviesa. Paulauskienė, A. 1994: Lietuvių kalbos morfologija: Paskaitos lituanistams, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Paulauskienė, A. 2001: Lietuvių kalbos kultūra, Kaunas: Technologija. Plungian, V. A. 2003: Общая морфология: Введение в проблематику, Москва: Эдиториал УРСС. Rosinas, A. 1980: Dar kelios mintys dėl baltų kalbų artikelio, arba artroido. Kalbotyra 31 (1), 96–98. Sasse, H.-J. 1982: Subjektprominenz. In: Heinz, S., Wandruszka, U., Hrsg., Fakten und Theorien: Beiträge zur Romanischen und Allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft, Tübingen, 267–286. Schaller, H. W. 1978: Das direkte Objekt in verneinten Sätzen des Russischen, Frankfurt am Main etc.: Peter Lang. (Symbolae Slavicae, 5.) Sirtautas, V., Grenda, Č. 1988: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė, Vilnius: Mokslas. Šukys, J. 1998: Lietuvių kalbos linksniai ir prielinksniai: vartosena ir normos, Kaunas: Šviesa. Švambarytė, J. 1992: Correlation of Genitive and Accusative in the Collections of Folk-lore of J. Basanavičius. Thesis of candidate of philology, Vilnius. Švambarytė, J. 1998: Objekto galininko ir kilmininko linksnių kaita prie neiginio J. Basanavičiaus publikuotuose pasakojamosios tautosakos rinkiniuose. Lituanistica 3 (35), 53–60. Timberlake, A. 1986: Hierarchies in the Genitive of Negation. In: Brecht & Levine 1986, 339–359. Ueda, M. 1992: The Interaction between Clause-level Parameters and Context in Russian Morphosyntax: Genitive of Negation and Predicative Adjectives, München: Verlag Otto Sagner. (Slavistische Beiträge, 295.) Ulvy das, K., red., 1976: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 3. Sintaksė, Vilnius: Mokslas. 82 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ VALECKIENĖ, A. 1986: Apibrėžtumo / neapibrėžtumo kategorija ir pirminė įvardžiuotinių būdvardžių reikšmė. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 25, 168–188. VALECKIENĖ, A. 1998: Funkcinė lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. VALIULYTĖ, E. 1992: Iš sintaksinės sinonimikos. Lituanistica 4 (12), 50–55. Loreta Semėnienė Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, 10308 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected] Gauta 2005 03 29