Pagrindinių darybos būdų skyrimo klausimu

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA LII (2005), 83-89 Pagrindiniy darybos buduy skyrimo klausimu ANTANAS SMETONA Vilniaus universitetas This article deals with problems of the classification of derivational devices in Lithuanian. The laid classifying procedure proposed here is based on the general principles of scientific classification down in the international standard “Terminology Work —Principles and methods” (ISO 704:2000(E- )). In accordance with this methodology, the different types of oppositions occurring in the derivational system are empirically established, and the features underlying the oppositioclassified. On the basis of these features a system of notional relationships is established and a ns are schema is drawn of the main derivational devices of Lithuanian. The feature diagram and the notional schema show that the relationships between the main derivational devices are considerably more complex than hitherto assumed, and that rather than attempting one general and abstract classification one should set apart the individual features underlying derivational oppositions and classify derivational types according to each separate feature. 1. ESME PROBLEMS In the theory of Zodziy construction, the question arises as to how many Zodziy construction ways are present in the language. Traditionally, four main ways of word formation in Lithuanian are distinguished: prefixation, sufixation, paradigmization and composition (Urbutis 1978: 283288; Morkiinas, par., 1999: 140; Keinys 1999: 22-23). Graphically their relationship can be expressed more or less as follows (1 diagram): 1 SCHEMA. TRADICINE DARYBOS BUDV KLASIFIKACIJA | Morphological characteristics of gifts a ae ee ty st de eT Derivation Composition | Prefixation | | Suffixation Paradigm 84 | ANTANAS SMETONA Such a division is entirely understandable, if we do not take into account such preconceptions. First of all, the first criterion of classification catches the eye — it is quite logical to imagine that the derivation from the composition is distinguished by the amount of bases. However, in the case of a morphological verb, the formant of the verb should go first: “In distinguishing the forms of the verb, only the general form of the formant of the verb is studied” (Urbutis 1978: 283). And how does the composition relate to the classification criterion of the formant of the work? Or it is said:,,According to whether the compound is made of a single basic word with some affix..., or made of two words, there is a distinction between marriage and marriage* (Keinys 1999: 22) —the basis of classification is not based on a single basis, thus the classification itself is non-artificial. Another inequality is that in one classification group are included phenomena of clearly different nature: bad: good, Kita vertus, j pirma plana iskélus darybos formanta, keturiy darybos bidy sugrelong: long, headless: head. tinamas raises new questions:,,(1) sufixation, giving the preposition vediniy, (2) prefixation, giving the preposition vediniy, (3) paradigmation, giving the final vediniy, and (4) composition, giving the final vediniy” (ibid.). Graphically it might look like this (2 schema): 2 SCHEMA. CLASSIFICATION BY OUTPUT Morfologiné daryba _—_——— = = Sn ae | rz Prefixation | Suffixation Paradigm | Composition There is only one common classification basis here — the result of the action (0 not the formant of the action). Then it is unclear how such classification correlates with the formant of the action and the basis of the action. So there are enough doubts. Therefore, the most important question is —is it possible to describe logically and in as much detail and syncretism as possible such a complex phenomenon as the working life? 2. METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEM SOLUTION Regardless of the specific or speculative nature of linguistics as a science, its research must be carried out in accordance with the general principles of cognition and the theory of science. The principles of its analysis and classification are summarized in the international terminology standard,,- Terminology work —Principles and methods“ (ISO 704: 2000(E)). Since the expressions referred to by the terms prefixation, sufixation, paradigmation and composition are adjectives forming a certain microsystem, one can try to rely on the methodology of adjective formation and classification specified in this standard. The standard specifies that first empirically determined differently interrelated objects of objective reality, then i8 you characteristics abstract you essential meanings, they are grouped according to meaning relationships. In this case, the intrinsic value of the intrinsic function is defined. 85 According to the differences in the meaning of the terms belonging to one subject area and the like, the relationships between the terms are determined, the definitions of the terms are formed and the names of the terms or definitions are created — terms. In this case, both terms and objects are quite clear. The aim of the article is to reveal the real relationships of work and life according to established and grouped characteristics, to classify things according to uniform criteria. 3. LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE WORD FORMATION The objectively existing objects of the sphere in question can be different oppositions of action. They are generally,,a support for the analysis of word construction- *, 0 the differences in the types of their components (base, derivative, formant) (Urbutis 1978: 65-66) could be the basis for analysis and classification. Thus, we choose empiriSkai determined different oppositions of action: namelis: house, stalius: table, grébliakotis: gréblio kotelis, behalvis (adj.): without head, eiti: go, apygeris: good. The oppositions of the verb pozymiy rasis we define as follows: type of the foundation, type of the formant of the verb, type of the derivative. These opposition elements and pozymiy Russian found some table (table 1). This makes it easier to compare and identify what unites these oppositions and what separates them. 1 The lens. REALITY OBJECTS -ACTIVE OPPOSITION POSITIONS Base Base type Formant Formant type Adjective Adjective type house word -elis suffix (with namelis suffix flexion) go word paprefix paeiti prefixate table word -US paradigma stalius paradigmatas rablio junginys -is paradigma grébliakotis composite kotas (direct) without head —_junginys -is paradigma beheadvis prefixate (prepositional) good word apy-, -is prefix (with apygeris prefix flexion) The table uses some new terms. First of all, attention should be paid to the names of the result of the operation (dariniy tipy). First of all, because the usual terms sometimes do not fully reflect reality. For example, it is commonly believed that,,prefix giving toSdéliy vediniy“. According to this statement, the headless yotty is considered a predecessor. Unfortunately, this cannot be considered true because (1) the basis of the act is not 86 | ANTANAS SMETONA one word, but a combination of words (headless horse: horse without head), and (2) if we were to consider this prefixation, we would not be able to explain one axiom of general linguistics — the prefix does not have a transposition function, i.e. the construction processes should take place within the limits of one part of the language. However, here we see that the adverbial binominal is derived from the noun. Todél is better to call it a prefix, 0 not a predecessor of Sdélio. Other names for the result of the operation are made by analogy. In general, the question of the relationship between composition and paradigm is quite extensively written (Urbutis 1978: 284, Paulauskiene 1994: 64-63). The author of the article finds Aldona Paulauskienė’s position more consistent and convincing. However, it still needs deeper justification. This article presents an ISO-standardized and, we would say, quite complete classification of the main work activities, which supports the latter position. For obvious reasons, the formant of paradigmation is considered to be the set of flexions in the iSreiSkiama paradigm, not the flexion itself. Sometimes it is possible to try to perceive paradigmacy as a change of the stem (then the question of the formant of the verb is also solved differently), but this is hardly appropriate, because the change of the stem is not necessarily a verb, and in some cases of paradigmacy the stem must change not necessarily (vilkZolé: vilko Zolé). After setting some parameters, you can try to show these connections in a diagram. The existence of such positive tables should prevent the creation of a single classification based on different positives. First of all, it is necessary to decide which position to promote (we do not think that this has a great importance, but it may mean that for the author of the classification this is the most important position). The priority of a positive choice may determine further classification options. For example, the previous classification on the basis of the result of the activity loses the possibility of further classification and inclusion of other characteristics. In creating the following scheme, | first of all it was decided to iSkelti verb formant type, because it is probably the main criterion for assigning morphological verbs. It is mentioned in all authory. The verb type column shows three formanty types, iSeina, skilini and three verb types — prefixation, suffixation and paradigmation. Paradigm, in turn, is not homogeneous — it is distinguished by the type of verb base: word or compound. The derivatives, made of i$ compounds, are again dual (probably because there are various compounds) — two independent words and an independent thing with an independent thing. This distinction is important because the root (or stem) of a self-contained word, the root of the substantive that has entered into the syntactic construction, more or less retains its lexical meaning, 0 a non-self-- contained word, having no lexical meaning, is usually considered (turns) a suffix in the root of the word. Finally, the last criterion of classification is the type of work (the result of work). The classification according to the $i criterion is also important, because it shows that the same structure derivatives (e.g., prefixes) can be obtained in different ways, or derivatives of the same formant (e.g., in the case of paradigmation), depending on the base of the derivative, can end up in different groups of results of the operation. Thus, these reasonings turn into a scheme, where a detailed microsystem of the Lithuanian language word’s basic structure of action is shown, whose unit relationships and hierarchy are determined by different types of structural elements of action opposition. SCHEME 3. MAIN BUSINESS MODE DISTINCTION QUESTION. CLASSIFICATION Morfologiné daryba OF WORKS Classification by type of work formant | 87 Suffix Prefix Paradigm (house) (pass, circle) (carpenter, grébliakotis, headless) Structure of action Klasifikacija pagal Klasifikacija pagal formant and type of base Monocomponent Bicomponent _ [sjunginiy 18 Zodziy (paeiti) (circle) (grebliakotis, headless) (carpenter) Classification according to type of base IS conjunctive IS direct (headless) (grébliakotis) Suffixes Prefixes Composites Paradigms (house) (pass, circle, Klasifikacija pagal darybos rezultatq headless) (grébliakotis) (carpenter) This is not the only possible relationship scheme. It all depends on how important we put it in the first place. If we start with the classification, for example, from the type of foundation (word or compound), the scheme would be completely different. 88 | ANTANAS SMETONA 4 SCHEMA. ALTERNATIVE CLASSIFICATION OF Morfologiné daryba WORKING METHOD | Classification by type of foundation | (walk, apygeris) (grebliakotis, beheaded) ZI Ds. I$ Zodziy (derivative) I§ junginiy (composition) action formant Klasifikacija pagal Klasifikacija pagal type base action type Suffix Paradigm Prefix IS prepozitivniy IS direktiniy (house) (workman) (paeiti, apygeris) (beheaded) (grebliakotis) Suffixes Paradigms Prefixes Composites (house) Klasifikacija pagal darybos rezultatq (workman) (paeiti, apygeris, beheaded) (grebliakotis) It is clear that Si classification is much worse than the first —j scheme does not include dariniy i8 junginiy action formants and leveling the difference between apygeris and paeiti. The most important thing is not to forget the basic principle of scientific classification —equine species are classified only according to the same characteristics. And this seems to be unavoidable in the traditional classifications of basic work. 4. SUMMARY The concept of the functioning main verb in the Lithuanian word system has traditionally been considerably simplified. Such simplification does not reveal the different types of roles of structural elements of the opposition of work in the process of work, the interrelationship of these elements, even deviating from their classification on more than one basis. Using the principles of terminological work described in the international standard ISO 704, it is possible to determine very effectively the basis, derivative and QUESTION OF DISTINCTION OF BASIC WORKING METHOD | 89 to identify the essential characteristics of the form and according to them to create basic operating schemes, which show the variety and complexity of operating methods much more accurately than traditional ones. The greatest advantage of such a classification is the obviously revealed fact that there is no abstract, generalized, separated from the structural elements of the opposition of work concept of the way of work. On the question of how many ways of acting are there in Lithuanian, there are several possible answers: according to the basis of acting — some ways of acting, according to the form of acting — others, according to the result of acting — others. LITERATURA KEINYS, St. 1999: Common Lithuanian Language Words, Siauliai: Siauliy University Press. Morkotnas, K., par., 1999: Lietuviy kalbos enciklopedija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijy leidybos institutas. PAULAUSKIENE, A. 1994: Morphology of the Lithuanian language, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijy leidykla. UrButIs, V. 1978: Zodziy's theory of work, Vilnius: Mokslas. Antanas Smetona Received 2005 08 05 Department of Lithuanian Language Universiteto g. 5, 01122 Vilnius, Lithuania [email protected] Vilniaus Universitetas