Axel Holvoet, Artūras Judžentis, red. „Sintaksinių ryšių tyrimai“

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA LII (2005), 167-182 RECENZIIOS Reviews AXEL HOLVOET, ARTURAS JUDZENTIS, RED. Vilnius: Lietuvos kalbos institutas, 2003, 216 p., ISBN 1648-8628 (Lietuviy kalbos gramatikos darbai, 1.) The research group of the Lithuanian Language Institute, led by Prof. Axel Holvoet, has been forming the theoretical basis for a new Lithuanian language grammar for several years. The results of this work are reflected in two volumes of the series Lietuviy kalbos gramatikos darbai (2003, 2004); a third is planned. The collections are organized on a thematic basis. This allows the decisions contained therein to be considered without waiting for the studies to be completed and summarized. Meanwhile, I would like to draw attention to the first set of works on syntactic relations. It should be noted that the fundamental problems of syntactic relations are solved at a high theoretical level, taking into account the current trends in linguistics. The book discusses in separate chapters the main types of syntactic relationships, the combination of biverbs, the actual division of sentences, the relationships of free predicatives, word combinations and the dimensions of subjective sentences. The author or co-author of most of the chapters is Axel Holvoet, his thought and hand is felt everywhere, so this book can be considered not a collection of separate articles, but a coherent and focused work. The concept of syntax relations largely determines the definition of the grammatical structure of the language. So, first of all, it is worthwhile to read what is new in this work about syntactic relations types, what is different from the previous siiloma statements. In the grammar of the present Lithuanian language (hereinafter -GML), three main types of syntactic relationships are distinguished: connection, connection and interconnection. Similar things are done elsewhere (cf. Labutis 1998: 26-29). This classification is based on L. Hjelmslev's three-fold relationship scheme of constellation, determination and interdependence, which allows to define the functions of the main unit of sentence structure (between you and the factor) according to syntactic relationships (see author 1986: 16-17). In this work (12 et al.) we propose to divide binary syntactic relations into conjunctives and conjunctives. This is the classification used in most of the current syntax works, but the function of the factor is usually not discussed according to syntactic relationships, but according to other criteria (form, actual division, semantics) or their complexes (see Keenan 1976; Comrie 1981: 101; Holvoet 1991: 41-55). The authors of this collection do not speak about the relationship of interconnection at all. I think that in binary partitioning §j ry$i bit can be defined at the ground level of that partitioning — as one i8 connecting referencey, i.e. a mutual connection, where the connecting pointerj in typical cases has both a primary and a dependent dému. Thai padéty syntaksiniy 168 | RECENZIJOS The relational function of the factor, which is not discussed in the chapter on the relational functions of the syntactic relationship with the unit functions of the sentence (28-35). Connecting connections in the book are divided into two types: control and modification. Controlling is considered such relations when the main Word requires addition, without which its meaning is incomplete, and modification — when such addition is not necessarily necessary (12-15). Thus, the concept of control here differs from the prevailing definitions in the liguistic syntax, in which control and fusion were regarded as connecting travels, determined by its formal expression: the variable (conjugated) or unvariable form of the dependent word (DLKG *1997: 480; Labutis 1998: 33-35; Sirtautas, Grenda 1988: 38-40). It must be acknowledged that such a morphologicalized system of control and conjugation is not very useful for the study of the syntax of Lithuanian language and its development; Recent syntaksés works have already been inclined to abandon it and consider only syntactically bit-dependent démens as controlled, 0 non-bit — as Sliejamais (aut. 2001: 5, 15, 34-35; DLKG *2005: 480; Vaskelaite 2003: 144-145). Holvoet and his colleague’s clarification of the concept of management is undoubtedly a positive contribution to Lithuanian language syntax. The properties of control and modification presented in the thesis are syntactically reasonable, but very broad: control here roughly corresponds to the relationship which in DLKG is called strong (main) connection, and modification — weak (non-main) connection. Rejecting those connections further differentiates the boundaries between different syntax requirements. For example, control is considered both the bit-wise dependence of the word on the center of the sentence — the adverb, and the relation of the noun’s adverb part to the conjunction (32-33), and the relation of the noun of the object to the adverb (cf.:,,.object is a verb’s adverb, as well as adjectives* 29). Thus, in such sentences as Kniha je jdomi, the same syntactic relationship is assumed between the verb form and the two noun forms kniha and jdomi, which have different functions. As you know, the connection can be null. Therefore, it must be assumed that in the sentence Kniha the null conjunction (i.e. the indicator of the lexical meaning without time and sequence) controls both nouns as bit-wise additions to the verb’s meaning (cf. 28-29). The generalized approach to view and control corresponds to the universal restrictive model of word combinations (so-called X-Bar scheme), but it requires further subcategoryization of syntactic relationships when applied to the description of the syntactic structure of a particular language. Similarly, the non-differentiation of the nature of the modification is a problem, especially when Sliejimas is completely abandoned without any need (about jj only mentioned on p. 19). Modifiers are considered such different syntax units as noun-combined subjunctives (jdomi knyga), taring subjunctives (respectively free predicates —Broliai grizo linksmi), to the taring Sliejamos aplinkybes (read in the library) and so on. The difficulty of this can be at least partially avoided by applying the control term only to one-way connections and to adjunction control — a relationship that is not determined by the basic dimension but is based on the meaning of the word. This was realized by the same author, who recognized the need to define the functions of the sentence units on the basis of syntactic relationships: as complements bits can be considered those controlled by the verb, as circumstances —to the verb Merged words, the functions of the 0 factor and the verb sign and noun part can be described according to the direction of the syntactic relationship—bilateral or bimodal dependence. We should not resort to the old term of circumstances, which is applied to the nominal parts of the verb in such sentences as The house is by the lake (30-31), and we should not call circumstances only the verb modifiers- *(35), i.e. syntactically unnecessary words and you compounds. 169 The book correctly states that,,the alignment reflects the syntactic relationship between two words, but it is not one of the syntactic relationships between control and fusion* (38). The alignment procedures are discussed in detail in the chapter of Loreta Seménienés (37-66). In the description of the syntax, it is useful to specify what this is and how specific the relationship is, which is indicated by the alignment. There are also different types of Sudetian sentences according to the conjunctive and adjective connections. Here is a formal summary of the connecting sentences (99-114). Based on it, the interpretation of the sentences with the conjunction because has been clarified and it has been convincingly shown that according to structural characteristics these sentences are not to be considered connective (as was done before Siol), but connective (109-112). One can only agree that the so-called conjugative verb-subjunctive zodziy compounds (Jonas sédi and skaito knygq and so on), having two syntactic centres, correspond to the structurtiriSkai conjugative sentences (177-179). On the other hand, it is doubtful whether the syntactic structure of the Sudeten sentence will become clearer if the conjugating sentences are associated with adverbial and adverbial word combinations (e.g.: Jonas raso ilga ir nuobodziq knygq; raSo ilgai ir nuobodziai), even though the corresponding noun combinations (Jonas and Biruté sédi) are not considered as conjugating sentences (183-184). It is also not known what will be gained from the syntactic classification of connective sentences according to their interrelationships, functions and means of expression, if the noun, binomial and adverbial sentences are replaced by a morphological classification according to the classes of words (117, etc.). Substitution by nouns, adjectives and adverbs is not always possible, in many cases it is still necessary to rely on the demential structure and syntactic functions, to resort to the transformation or semantic motif. In general, the results of the theoretical research presented in this thesis and the new positive modeling of the syntax structure deserve the close attention and favourable evaluation of Lithuanian language researchers. Some of them will undoubtedly help to clarify Lithuanian grammar, others should encourage a broader discussion and search for new solutions. Without such a discussion, which is the Siol trick, it is impossible to understand grammar research. I wish the authors to successfully walk the difficult path that awaits them from interesting theoretical considerations to their realization in a unified grammar model with filled concrete form and construction paradigms. LITERATURA AMBRAZAS, V. 1986: Syntax and semantic structure of sentence units in Lithuanian language. Lietuviy kalbotyros klausimai 25, 4-44. AMBRAZAS, V. 2001: Adverbal genitive in Lithuanian language: historical and syntactic aspects. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica, 44, 3-39. ComriE, B. 1981: Language Universals and Linguistic Typology, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. HJELMSLEV, L. 1953: Prolegomena to a Theory of Language, Bloomington: Indiana University. Hotvoet, A. 1991: Transitivity and Clause Structure in Polish. A Study in Case Marking, Warszawa: Slawistyczny Osrodek Wydawniczy. KEENAN, E. L. 1976: Towards a universal definition of “subject”. Li, Ch., ed., Subject and Topic, New York: Academic Press, 303-333. LaBuTIs, V. 1998: Lithuanian language syntax, Vilnius: Vilnius University Press. StrrauTas, V., GRENDA, C. 1988: Syntax of Lithuanian language, Vilnius: Mokslas. 170 | RECENZIJOS VASKELAITE, R. 2003: Syntactic relations of noun compounds in Lithuanian language. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 48, 143-158. Vytautas Ambrazas Received 2005 04 22 Lithuanian Language Institute P. Vileisio g. 5, LT-10308 Lithuania LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE TARMIU CHRESTOMATIJA SUDARE RIMA BACEVICIUTE, AUDRA IVANAUSKIENE, ASTA LESKAUSKAITE, EDMUNDAS TRUMPA Vilnius: Lietuviy kalbos institutas, 2004, 328 [16] p., ISBN 9986-668-56- -5 For a long time we were taught about the great importance of the folk (living language, dialect) for the culture of the nation's life, for science, every book about dialects was welcomed with joy. This is how we enjoy the new dialect chrestomaty of Lithuanian language. It was prepared by the younger generation of dialectologists, who have studied and are studying Snektas Snekteles with often new methods (the scientific editor is doc. dr. Laima Grumadiene). Everything is provided from the tape recorder (until now the uniform chrestomacy of the 1970s has been completely silenced), texts with dialectal system violations are not avoided (prof. Juozas Balcikonis long ago taught that now everything can be found in dialects, because a lot of the writing, school has been damaged). There is no longer a rural community, everyone now learns from the radio, television, in various schools, and in conversations with dialectal people, they hear the use of,,correct* language” —(in 15— 20 min. can not be and what to write, because it is only a minute Sneka,,.learning“ show, and not inherited snekta. In this chrestomaty such a thing is,,Jvade“ about it is said —we all know the present padéti, we realize that it was feared in the past in the newspapers and various articles. This may confuse other linguists who find Salia both inherited and very new. The whole used transcription is presented, although there are many unresolved questions (especially about the morphology of the soft vowel group ayks'¢'au, kel'ti, etc., about reduced vowels from Chylinsky's time child Dv, food DRSK, RTN raSymo, etc.). See errors: dey'.kt' = dengt', mé-d's = me.d'is, udks = udks (p. 18, 19); Siauliai does not have the form Z'un'ks'n- 'us = Z'unks'n'- us, that is, East Lithuania Ziungsnys (see also LKZ,,, from LD 67, Grv). It is said that,,in the common language the first dému of the strong initial diphthongs i, u + 1, m,n, r is short, sodél jy pregadé is marked with a grave (~), e.g.: girtas, kiirmis, but in the book there are no places where it is said: kauniSkiy, jurbarkiSkiy, zagariSkiy only long or semi-long first syllables (only the diphthong wi has been forgotten). Did only Aleksas Girdenis create the new dialect names, or did Prof. Zigmantas Zinkevičius lose his contribution (p. 26)? In scientific works, care and truth are essential. It begins with the section,, The Western Highlands* (subsection,,The Highlands of Kaunas and the Klaipeda Region“). Interesting introductory article about the history of Snekty, remembering the struts and baltsermégiai of the Lesser Lithuania council. To kauniskiy is added Jurbarko Snekta (in summary