Die prädikative Verwendung von Substantiven im Litauischen: Nominativ vs. Instrumental

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA L (2004), 99 – 125 The Predicative Use of Nouns in Lithuanian: Nominative vs. Instrumental* Loreta Semėnienė Lietuvių kalbos institutas, Vilnius In this article, the use of the nominative and the instrumental as predicative cases in Lithuanian copular sentences is discussed. The emphasis is on cases where a morphosyntactic variation is observed. It is argued that, though the use of predicative cases may be influenced both by semantic and by formal factors, the relative importance of these factors is unequal in modern Lithuanian. Semantic factors (permanent vs. temporary property) have no decisive influence on the choice of one of these case forms. Both nominative and instrumental can be used to mark either a permanent or a temporary state (the instrumental being slightly higher in frequency with inanimates). The factors most markedly influencing the choice of case forms are: the inflectional form of the copula (tense and mood), finiteness vs. nonfiniteness, and word order. Various forms of markedness (marked tense and mood forms, marked word order) contribute to the use of the instrumental 0. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 0.1. The use of the nominative and/or instrumental in so-called predicative sentences1 has already been examined several times. These studies have sought semantic and/or formal criteria that determine the use of one or the other predicative case. 0.1.1. Some linguists (Jakobson 1971: 26ff.; cf. Wierzbicka 1980: xix, 2) hold that each case has a variety of different meanings, which can be distinguished on the one hand, but are intertwined with one another on the other and can be subsumed under an invariant overall meaning. The individual meanings of a case can be explained by its overall meaning and by the context (cf. Wierzbicka 1980: xix). The INDIVIDUAL MEANING of a case cannot be described as a contextual variant, since the meanings of cases used in analogous contexts in different languages may differ. In view of this, Anna Wierzbicka (1980: 157–158) proposes treating the individual meaning of a case as a state of affairs of the * This article is the result of a research stay at Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg in Germany in 2003. The author would like to express her sincere thanks to her host and supervisor, Prof. Dr. habil. Gerd Hentschel, for his extensive help and advice. Thanks are due to the German Academic Exchange Service, which funded the research stay. I would also like to thank Prof. Dr. habil. Axel Holvoet for his valuable comments and suggestions. 1 In Lithuanian grammar, such sentences are usually called nominal sentences (vardāžodinis sakinys) (Ambrazas, ed., 1996: 612). 100 | LORETA SEMENIENĖ to describe the inner structure of a language. In their view, the overall meaning should be understood as the sum of certain shared semantic components. 0.1.1.1. Following the semantic understanding of case, it is said that the predicative nominative can be used to express a permanent state (Balkevičius 1998: 104–105; Jablonskis 1957: 556; Jakobson 1971: 49; cf. Wierzbicka 1980: 119), or also a permanent and temporary state (Ambrazas, ed., 1997: 472; Ambrazas, ed., 1996: 505–506; Ulvydas, Ambrazas, Valeckienė, eds., 1976: 68–69, 364; Šukys 1998: 73–74, 245–248; Paulauskienė 1994: 110; cf.: Sirtautas, Grenda 1988: 69–71; Balkevičius 1963: 106–109). The predicative instrumental is used to express a temporary state. In other words, a semantic opposition permanent / temporary is established, with the permanent state expressed by the nominative and the temporary one by the instrumental or nominative, but not vice versa (cf. Miliūnaitė, ed., 2003: 75–77). 0.1.2. Other linguists hold the view (Pinkster 1988: 57–99; cf. Comrie 1989: 70–74, 124–127; Hentschel 1993b: 282–285) that case is a formal morphosyntactic marker that serves a diacritic function in the sentence, i.e. it indicates the syntactic structure of the sentence. This is especially true of languages in which inflections also differ by specific forms, in which elements of the sentence core appear in different, non-homonymous cases. 0.1.2.1. In keeping with this view, it is said (Schaller 1975: 81–83) that the nominal instrumental can be used when one wishes to distinguish the subject from the predicative morphologically, for example when the subject and the predicative are expressed by nouns. However, it is obvious that the nominal nominative is also often used in such cases when the subject is a noun; conversely, the nominal instrumental is also used quite frequently when the subject is a pronoun. On the other hand, it is not always necessary to distinguish the nominal subject from the nominal predicative morphologically, cf.: (1) Todėl tai negali būti priekaištas tik vienam žmogui; M. Sleževičius nebuvo karjeros diplomatas. KT ‘Therefore, this cannot be a reproach directed at just one person; M. Sleževičius was not a career diplomat.’ (2) Bendramokslis buvęs išdavikas, rūpinęsis tik savimi, o vienuolyną pasirinkęs vien iš tinginystės ir pataikavimo pilvui. KT ‘The fellow student had been a traitor, cared only about himself, and had chosen the monastery solely out of laziness and indulgence of his appetite.’ 0.1.3. In more recent works (Hentschel 1991a, 1991b; 1992a; 1993a, 1993b; 1994), the view is often expressed that the choice of case depends both on semanti- Prädikative Substantive im Litauischen | 101 as well as by formal criteria: on the one hand, the choice of case for the predicate noun may, for example, be influenced by the (in)stability of the state being expressed or by the (in)animacy of the predicate noun; on the other hand, it may be influenced by the need to distinguish the subject formally from the predicative. This does not mean, however, that the presence of one or another semantic or formal indication necessarily leads to the selection of the corresponding predicative case. One therefore does not claim that there is a sufficient criterion X for which “if X, then (always) Y” holds, but rather confines oneself to the tendency “if X, then preferably Y” (Hentschel 1991a: 224). 0.2. If one acknowledges that a case has meaning, then one must also acknowledge, on the one hand, that the use of one particular case out of two (or more) possible cases is due to semantic differences. On the other hand, it remains unclear what causes the choice of case when no semantic differences can be discerned. In other words, the question arises as to what causes the choice of the nominative or instrumental to express a temporary state. But once one assumes that a case has no meaning and is merely a diacritic marking different syntactic functions, it remains unclear why different cases (here, the nominative and instrumental) can be used in some predicative sentences to mark the same syntactic function, namely the predicative, but not in other sentences. This gives rise to the thesis that both semantic and formal morphosyntactic criteria influence the case of the nominal predicative. In contemporary Lithuanian, however, the two influences are not of equal weight. 0.3. The article focuses primarily on trends in the use of the nominative and instrumental in QUALIFICATION SENTENCES. The prototypical sentence has a definite subject and an indefinite predicative, e.g., jis buvo mokytojas. IDENTIFICATION SENTENCES, by contrast, in which both subject and predicative are prototypically definite, are not discussed in detail, e.g., ši moteris buvo mano pirmoji mokytoja2. Here we limit ourselves to the case marking of nouns used predicatively. 2 For a more detailed discussion of the differences between identification sentences and those described here, as well as their possible similarities, see Hentschel (1991a: 223; 1992a; 1993b: 262–264); Rothstein (1986); Wierzbicka (1980: 122); Lyons (1977: 469–473). In works of Lithuanian linguistics, descriptions of the role of nominal cases in predicative use generally make no distinction between the treatment of qualification and identification sentences (cf. Valeckienė 1998: 41–42; Ambrazas, ed., 1997: 642–643). It should be noted that, when discussing identification sentences, the traditional opposition in Lithuanian linguistics temporary / permanent is irrelevant, since if A is identical to B, then B is also identical to A. 102 | Loreta Semėnienė 1. SEMANTIC CRITERIA THAT MAY INFLUENCE THE CASE OF THE SUBSTANTIVE PREDICATIVE 1.1. With regard to the meaning of predicative substantives, several groups of substantives are often distinguished, which may influence their use in the Nominative or Instrumental. It is said that the Nominative is used when the substantive denotes nationality, gender, degree of kinship, or an immutable affiliation with a species, class, or the like (Šukys 1998: 74, 250; 1984: 21; cf. Paulauskienė 2001: 184). In other words, the Nominative is used when the predicative substantive expresses a permanent, natural state, e.g.: (3) Many years later, Petras Klimas, Lithuania’s envoy in Paris, will recall that J. Baltrušaitis constantly felt remorse that he, [he] being a Lithuanian, was creating not the literature of his own country but Russian literature. On another occasion, P. Klimas mentioned that J. Baltrušaitis was, in general, a walking riddle. KT ‘Many years later, Petras Klimas, Lithuania’s envoy in Paris, will recall that J. Baltrušaitis constantly felt remorse because he as a Lithuanian created not the literature of his own country, but Russian literature. On another occasion, P. Klimas mentioned that Baltrušaitis was, in general, a walking riddle.’ (4) Or suppose that a Roman Catholic believes that there is no salvation without the Church. He asks himself: if [he] were not a Catholic, would he want to be strongly urged to accept the Catholic faith? KT ‘Or suppose that a Roman Catholic believes that there is no salvation without the Church. He asks himself: if he were not a Catholic, would he want to be strongly urged to accept the Catholic faith?’ (5) Liudvikas Jucevičius studied at the university’s Faculty of Medicine. When the university was closed, he, in pursuit of knowledge, but [he] being the son of a landless nobleman, lacked the means to go abroad to study and enrolled at the Vilnius Higher Theological Seminary. KT ‘Liudvikas Jucevičius studied at the university’s Faculty of Medicine. After the university closed, he, striving for knowledge, but as the son of a landless nobleman, had no means to study elsewhere and enrolled at the Vilnius Higher Theological Seminary.’ Another class of substantives used predicatively comprises terms denoting professions, public functions, and other descriptions of activities. These refer to a temporary (changeable) state, which can be expressed by either the Nominative or the Instrumental3 (Šukys 1998: 245; 1984: 21, 124; cf. Ambrazas, ed., 1996: 506), e.g.: 3 Jonas Šukys (1998: 247) meint, dass „mit vielen Formen von būti sowohl der substantivische Instrumental als auch der Nominativ möglich sind [...], der häufigere und gewöhnliche der Nominativ ist. Der Instrumental des Zustands verwendet man gewöhnlich nur, wenn man besonders den zeitweiligen, unbeständigen Zustand akzentuieren möchte. [...] Wenn man diese Akzentuierung nicht anstrebt, dann wird im Litauischen häufig der unbeständige, zeitweilige Zustand mit dem Nominativ wiedergegeben“. PRÄDIKATIVE SUBSTANTIVE IM LITAUISCHEN | 103 (6) Look at what the World Bank is doing. This agreement began to be prepared when I was still a minister. So, 2.5 years ago. This project has been in preparation for two and a half years. Next. KT ‘See what the World Bank is doing. This agreement began to be prepared when I was still a minister. So, 2.5 years ago. This project has been in preparation for two and a half years. Next.’ (7) He was very pleased that Garbačiauskas in particular had been appointed head of the education department. As head of the art club, he supported Ignas in every way and openly sympathized with him. And that’s not a bad thing! KT ‘He was pleased that Garbačiauskas in particular had been appointed head of the education department. As head of the art club, he had supported Ignas in every way and openly sympathized with him. That’s not bad!’ (8) This should be arranged very carefully. Let’s see... Oh, one moment. I’d like to turn to one more thing. When I was still a minister, all this had been conceived, but one very good thing, I would say, was planned: first of all, to adopt a law on nonprofit organizations. KT ‘This should be put in order very carefully. We’ll see... Oh, one minute. One more thing. When I was still a minister, all this had already been conceived, but one very good thing, I would say, was planned: first, to enact the law on nonprofit organizations.’ (9) The late President Kazys Grinius, while he was head of state, said: “Until Lithuania grows stronger, I will not take a salary.” KT ‘The late President Kazys Grinius said, when he was head of state: “Until Lithuania grows stronger, I will not take a salary.”’ 1.2. A review of nouns assigned to this group makes it clear that occupational titles cannot be associated with a temporary state. A profession is what is enduring (cf. Ambrazas, ed., 1997: 472; Ambrazas, Red., 1996: 506). That is, according to the above-mentioned views, this enduring state should be marked by the nominative, e.g.: (10) Having completed a master’s degree in business, [I] will be also a professional administrator. KT ‘When I have completed my master’s degree in business, I will be a professional manager too.’ (11) How can you not lose heart when you look around you? I have to finish the institute, and perhaps, with God’s help, I will finish it; in two years [I] will be an engineer, perhaps I will be materially secure, but what good will that do my homeland? KT ‘How can one avoid becoming disillusioned when looking around? I have to finish the institute, and perhaps I will finish it with God’s help; in two years I will be an engineer, perhaps materially secure, but what good will that do my country?’ (12) She studies business information management. This year she will be in the second year of this program. “I’m not thinking about my future job yet. I know that [I] will be a manager, and there is quite a lot of freedom of choice in this field,” said G. Us onytė. KT ‘She studies information management. This year she is in the second year of the program— 104 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ year. “I’m not thinking about future work yet. I know that I will be a manager, and the freedom of choice in this field is quite extensive,” says G. Usonytė.” Meanwhile, work or a specific activity associated with a particular profession can certainly be temporary, such as public activity or the like (see examples (6)–(9)). And, as already mentioned, both the Nominative and the Instrumental are used to mark a temporary state, e.g.: (13) Kaip gyvenas, kaip besiverčias? O, apie tai vėliau, pasakojimų ir kalbų bus tiek ir tiek! Tariant trumpai – jis Priekalnėje buvęs režisierius, dabar jau nieko nedirbąs, besiilsįs. Gyvenąs vienas, laisvas ir paukštis. Tuoj pat jis mane pavadino pasisvečiuoti savo namuose. KT ‘How are things, how is he getting by? Well, more on that later; there will be plenty of stories and talk! In short, he had been a director in Priekalnė, but now he no longer works and is resting. He lives alone, free as a bird. Immediately, he invited me to visit him at his home.’ (14) Mintyse (tfu, tfu, tfu) pamaniau – ar tik ne motulės „pamokos“ bus prisidėjusios? O vyro, kaip mačiau nuotraukose, būta išvaizdaus, dailiai sudėto. Buvęs aviacijos inžinierium. KT ‘In Gedanken (pfui) dachte ich mir, ob hier nicht Mütterchens “Lehren” einen Anteil hatten? Der Mann, den ich auf den Fotos sah, war ansehnlich, von guter Gestalt. Er war Luftfahrtingenieur gewesen.’ Predicative nouns used to denote professional or public work can also express a permanent state. However, as one can see from sentences (15)–(18), in such situations not only the Nominative but also the Instrumental occurs, cf.: (15) Ne visiems patiko 1941 m. kovo 13 d. A. Smetonos JAV lietuviams pasakyti žodžiai: „Aš buvau, esu ir būsiu Lietuvos prezidentas (...) Aš palieku Lietuvos prezidentas de jure“. KT ‘Not everyone liked the words A. Smetona addressed to Lithuanian Americans on March 13, 1941: “I was, am, and will be President of Lithuania (...) I remain President of Lithuania de jure”.’ (16) Apie save pasakoti yra pats nedėkingiausias dalykas. Tavo ištartus žodžius gali suprasti įvairiai, tad kalbėsiu trumpai. Pirmiausia [aš] esu ir būsiu akių gydytojas, kurio pašaukimas – padėti žmonėms, turintiems regos problemų. Gydytoju-oftalmologu pradėjau dirbti dar besimokydamas rezidentūroje. KT ‘Talking about yourself is the most thankless thing. Your words can be understood in different ways, so I’ll speak briefly. First, I am and will be an ophthalmologist, whose calling is to help people with vision problems. I began working as an ophthalmologist while still in residency.’ (17) After your wife’s death, did you think of giving up your profession? — Not for a single minute. Kesi would never forgive that. “Always [you] be an actor” were her last words. KT “Did you think about giving up your profession after your wife died?” “Not for a minute. Kesi would never have forgiven that. ‘Always be an actor,’ those were her last words.” PRÄDIKATIVE SUBSTANTIVE IM LITAUISCHEN | 105 (18) Interesting, if you became a politician, would we learn a lot of compromising things about you? – I will never [I] be a politician. And scandals about me?.. There aren’t any. Maybe at some point I drank too much, got carried away, said something I shouldn’t have. – What about drugs? KT “ “It is interesting: if you were to become a politician, would we learn many compromising things about you?” “I will never be a politician. And scandals about me?.. There aren’t any. Perhaps I was a little tipsy once, got carried away, didn’t say what I should have.” “And drugs?” Thus, nouns denoting work, professions, public activities, and the like express both a permanent and a temporary state, which in turn can be conveyed by either the nominative or the instrumental. On the other hand, it is argued that, with the aforementioned nouns, the opposition temporary / permanent is not so much at issue; rather, the use of the nominative and instrumental is determined by the specific meaning of the noun. From a lexical perspective, these predicatively used nouns denoting professional, social, and public activity have lost their direct connection to their referent, the person. They therefore mark not so much the person as an activity associated with that person (Hentschel 1993b: 276–277, 282, 1992a; cf. Dik 1989: 170–172). In other words, such use of nominal predicates is non-prototypical, similar to the “genuine” use of the predicate (verb) (cf. Valeckiene 1998: 53). 1.3. Drawing on data from other languages, it has been emphasized that the instrumental first becomes established with predicative nouns that have lost the prototypical marking of a thing, i.e. a person (for details, see: Hentschel 1992a; 1993b: 277–278, 282, 285–286; 1999: 260). Generalizing from the information presented here, one can see that in the simple sentence the instrumental is used more frequently with the predicative nouns mentioned than with other nouns. However, this tendency to use the instrumental is by no means obvious, even if one disregards the fact that the instrumental is not used more frequently than the nominative (see Tab. 1). TAB. 1. INFLUENCE OF THE MEANING OF THE PREDICATIVE NOUN ON CASE MARKING Noun Case Sentence count (n) Nominative Instrumental denoting 193 53 246 activities 78% 22% other 133 18 151 88% 12% 106 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ Thus, on the one hand, one must acknowledge that the Instrumental with predicative designations of activities is not very widespread in Lithuanian. On the other hand, the tabular presentation shows that the Instrumental is used with other predicative nouns not much less frequently. A few examples: (19) You have renounced your nationality, while I, although I have kept my mother’s passport, cannot regain it because of bureaucratic obstacles... More precisely, to be what you were born as, one has to pay quite a lot in court proceedings, and I am not used to doing that. KT ‘You have renounced your nationality, and I, although I have kept my mother’s passport, cannot get it back because of all the bureaucratic obstacles... More precisely, to be what you were born as, one has to pay quite a lot during court proceedings, and I am not used to doing that.’ (20) You say that if [you] are not a human being, then you do not want to be a worm. Very nice, but what, in your opinion, is a human being if you are not one? In order to be a human being, is it really necessary to have a label stuck on your forehead, that is, to be a shoemaker, engineer, priest, or musician? KT ‘You say, if you are not going to be a human being, then you will not want to be a worm. Very nice, but what, in your opinion, is a human being if you are not one? Is it really necessary, in order to be a human being, to have a sticker on your forehead, that is, to be a shoemaker, engineer, priest, or musician?’ (21) Be open to the world, to knowledge, to interaction; strive to live not in “your own street,” but in the “great world” (that is, [you] be a modern European woman) – for that, you certainly do not need to live in Rome or Amsterdam! KT ‘Be open to the world, to knowledge, to interaction; strive not to live “in your own street,” but in the “great world” (that is, be a modern European woman) – you certainly do not have to live in Rome or Amsterdam for that!’ (22) A contemporary becomes a true contemporary. Yet a non-contemporary (understood literally) is a later person, so a later person too must be able to be a true contemporary. KT ‘A contemporary becomes a true contemporary. A non-contemporary (understood literally), however, is someone who comes later; therefore, someone who comes later must also be able to be a true contemporary.’ (23) Suppose Algirdas and his circle react calmly upon hearing Jonas’s or Antanas’s public confession: well then, [you] be Christians; it makes no difference to us. KT ‘Let us suppose that Algirdas and his circle react calmly to Jonas’s or Antanas’s public confession: well then, be Christians; we couldn’t care less.’ (24) With his whole being, Valančius longed for happiness and greatness for the nation; [he] being a realist, he also created the means to achieve this ideal. Valančius himself came from the depths of his nation – the people – and knew well what it was, sensing what it lacked. KT ‘Valančius, with his whole being, yearned for happiness and greatness for the nation; as a realist, he also created the means to attain this ideal. Valančius himself came from the depths of the nation – from the people – and knew exactly what it was, sensing what it lacked.’ From sentences (19)–(24), we see that the Instrumental (as well as the Nominative) is also used in contemporary Lithuanian when PRÄDIKATIVE SUBSTANTIVE IM LITAUISCHEN 107 the predicative noun denotes a constant, naturally given state of a person (or a living being) (cf. sentences (3)–(5)4. Naturally, the predicative nominal nominative used to denote a permanent state cannot always be replaced by the instrumental, and vice versa (cf. sentences (15)–(18)). Not infrequently, the use of the nominative (see (25)–(26)) or instrumental (see (27)–(28)) is determined by the meaning of the predicative noun, the sentence context, or the like (see below) (cf. Šukys 1998: 250), e.g.: (25) Besides, [he] being an intellectual, he somewhat underestimates that inarticulate piety which has no defined form. KT ‘Besides, as an intellectual, he somewhat underestimates the inarticulate religiosity without fixed forms.’ (26) He decides to undertake the work of an independent contractor himself—building railway bridges. [he] being a good specialist in his field expert, an organizer and an honest executor of projects, he quickly earned the respect of the Russian Ministry of Transport. KT ‘[He] decides to take charge of the construction himself—building a railway bridge. As a good expert in his field, organizer and honest executor, he quickly earns the recognition of the Russian Ministry of Transport.’ (27) In considering Hegel’s viewpoint, Berdiajev shows that master and slave are in fact in the same boat, that they are both victims of slavery. In order for [you] to be a person, you must be guided [=cultivate – L. S.] solely by the freedom of your spirit, rather than by grasping at property, power structures, passions, or domination over others. KT ‘In discussing Hegel’s position, Berdiajev shows that master and servant are in fact in the same boat, that they are both victims of servitude. In order to be a person, you must rely solely on the freedom of your spirit, and not on grasping for property, power structures, passions, or domination over others.’ (28) Understanding this task, in whatever form, will endure as long as people are human. This is not the first time that philosophy has been fiercely attacked and even wholly rejected as unnecessary and harmful. Who needs it? KT ‘Understanding this task, whatever its form, will endure as long as people are human. It is not the first time that philosophy has been fiercely attacked and even dismissed as unnecessary and harmful. Who needs it?’ Cf.: (25a) *Besides, [he] being an intellectual, he somewhat underestimates that inarticulate piety which has no defined form. (26a) *[He] being a good specialist in his field expert, he quickly earned the respect of the Russian Ministry of Transport. (27a) *In order for you to be a person, you must be guided [=cultivate – L. S.] solely by the freedom of your spirit, rather than by grasping at property, power structures, passions, or domination over others. (28b)?Understanding this task, in whatever form, will endure as long as people are human. 4 In the opinion of specialists in language culture, sentences with the instrumental expressing a permanent state should be corrected (Paulauskienė 2001: 184; Kniūkšta, Hg., 2000: 102; cf. Miliūnaitė, Hg., 2003: 77; Šukys 1998: 250; Pupkis, Hg., 1985: 91). 108 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ The same can be said about the use of the nominative and instrumental to express a temporary state: regardless of the fact that both the nominative and the instrumental can be used to convey this temporary state, and that they are often interchangeable in a sentence without any change in meaning (cf. (6)–(9); (13)–(14)), the sentence context may influence the choice of case, e.g.: (29) Mandagiai padėkojęs Heinrich Horstmann už pasiūlymą ir patarimą pasakiau, kad tokiam svarbiam žingsniui dar nesu pasiruošęs. Gana DAŽNAI buvau vertėju. KT ‘After I had politely thanked Heinrich Horstmann for the offer and the advice, I said that I was not yet ready for such an important step. Quite FREQUENTLY, I was an interpreter.’ (30) Civiliai gyventojai, anaiptol neapsaugoti, DAŽNAI būna pirmimi kovojančių jėgų taikiniu. KT5 ‘Civilians, far from being protected, are OFTEN the first victims of warring parties.’ (31) The Russians arrested her husband and took him away. The partisan leader, whose codename was Spyglys, had been a Uhlan officer in Alytus during the years of A. Smetona’s rule. At that time, Z. Piečaitis came to Štrimaitienė and stated that 60 eggs were needed to feed the partisans. KT ‘The Russians arrested her husband and took him away. The partisan leader with the codename Spyglys, who had been a Uhlan officer in Alytus during Smetona’s rule, visited her. At that time Z. Piečaitis came to Štrimaitienė and explained that 60 eggs were needed to feed the partisans.’ Cf.: (32) The partisan leader with the codename Spyglys, who had been a Uhlan officer in Alytus during A. Smetona’s rule, visited her. ‘The partisan leader with the codename Spyglys, who had been a Uhlan officer in Alytus during Smetona’s rule, visited her.’ In principle, the nominative can also be used in sentences of type (29)–(30). The choice of the instrumental here is prompted by the temporal adverb dažnai ‘often’. However, in sentence (31), replacing the instrumental with the nominative is not possible, since this would also change the meaning of the sentence: the participle buvęs ‘been’ could be understood as a modifier of the noun karininkas ‘officer’ (buvęs karininkas ‘former officer’, see (32)). 1.4. Thus, it can be seen from what has been said that in contemporary Lithuanian the semantic opposition temporary / permanent is unsuitable as an explanation; the choice of case for the nominal predicative does not depend on it6. 5 It is argued that, from the perspective of language culture, usages such as Delfinai DAŽNAI esti įdomių tyrinėjimų objektu ‘Dolphins are OFTEN the subject of interesting research’ and similar examples should be corrected, and that only the nominative should be used here (Miliūnaitė, Hg., 2003: 76; Paulauskienė 2001: 184). The use of the nominative in such sentences is explained by the marking of permanence. 6 Jonas Palionis (1995: 66) wies darauf hin, dass schon in Schriften des XVI.–XVII. Jh. der Instrumental auch dann verwendet wurde, wenn mit dem Substantiv eine unveränderliche, beständige Befindlichkeit des Subjekts beschrieben wurde. Vgl. die Verwendungstendenzen der Fälle (Nominativ vs. Instrumental) des prädikativen Substantivs im Polnischen (Bogusławski 2001; Hentschel 1993b: 279–282, 1994), Russischen (Hentschel 1991a; 1991b: 304–306; Moser 1994) und in anderen Slawinen (Hentschel 1991b: 306). PRÄDIKATIVE SUBSTANTIVE IM LITAUISCHEN | 109 In contemporary Lithuanian, both permanent and temporary states can in principle be expressed with the instrumental or the nominative. This does not, however, mean in any way that in every case the nominative of the predicative noun could be replaced by the instrumental (or vice versa), or that the use of the nominative and instrumental is equivalent. One can say that under certain semantic or formal syntactic circumstances one case or the other is more likely for the predicate, but is not required (see below). In cases where the nominative and instrumental of a predicative noun are interchangeable without a change in meaning, we are dealing with MORPHOSYNTACTIC VARIANTS. In other words, in a fixed structural position that presents the situation from an identical perspective, (at least) two different morphosyntactic forms of the same semantic argument can be used without any change in meaning (Hentschel 1992a, 2001; cf. Valiulytė 1992: 50). In that case, the choice of one of the cases depends only on stylistic, pragmatic, or similar nuances. If the choice of case for the nominal predicate is influenced by the syntactic distribution of the sentence and the cases are not interchangeable in this context, then the nominative and instrumental function as POSITIONAL VARIANTS, i.e., an additional complementary distribution obtains between them, e.g.: tau reikėtų būti mokytoju / *mokytojas ‘You would have to be a teacher’. In combination with the infinitive (except for the cases involving infinitival clauses discussed in 2.2, whose null subject is correlated with the subject of the main clause), only the predicative instrumental is used. In what follows, we will focus specifically on predicates that allow the nominative and instrumental to be selected as morphosyntactic variants. 1.5. It has been observed from other languages that the choice of case for the predicative noun depends on the opposition animate / inanimate. It is said that the instrumental is used more frequently with predicative nouns denoting inanimate (concrete or abstract) entities. On the other hand, the instrumental of nouns denoting abstract entities is not used significantly more often than that of nouns naming concrete inanimate things (for a fuller discussion, see Hentschel 1991a: 226–228, 1991b: 304; 1993b: 278–279; cf. 1999: 260). In other words, the more frequent use of the instrumental is relevant with respect to the hierarchy animate / inanimate, but not with respect to PERSON < LIVING BEING < CONCRETE INANIMATE < ABSTRACT INANIMATE. e.g.: (33) Arvi, kelkis ir eik, – kužda kitas, prislopęs balsas, – likti vietoje pražūtis. Tu niekada nesustojai, kai kildavo dvejonė. Buvai geležis, o dabar – tirpstantis vaškas. KT “Arvi, get up and go,” whispers another muted voice, “staying in place is ruin. You never stopped when doubts arose. You were iron, and now [you are] melting wax”. (34) After all, for probably at least a couple of decades, you were that “renaissance” pillar of ours, thereby 110 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ “a sturdy oak,” against whose shoulder the theater roof leaned. It was once precisely to see You that young girls came in droves. KT ‘For at least two decades, presumably, you were our “Renaissance” pillar, “sturdy oak,” on whose shoulder our theater roof rests. Once, young girls came in droves just to see you.’ (35) And now you will be both one and the other to me, my helpless, weak little baby. Fear nothing, Nora; just be truly open with me, and I will be your will and your conscience... KT ‘You will now be both one and the other to me; you are my powerless, weak baby. Fear nothing, Nora, just be open with me and I will be your will and your conscience.’ (36) Then he continued: “If you hold to this, you will be equal to any king, but if you depart from it, [you] will be the cause of our destruction and your own.” After that, the duke gave thanks. KT ‘Then he continued: “If you hold to this, you will be equal to any king, but if you depart from it, you will be the cause of our destruction and your own.”’ On the basis of the few available instances of the use of predicative nouns denoting inanimate things, it is rather difficult to discuss the specific influence of the animacy hierarchy on case selection. However, it should not be overlooked that the Instrumental is used somewhat more frequently with nouns denoting inanimate things (see Tab. 2). Thus, one can say that in Lithuanian, the expression of inanimacy as a level in the animacy hierarchy is not grammaticalized through case; that is, nouns denoting both inanimate and animate entities are predominantly expressed uniformly by means of the Nominative. On the other hand, the fact that the Instrumental is uncommon with nouns denoting inanimate entities is quite natural. It has already been mentioned (see 1.1.) that the Instrumental first establishes itself with predicative nouns that have lost their prototypical character; even in such cases, the Instrumental is uncommon in Lithuanian. TAB. 2. INFLUENCE OF THE ANIMACY HIERARCHY ON CASE MARKING OF THE PREDICATIVE NOUN Case | animate | inanimate | number of sentences (n) | Nominative | 335 | 74 | 409 | 82% | 18% | Instrumental | 50 | 18 | 68 | 73.5% | 26.5% One should also take into account that the Nominative is usually also used when nouns denoting inanimate entities function in the sentence as subject and as predicate, that is, the Nominative of the predicative noun is also Prädikative Substantive im Litauischen | 111 then the Instrumental is used more frequently than the Nominative when the subject and predicative are non-prototypical and inanimate, e.g.: (37) Išgerk, – pakïšo jam didelę taurę degtinės Sava, – užpilk šią smarvę nevilti. Nuo šiol tau kiekvienas stiklas bus nuostabus eliksyras, gelbstintis nuo nevilties, ir dar… adata. Patikėk manim. Tai ir yra gyvenimo kaifas. KT ‘“Drink up,” Sava held out a large glass of schnapps to him, “pour this concoction over your hopelessness. From now on every glass will be a delicious elixir for you, one that saves you from despair, and also... a needle. Believe me. That is the thrill of life”.’ (38) Nieks prie darbo žmogaus nel enks, ta prievolė karti galios nustos: laisvas darbas bus garbė ir džiaugsmas. Mes, Ordinas, dabar esam broliai, o kai Visuotinė Gerovė ateis, visi žmonės broliausis, visa kas bendra bus. KT ‘No one will force people to work; this bitter obligation will lose its power: free work will be honor and joy. We, the Order, are brothers now, and when Universal Prosperity comes, all people will become brothers, everything will be shared.’ (39) Pasipiktinimo išraiška yra ta, kad akimirka yra kvailystė, paradoksas yra kvailystė; šitai yra paradokso reikalavimas – kad protas būtų absurdas – tik dabar su rezonansu ataidintis iš pasipiktinimo. KT ‘The expression of anger is that the moment is foolishness, the paradox is foolishness; this is the paradox’s demand: that reason should be an absurdity, only now resounding with resonance from anger.’ Vgl.: (40) Bet iš šito troškimo, kuris, [troškimas] būdamas dar tamsiu pagrindu, yra pirmas dieviškosios būties pasireiškimas, pačiame Dieve gimsta vidinis refleksyvus įvaizdis. KT ‘But from this desire, which is still the dark underlying ground, the first manifestation of the divine being, an inner reflexive image arises in God himself.’ 1.6. In general, one must say that in Lithuanian the semantic criteria discussed (temporary / permanent; animate / inanimate) have no decisive influence on case usage. 2. FORMAL CRITERIA THAT MAY INFLUENCE THE CASE OF THE NOMINAL PREDICATIVE 2.1. Inflectional form of the copula būti 2.1.0. The copula būti, which has no independent lexical meaning in a predicative sentence, lends temporal and modal nuances to the feature expressed by the noun (Ambrazas, ed., 1996: 479; Ambrazas, ed., 1997: 469; cf. Labutis 1998: 237; Balkevičius 1963: 105). 2.1.1. It is said that the nominative of the predicative noun is used with the stated or understood present form of the clause element būti (Šukys 1998: 112 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ 247, 250; 1984: 125)7. The instrumental of the predicative noun can compete with the nominative when the element būti is in the past tense, in the subjunctive, imperative, etc. It is noted that the instrumental of the predicative noun is used rather rarely (emphasis L.S.) with past-tense forms, with the future – somewhat more frequently, with the subjunctive not particularly frequently, and with the imperative also not frequently (Šukys 1998: 75, 245–247; cf. Ambrazas, ed., 1996: 505–506; Sirt autas, Grenda 1988: 71; Ulvydas, Ambrazas, Valeckienė, eds., 1976: 364). With such cumbersome formulations, it is difficult to determine the actual usage tendencies of the nominal instrumental. The material at hand allows us to state that in predicative sentences with a finite verbal predicate, the nominal instrumental does not exceed the nominative in usage tendency (see Table 3) (cf. Hentschel 1993b: 267–268). If, on the other hand, one acknowledges that the instrumental of the predicative noun is in principle not used with the (present or understood) present form of the copula (cf. Example (30)), then one may say that the morphological form of the finite copula influences the tendencies toward use of the instrumental. The instrumental is used more frequently in the following order: PRESENT < PAST < FUTURE < SUBJUNCTIVE < IMPERATIVE8. 7 Following this view, one would expect that in sentences with present-tense forms of būti only a permanent state is designated by means of the nominative. As the examples show, however, the nominative can express both a permanent and a temporary state. Cf.: (i) They [the people who will live later] will also need fresh air, clean water, and fertile soil. Man is also a child of Nature, but, possessing reason, thinks that he is very powerful, far superior to others. KT ‘They [the people who will live later] will also need fresh air, clean water, and fertile soil. Man is also a child of nature, but, endowed with reason, he thinks he is very powerful, superior to others.’ (ii) Alūfnė has not been to a concert for ages. He has only business on his mind. TODAY I [am] his companion at a funeral event. Do you remember that pani Zosė? – Yes. – We buried her. A little while ago they carried her out of the chapel of St. Teresa. KT ‘“Alfune hasn’t been to a concert in ages. He has only business on his mind. TODAY I am his companion at a funeral event. Do you remember Miss Zose?” “Yes.” “We buried her; a little while ago they carried her out of the chapel of St. Teresa.”’ (iii) I live in a cramped one-room apartment at the end of the trolleybus line. I have neither children nor a husband, not even a car. And my friend has everything; she has LONG been a department head... I get nothing easily in life. KT ‘I live in a cramped one-room apartment at the end of the trolleybus line. I have neither children nor a husband, not even a car. And my friend has everything; she has LONG been a department head... I get nothing easily in life.’ Thus, it remains rather unclear according to which criteria the use of the nominative in clauses with present-tense forms of būti is to be explained: by the fact that in clauses with present-tense forms of būti the nominative expresses only a permanent state (since the instrumental is not used), or by the fact that nominative use is caused by the present tense of the predicative verb (see footnote 5). 8 Although the examples show that the use of the Instrumental is evidently more frequent, when we compare the preterite forms of the copula with those of the imperative, we still cannot conclusively claim that the comparatively small increase in the use of the Instrumental with regard to the forms of the copula būti is significant. In other words, doubts arise as to whether an increase in the rate of use of the Instrumental by a few Prädikative Substantive im Litauischen 113 The use of the Nominative with present forms of būti can be explained by the marking of static properties. When one says “X is Y”, this means that X has the unchanging property Y in temporal (i.e. present) terms. Meanwhile, the growing tendency to use the Instrumental with the past, future, and similar forms of būti can be explained by dynamic marking. That is, the statement “X becomes Y” entails “X is (now) not Y, but becomes Y”. In other words, one can see that the Nominative and Instrumental are in principle possible as variants when the finite form of the copula marks a changeable property, i.e. a process. Conversely, when the finite form of būti denotes an unchanging, that is, static property, the Nominative is normally used (see also Stassen 2001). On closer analysis (see Tab. 3a), we find that, with regard to the hierarchy of the forms of the copula būti, the tendency to use the Instrumental increases not only with predicative nouns denoting a profession or other activity, but also with other nouns. We observe that in sentences with the imperative, nouns denoting a profession or other activity occur somewhat more frequently in the Instrumental than in the Nominative. Tab. 3. Influence of the finite copula būti on the case marking of the predicative noun morphological form Case Number of sentences (n) Nominative Instrumental buvo (one-time past) 136 93% 10 7% 146 bus (future) 115 85% 20 15% 135 būtų (subjunctive) 43 81% 10 19% 53 būk (imperative) 32 58% 23 42% 55 2.1.2. Forms of the copula are associated not only with tense, but also with the marking of sentence modality real / unreal (for further details, see Palmer 1999: 235–239). When only real modality is expressed by past and present forms whether percentages here suffice as an explanation and whether these figures are reliable enough to support generalizing conclusions and to discuss the decisive influence on the case of the predicative noun. 114 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ TAB. 3A. morphological form case sentence number (n) Nominative Instrumental occupational designations other nouns occupational designations other nouns buvo (past) 86 50 8 2 146 91% 96% 9% 4% bus (future) 79 36 18 2 135 81% 95% 19% 5% būtų (subjunctive) 17 26 5 5 53 77% 84% 23% 16% būk (imperative) 11 21 14 9 55 44% 70% 56% 30% can be expressed, both real and unreal meanings can be expressed with the future (cf. Ambrazas, ed., 1997: 255–256; Ambrazas, ed., 1996: 304–307) (cf. also examples (10)–(12), (15)–(16), (18)). Cf.: (41) Jeigu bitelės manęs negils, tai užaugusi būsiu bitininkė. KT ‘If the bees do not sting me, then I will be a beekeeper when I grow up.’ (42) Buvau padaręs keletą skulptūrų, ir ten apsigyvenau su šeima, nes Vilnius man buvo pasidaręs atšiaurus miestas. Norėjau viską užmiršti. Verčiau jau būsiu skulptorius kaime negu valkata mieste. KT ‘I had made several sculptures and settled there with my family, because Vilnius had become a harsh city for me. I wanted to forget everything. I would rather be a sculptor in the village than a tramp in the city.’ The same can be said of the use of imperative forms: they may be marked as either real or unreal. However, the tendency to assign the imperative to the unreal category is greater than in the case of the future; this is reflected in the more frequent use of the Instrumental (cf. sentences (17), (21), (23)). Cf.: (43) ‘He gives a speech as if inspired by St. Paul and St. Thomas: “Since when have women been allowed to renounce their sex and become a man?.. (Nature) said to the woman: Be a woman. Childcare, housework, various maternal concerns—this is your work.” They were forbidden to enter the Council.’ KT Prädikative Substantive im Litauischen | 115 ‘[He] gave a speech as if inspired by St. Paul and St. Thomas: “Since when have women been allowed to renounce their sex and become a man?... (Nature) said to the woman: ‘Be a woman.’ Childcare, housekeeping, various burdens of motherhood—this is your work.” They were forbidden to enter the Council.’ (44) Jei nori turėti draugą, pats būk draugu. KT ‘If you want to have a friend, be a friend yourself.’ The subjunctive is usually assigned to the unreal category, i.e., it shows the speaker’s attitude toward a possible but not actually performed action (cf. also sentences (4), (19)–(20)), e.g.: (45) However, why was the artist’s most important virtue—freedom of creation—forgotten? Is it necessary to declare some ideology in order to be a writer recognized by everyone? Perhaps a limited understanding of creative space also provoked the critics’ nervous reaction? KT ‘Why, however, was the artist’s greatest virtue, freedom of creation, forgotten? Is it necessary to declare an ideology in order to be a writer recognized by everyone? Perhaps the limited understanding of creative space prompted the critics’ nervous reaction.’ Cf.: (46) Well then, tell me what you know. One must talk not only about politics, but about the Lithuanian character. And not just any Lithuanian, but a Lithuanian public figure. You have to speak as if you yourself were a bit of a non-Lithuanian. Otherwise, you won’t feel the taste of cepelinai. KT ‘Well then, tell me what you know. One must talk not only about politics, but about the Lithuanian character. Not that of an ordinary Lithuanian, but that of a Lithuanian public figure. You must speak as if you yourself were somewhat not Lithuanian. Otherwise, you won’t experience the taste of cepelinai.’ It can therefore be seen that the case of the predicative noun is related not only to the tense form of the finite copula, but also to the modality it expresses: the more the modality can be unreal, the more likely the use of the Instrumental becomes (cf. Hentschel 1993b: 268). The increasing use of the Instrumental to designate unreal modality also corresponds to referentiality: if the real modality conveyed by the Nominative presupposes referential marking of the thing, then the unreal modality marked by the Instrumental indicates non-referential marking of the thing. 2.2. Syntactic factors 2.2.1. A brief discussion should be given of the use of cases of the predicative noun when the copula is the infinitive or a semi-participle form of būti9, e.g.: 9 It is said that the nominal instrumental is used MORE OFTEN (emphasis L. S.) with the semi-participle of būti to clarify the temporariness of the state; when, however, the infinitive būti stands as the copula together with an inflected form of a modal verb, the instrumental CAN COMPETE with the nominative (Šukys 1998: 246–247; cf. ibid. 75, 251). 116 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ (47) There is destiny. I dreamed of being an actress, giving birth to three children, and having my own house. I did everything I could for that. The result—I sell rags in Gariūnai. KT ‘There is a destiny. I dreamed of being an actress, giving birth to three children, and having a house. I did what I could for that. The result—I sell clothes in Gariunai.’ (48) [Ted Liss Acting Studio]. “Do I want to, must I, dare I?” At last I summoned all my courage and turned the door handle. “I would like to be an actress,” I murmured under my breath. Ted had encountered people like that before. “Really? Are you sure?” KT [Acting studio] “Will I, must I, dare I?” Finally, I gathered all my courage and turned the handle. “I would like to be an actress,” I murmured under my breath. Ted had already encountered people like that. “Really? Are you sure?” (49) As a former athlete, I am very pleased that, as mayor, I have on several occasions met famous sports teams that had achieved victories. I am delighted to congratulate you too,” said H. Tamulis. KT ‘“As a former athlete, I am very pleased that, as mayor, I have met famous sports teams that had won on several occasions. I am glad that I can congratulate you too,” said H. Tamulis.’ (50) Privatization began; there were offers to take 100 hectares. I did not do that, and today I own only 3 hectares of land. I did not abuse my official position, even while I was mayor. I worked only for a salary. I accumulated my assets through farming. KT ‘Privatization began; there were offers to take 100 hectares. I did not do that, and even today I own only 3 hectares of land. I do not abuse the powers of office as mayor. I worked only for a salary. I acquired my property through farming.’ In discussing sentences of the type (47)–(50), we are talking about tendencies in the use of noun case in a (nominal or adverbial) clause¹⁰; cf.: (47a) I dreamed [∅ of being an actress / an actress]. ‘I dreamed of being an actress.’ (50a) I [∅ while being mayor / as mayor] did not abuse my official position. ‘I do not abuse my official position as mayor.’ The subject in the nominal or adverbial subordinate clause is the null element, i.e., the subject has no phonetic realization in the subordinate clause, only a semantic interpretation. The null subject corresponds to the subject nominative of the main clause. The material presented allows us to say (see Tables 4, 4a) that in sentences with an infinitival copula, the nominal instrumental is used more frequently than the nominative. In cases where a half-participle of būti functions as the copula, the nominative and instrumental are used almost equally. However, if one considers the meaning 10 For a more detailed discussion of the interpretation of the sentence structure, see the article by Holvoet and Judžentis (2003: 115–172), which is followed here. Prädikative Substantive im Litauischen | 117 of the predicative noun into account, then the instrumental with a half-participle form of the copula is used somewhat more frequently than the nominative when the noun denotes a profession or other occupation. TABLE 4. INFLUENCE OF THE INFINITIVAL COPULA ON THE CASE MARKING OF THE PREDICATIVE NOUN morphological form case number of sentences (n) Nominative Instrumental būd́amas 118 106 224 (half-participle) 53% 47% būti (infinitive) 7 18 25 28% 72% TABLE 4A. morphological form case Number of clauses (n) nominative instrumental designation of an activity other designation of an activity other būd́amas 79 39 98 8 224 (half-participle) 45% 83% 55% 17% būti (infinitive) 6 1 12 6 25 33% 14% 67% 86% 2.2.2. Thus, the facts given show that in contemporary Lithuanian the instrumental case of the predicative noun is used more when non-finite forms of the copula are present11. More specifically, there is a tendency to use the instrumental more frequently in a compound sentence than in a simple sentence (cf. Hentschel 1993b: 268–270). 11 Šukys (1998: 247) verallgemeinert nach Behandlung der Verwendungstendenzen des substantivischen Instrumentals: „mit vielen Formen von būti sind sowohl der substantivische Nominativ als auch der Instrumental möglich. Die Grenzen sind hier unklar. Häufiger und gewöhnlicher ist der Nominativ“. 118 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ 2.3. Word order in the sentence 2.3.0. Bisher wurden in der Rede über die Verwendung von Nominativ und / oder Instrumental immer Sätze mit unmarkierter (neutraler) Wortfolge SVX behandelt, wobei S – Subjekt, V – Kopula, X – prädikatives Substantiv. 2.3.1. In the examples given earlier, it was not only the instrumental that helped distinguish the predicative from the subject, but also subject-typical features. Personal pronouns or proper names are often cited as typical subject features. It is said that first- and second-person personal pronouns, which are always definit and referential, are always prototypical persons (in this case, subjects) (Hentschel 1993a: 105; 1992b: 238; see also Givón 1984: 145–168, 422; 1990: 960; cf. Comrie 1989: 107, 110–122, 128ff.). In other words, if a personal pronoun or proper name (actual or understood) occurs in the sentence, then the subject can be distinguished from the predicate not only through the use of the instrumental, but also through the prototypical expression of the subject. It should be noted that in sentences in which personal pronouns or proper names occur in a structurally marked position, i.e. not as the subject, they require formal marking, namely the (exclusive!) use of the instrumental. In such sentences, the predicative instrumental not only separates two syntactic functions—the subject and the predicative—but also signals the non-referential marking of the thing (see also sentence (20)) (cf. Ambrazas, ed., 1996: 506), e.g.: (51) Ji tiesiog siurbėsi į mano audinius, – supratau: paviršiu gyvūnu arba išprotėsiu. – Vakar aš norėjau būti tavimi, – kažkoks ropliškas balsas kalbėjo mano smegenyse, pajutau, kaip kibūs pirštai kažko ieško mano sprande. KT ‘She was sucking straight into my tissues, I understood: I will turn into an animal or go mad. “Yesterday I wanted to be you,” some reptilian voice spoke in my brain; I felt sticky fingers searching for something on the back of my neck.’ (52) Gyvenu Kanadoje jau 4 metai, ir visą laiką atrodo, kad pamečiau save. Gyvendama savo gimtame Klaipėdos mieste [aš] buvau pati savimi, ir štai sulaukusi 44 metų gyvendama daugelio žmonių išsvajotame užsienyje daugybę kartų klausiu savęs: „ką aš čia veikiu, ir kas aš esu“. KT ‘I have been living in Canada for four years now, and all the time it seems as though I have lost myself. While living in my native city of Klaipeda, I was myself, and now, at 44, living abroad—a place many people dream of—I often ask myself, “What am I doing here, and who am I?”’ (53) Aš norėčiau būti Jonu12. 12 Cf. the following sentence, in which the proper name is marked with the nominative: Karpy davome snaiges, darydavome atvirukus, piešinėlį ar nuotrauką aplipjuodami blizgančia folija. Per pirmąjį vaidinimą, kuriame dainavome, aš buvau Zylė. Kartą atsibastęs Senis Šaltis garsiai trinktelėjo lazda, vis kvotė, ar mes klausome tėvelių, galų gale išdalijo raudonus spindinčius saldainius. ‘We cut out snowflakes and made postcards by covering a drawing or photograph with shiny foil. During the first performance, in which we sang, I was the titmouse. The Frosty Old Man who had just arrived rapped loudly with his stick, kept asking whether we listened to our parents, and finally handed out red, shiny candies.’ Prädikative Substantive im Litauischen | 119 ‘I wanted to be Jonas.’ (54) Prof. Vytautas Dičius told a journalist from „Lietuvos rytas“: – I became chairman not because I particularly wanted to, but because no one else wanted to be one. I agreed because someone had to agree. KT ‘Prof. Vytautas Dičius told the “Lietuvos rytas” journalist: “I became chairman not because I particularly wanted to, but because no one else wanted to remain in the position. I agreed, because someone had to agree”.’ Word order is important when the subject and predicative are expressed by nominative common nouns, e.g.: (55) Why did belief that the future could be known and that practical conclusions for the present could be drawn from that knowledge live in the minds of hundreds of generations? If [...] the prophets were frauds, if they simply deceived people, giving them false information about the future—how, then, could people have continued to believe them so many times? KT ‘Why did belief that one can learn about the future and draw practical conclusions for the present from that knowledge live in the minds of hundreds of generations? If [...] the prophets were frauds, if they simply deceived people, giving them false information about the future—how could so many generations have continued to believe them?’ Cf.: (56) Many species of nematodes whose definitive host is fish are localized in the digestive tract. In cases where fish are intermediate or reservoir hosts, nematode larvae parasitize the body cells (cavity), the serous membranes, and the muscles. KT ‘Many species of nematodes, whose definitive hosts are fish, settle in the digestive tract. In cases where fish are intermediate or reservoir hosts, nematode larvae parasitize body cells (cavities), serous membranes, and muscles.’ Following the model of the unmarked SVX word order, one might think that in the first sentence of each of examples (55) and (56), the first-mentioned common nouns (pranašautojai, šeimininkas) are subjects, while the second noun (sukčiai, žuvis) is the predicative. However, as the broader context in (56) shows, the noun žuvis ‘fish’ is the subject, and šeimininkai ‘hosts’ is the predicative. To avoid ambiguity in the syntactic structure, one might expect that sentences of the type mentioned would more often use a formal feature—the case—to distinguish the two syntactic functions. However, as the sparse data show, common nouns functioning as subject and predicative often do not differ in their formal marking (see also sentences (2), (37)–(39)). 2.3.2. A more detailed examination of sentences with marked (inverse) word order suggest that the typical properties of the subject mentioned above can be used to distinguish between the subject and the predicative. On the other hand, it is said that, where formal features are present, morphological criteria are also selected to distinguish— 120 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ —the subject from the predicative by word order, i.e., case marking (Hentschel 1991a: 229–234; 1991b: 304; 1992b). The thesis is put forward that in sentences with marked word order, not only semantic (e.g., concrete vs. general), but also morphological word features13 are used to distinguish between the two syntactic functions, subject and predicative, for example: (57) Nuo 1929 m. firma įsteigė specialų prekybos atstovą. Tuo atstovu Lietuvoje buvau aš. 1929 m. iš Anglijos į Lietuvą atvyko anglų firmos „Vikers Amstrong Limited“ valdininkas Ross. KT ‘Starting in 1929, the company appointed a special commercial agent. I was the agent in Lithuania. I was. In 1929, Ross, director of the English company “Vikers Amstrong Limited,” came to Lithuania from England.’ (58) Actors and actresses tear their hair out, show their bleeding hearts: the director gives them neither Romeo nor Juliet. You, Leonas, were an actor yourself,you must understand, the Grim Reaper is already beckoning to us; ashes are falling from our crotches; we will not make it in time!... And what can I do to help them? Perhaps I too had dreams! KT ‘Actors and actresses tear their hair out, show their bleeding hearts: the director gives them neither Romeo nor Juliet. You, Leon, were an actor yourself; you must understand, the Grim Reaper is already beckoning to us, ashes are falling, we will not make it!... And what can I do to help them? Perhaps I too dreamed?’ (59) To Mintautas, Indulis looks like a beast, a wolf. “I will be a beast! I will destroy the Curonians!” Mintautas replies. KT ‘Mintautas appeared to Indulis as a beast, a wolf. “I shall be a beast! I will gnaw the Curonians to pieces!” Mintautas replied.’ (60) We were all bad students; everything interested us except what we were supposed to study at university. Ona did not want to be that kind of student. If you take something up, do it seriously and see it through to the end. KT ‘We were all bad students; everything interested us except what we were supposed to learn at the university. Ona did not want to be that kind of student. If you take something up, do it seriously and see it through to the end.’ (61) “How long have you done?” “A year and a half, Citizen Commander.” “There, a year and a half. In that time I became a lance corporal, and in twenty-five years I’ll be a general. KT ‘“How much time have you done?” “A year and a half, Citizen Commander.” “A year and a half. During that time I had already become a private, and in 25 years I will be a general.”’ (62) You were the Fountain of Life and filled everything with graces, and generously distributed gifts to everyone without envy, for because of you, O ruler, every good thing was bestowed upon the world. KT 13Cf.: In the English Grammar of the Lithuanian Language (Ambrazas, ed., 1997: 643), the Instrumental used in a sentence of this kind—ir grynas vandenėlis mums medumi buvo ‘and pure water was honey to us’—is explained as marking a temporary state. To the author’s knowledge, the influence of word order on the choice of case has not been taken into account in Lithuanian linguistics in discussions of predicative nouns. Prädikative Substantive im Litauischen | 121 ‘You were the water of life and filled everything with grace, and you shared gifts abundantly with everyone, without envy, for through you, O Lord, all the good of the world was bestowed.’ As can be seen from sentences (57)–(60), the Instrumental is chosen to highlight the noun used predicatively, notwithstanding the fact that the subject is prototypical with regard to its categorical properties. The same can be said of examples in which the prototypical subject is understood to be present (see (61)–(62)). That is, in the latter cases, the use of the Instrumental is attributable to the non-prototypical—that is, non-initial—position of the subject in the sentence. It goes without saying that in sentences with marked word order and a prototypical subject, the Nominative is also used to express the predicative, although somewhat less frequently, e.g.: (63) Vadinsim tave „A-nu-ka“, kaip visų jauniausią mūsų brolijos narį. O jei pyksi, vadinsim „klounu“, ne artistu. Tu pažiūrėk į Zefą. Jis tikras artistas buvo. O tu – juokingas. Sunku tau su Zuza bus. KT ‘We will call you Anuka, as the youngest member of our brotherhood. And if you get angry, we will call you a clown, not an artist. Look at Zefas. He was a real artist. And you are ridiculous. It will be hard for you with Zuza.’ If, in sentences with marked word order, the subject is less prototypical with regard to its categorical properties (as in the case of unmarked word order), then the use of the Instrumental to express the predicative becomes even more likely. The use of the Instrumental in the sentence would then be connected not only with marked word order, but also with the non-prototypical form of expression of the subject (cf. sentence (55)) (for a more detailed discussion, see Hentschel 1993a: 106). On the other hand, it has already been noted that a non-prototypical subject in SVX sentences has no decisive influence on case choice: in SVX sentences, the Nominative of the predicative noun is normally used with both prototypical and non-prototypical subjects. Thus, the more frequent use of the Instrumental in sentences with marked word order and a subject that is non-prototypical with respect to categorical properties must be explained by the marked word order, e.g.: (64) Psichoanalitinės interpretacijos pagrindas – falinės reikšmės atradimas darbo įrankiuose, meno kūriniuose, pažinimo vienetuose, šventuose objektuose. Pirmuoju malonumų objektu, tapusiu reikšmingu betarpiško pasitenkinimo apribojimo dėka, buvo objektas visada esantis po ranka, t. y. tavo paties kūnas. KT ‘The basis of psychoanalytic interpretation is the discovery of phallic meaning in tools, works of art, units of knowledge, and sacred objects. The first object of pleasure, which became significant through the restriction of immediate gratification, was the object that was always at hand, i.e. your own body.’ 122 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ (65) Fish can be final, intermediate, or reservoir hosts. Waterfowl or aquatic mammals are the final hosts of many nematodes. KT14 ‘Fish can be final, intermediate, or reservoir hosts. The final hosts of a variety of nematodes are waterfowl or aquatic mammals.’ By generalizing the limited data (see Table 5), one can state that word order in the sentence has a decisive influence on the choice of case: with unmarked word order, the nominative is usually used, whereas the instrumental is more common in sentences with marked word order. In the latter case, the instrumental of the noun makes it easier to distinguish the subject from the predicative. On the other hand, precisely in cases where this is relevant—that is, when the subject is less prototypical with respect to its categorical properties—the nominative is not uncommon. In such cases, only context helps distinguish the two syntactic functions, subject and predicative. TABLE 5. CASE MARKING OF THE PREDICATIVELY USED NOUN IN SIMPLE PREDICATIVE SENTENCES WITH MARKED WORD ORDER Model of marked word order | Case | Number of sentences (n) | Nominative | Instrumental | XVS | 4 | 7 | 11 | 36% | 64% | ØXV15 | 29 | 60 | 89 | 33% | 67% | XSV | 3 | 6 | 9 | 33% | 67% | SXV | 8 | 9 | 17 | 47% | 53% | VSX | 5 | 2 | 7 | 71% | 29% | Total: | 49 | 85 | 134 | 37% | 63% 14 Cf. 2.1.1. and footnote 7. 15 Ø here refers to the null subject in cases where pro-drop occurs. Prädikative Substantive im Litauischen | 123 3. CONCLUDING REMARKS (i) After a brief discussion of several semantic and formal criteria that may influence the case of the predicative noun, it becomes clear that there is no reason to assume that, in contemporary Lithuanian, case use is determined by the opposition temporary / permanent: both a permanent and a temporary state can be marked by the nominative and instrumental of the predicative noun. (ii) It should not be overlooked that the tendencies in the use of the nominative and instrumental are influenced to some extent by the opposition animate / inanimate and by whether or not the predicative noun denotes an occupation (or another activity). Instrumental tends to be used with predicative nouns denoting inanimate things, professions, or other activities. (iii) The use of inflected forms of the copula büti and the modality they express also influence case use. Instrumental use increases along the hierarchies present < past < future < subjunctive < imperative and real/irrealis. (iv) The case of the predicative noun is chosen depending on sentence structure: the instrumental is more frequent in sentences with non-finite forms of the copula. (v) Categorical subject properties do not influence case choice, either in sentences with marked or unmarked word order. The non-prototypical position of the subject in the sentence has a decisive influence on the case of the noun. There is a tendency to use the instrumental in sentences with marked word order. (vi) In formally marked sentences (simple vs. complex sentence, neutral word order vs. inverse word order), the instrumental tends to be used as a diacritic marker to distinguish two syntactic functions—subject vs. predicative. In sentences that are unmarked from a formal point of view, the nominative of the predicative noun is used more frequently. QUELLEN KT – Textkorpus der litauischen Gegenwartssprache des Zentrums für Computerlinguistik, Universität Vytautas Magnus, Kaunas. LITERATUR Ambrazas, V., Red., 1996: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Ambrazas, V., ed., 1997: Lithuanian Grammar, Vilnius: Baltos lankos. Balkevičius, J. 1963: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos sintaksė, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. Balkevičius, J. 1998: Lietuvių kalbos predikatinių konstrukcijų sintaksė, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Bogusławski, A. 2001: Über Nominativ-Instrumental-Variation im Polnischen. Boeder, W., Hentschel, G. (Hg.), Variierende Markierungen von Nominalgruppen in Sprachen unterschiedlicher Typs, Oldenburg: Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem der Universität Oldenburg (Studia Slavica Oldenburgensia, 4), 101–133. 124 | Loreta Semėnienė Comrie, B. 1989: Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Syntax and Morphology, Cambridge: Basil Blackwell. Dik, S. C. 1989: The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: The Structure of the Clause, Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Givón, T. 1984, 1990: Syntax. A functional-typological introduction. Vol. 1, 2. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hentschel, G. 1991a: Der prädikative Instrumental beim russischen Substantiv als redundantes Signal in Kopulasätzen. Grochowski, M., Weiss, D. (ed.), Words are Physicians for an Ailing Mind, München: Verlag Otto Sagner, 221–235. Hentschel, G. 1991b: Drei Strategien zur Verdeutlichung der Subjektrolle in russischen Sätzen: Zu Variation und Wandel im Russischen und zur typologischen Differenzierung slavischer Sprachen. Klein, E., Duteil, F. P., Wagner, K. H. (Hg.), Betriebslinguistik und Linguistikbetrieb, Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 297–309. Hentschel, G. 1992a: Konstanten der Kasusvariation. Zum Nominativ-Instrumental- und Akkusativ-Genitiv-Wechsel im Russischen. Habilitationsschrift. Göttingen (Manuskript). Hentschel, G. 1992b: Zum Einfluß der Konstituentenfolge auf die Kasuswahl im Russischen. Lingua 87, 231–255. Hentschel, G. 1993a: Haben Kasus Bedeutungen oder sind sie eine diakritische Kategorie? Zeitschrift für Slavische Philologie 43 (1), 97–112. Hentschel, G. 1993b: Zur Kasusvariation des prädikativen Substantivs. Syntaktischer Wandel im Polnischen des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts. Hentschel, G., Laskowski, R. (ed.), Studies in Polish Morphology and Syntax, München: Verlag Otto Sagner, 259–292. Hentschel, G. 1994: Zur Verbreitung des prädikativen Instrumentals im Polnischen des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts. Polonica 16, 181–191. Hentschel, G. 1999: Die grammatischen Kategorien des Substantivs unter funktionalem Aspekt. Jachnow, H. (Hg.), Handbuch der sprachwissenschaftlichen Russistik und ihrer Grenzdisziplinen, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 243–272. Hentschel, G. 2001: On defining “variable marking” or “marking variation with nominal groups”. Boeder, W., Hentschel, G. (Hg.), Variierende Markierungen von Nominalgruppen in Sprachen unterschiedlichen Typs, Oldenburg: Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem der Universität Oldenburg (Studia Slavica Oldenburgensia, 4), 15–28. Holvoet, A., Judžentis, A. 2003: Sudėtinio prijungiamojo sakinio aprašymo pagrindai. Holvoet, A., Judžentis, A., red., Sintaksinių ryšių tyrimai, Vilnius, Lietuvių kalbos institutas (Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai, 1), 115–172. Jablonskis, J. 1957: Rinktiniai raštai 1, kompiliert von J. Palionis, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. Jakobson, R. 1971: Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen Kasus. Selected Writing II, The Hague, Paris: Mouton, 23–71. Kniūkšta, P., Hg., 2000: Kanceliarinės kalbos patarimai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Labutis, V. 1998: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Lyons, J. 1977: Semantics. Vol. 2, Cambridge: University Press. Miliūnaitė, R., Hg., 2003: Kalbos patarimai, Bd. 2: Sintaksė, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Moser, N. 1994: Der prädikative Instrumental. Aus der historischen Syntax des Nordostslavischen. Von den Anfängen bis zur Petrinischen Epoche, Frankfurt a. M. usw.: Peter Lang. Palionis, J. 1995: Lietuvių rašomosios kalbos istorija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Palmer, F. R. 1999: Mood and Modality: Further Developments. Brown, K., Miller, J. (eds.), Concise Encyclopedia of Grammatical Categories, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 235–239. Paulauskienė, A. 1994: Lietuvių kalbos morfologija: Paskaitos lituanistams, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Paulauskienė, A. 2001: Lietuvių kalbos kultūra, Kaunas: Technologija. Prädikative Substantive im Litauischen | 125 Pinkster, H. 1988: Lateinische Syntax und Semantik, Tübingen: Francke. Pupkis, A., Hg., 1985: Kalbos praktikos patarimai, Vilnius: Mokslas. Rothstein, R. A. 1986: Equation vs. Ascription: The Nominative/Instrumental Opposition in West Slavic. Brecht, R. D., Levine, S. (eds.), Case in Slavic, Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers, 312–322. Schaller, H. W. 1975: Das Prädikatsnomen im Russischen. Eine beschreibendhistorische Untersuchung, Köln: Böhlau. (Slavistische Forschungen, 18.) Sirtautas, V., Grenda, Č. 1988: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė, Vilnius: Mokslas. Stassen, L. 2001: Nonverbal predication in the Circum-Baltic languages. Dahl, Ö., Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (eds.), Circum-Baltic Languages, Vol. 2: Grammar and Typology, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins (Studies in Language Companion Series, 55), 569–590. Šukys, J. 1984: Linksnių ir prielinksnių vartojimas, Kaunas: Šviesa. Šukys, J. 1998: Lietuvių kalbos linksniai ir prielinksniai: vartosena ir normos, Kaunas: Šviesa. Ulvy das, K., Ambrazas, V., Valeckienė, A., Red., 1976: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 3, Vilnius: Mokslas. Valeckienė, A. 1998: Funkcinė lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Valiulytė, E. 1992: Iš sintaksinės sinonimikos. Lituanistica 4 (12), 50–55. Wierzbicka, A. 1980: The Case for Surface Case, Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers. Loreta Semėnienė Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, 10308 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected] Gauta 2004 04 07