Linksnių atrakcija lyginamosiose konstrukcijose

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLVIII (2003), 1-17 The paper deals with the case marking of nouns in reduced Lietuvių kalbos institutas comparative clauses in Lithuanian. A nominative, expected in a reduced comparative clause on the grounds of its subject function in the corresponding full comparative clause (as in Reikia gyventi kaip drugelis instead of Reikia gyventi (taip), kaip gyvena drugelis) is often optionally replaced with an obligue case, as the noun copies the case marking of the matrix clause noun for which it acts as a standard of comparison. This occurs (i) in adverbial comparative clauses introduced by (taip), kaip, e.g., Reikia gyventi kaip drugeliui instad of Reikia gyventi kaip drugelis, and (ii) in adjectival comparative clauses of the type (toks), kaip, e.g., Malonu gauti tokias dovanas kaip žaislus instead of Malonu gauti tokias dovanas kaip žaislai. This case attraction appears to be restrained by two factors: (i) an animacy hierarchy (pronouns and proper names rarely undergo attraction), and (ii) a case hierarchy (the nominative is often replaced with an accusative, less freguently with a genitive or dative, and virtually never with an instrumental). INTRODUCTION The Academic Grammar of Lithuanian Language and the Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian Language distinguish comparative constructions, comparative sentences and comparative sentences. The grammar does not give a definition of any of these terms (see. Ulvydas, red., 1976: 653, 893; Ambrazas, ed., 1996: 634, 690), and comparative constructions are not discussed separately. The distinction between these concepts is determined on the basis of the grammatical structure: comparative constructions are made up of prepositions with nouns, for example: heavier than a stone, like a father, best of all. In their grammatical structure, comparative expressions are close to comparative sentences: sentences have a spoken pronoun, while comparative expressions do not have a spoken pronoun. Comparative phrases are like reduced comparative sentences — repetitive or easily understood information is omitted, i.e. the personified form of the verb is omitted, e.g.: (1) Believe, your troubles will pass like night. Instead of using the verb to pass twice (Believe, your troubles will pass as the night passes), it is no longer used in the comparative sentence. According to the terminology of the present-day Lithuanian grammar, the comparative subjunctive sentence in such cases becomes oO 4 ~] LS « tr - The problem of the attraction of the funny was raised by Prof. Axel Holvocht. It helped to formulate the basic conditions of the attraction of the funnels, to determine the types of comparative constructions, to formulate conclusions. I am very grateful to him for that. 2 | VESLAVA ČIŽIK comparative sentence —the main difference, as already mentioned, is the presence or absence of the predicate (if the predicate is expressed — it is a comparative sub-sentence, if there could be some difference in meaning between the “comparative sentence” and the “comparative phrase” (cf. “but in their meaning they neišreikštas — lyginamasis posakis). Gramatikų autorių formuluotės implikuoja, kad sometimes almost do not differ”, Ambrazas, ed., 1996: 634), but it is not specified what it could be, so the existence of a difference in meaning should be considered unproven for the time being. The grammar of the contemporary Lithuanian language distinguishes between comparative sentences of quality, quantity and difference and comparative sentences of quality, quantity, relation and difference, i.e. in both cases the same semantic types are distinguished (Ambrazas, ed., 1996: 690). In various ways, “comparative sentences” can be considered reduced comparative sentences, but since such a concept is unusual in the Lithuanian grammar tradition, in this article such constructions as as night in the sentence Tavo vargai praeis kaip naktis will not be called comparative sentences, but comparative constructions. In addition, in the Lithuanian language encyclopedia, the comparative phrase is described as a “comparative construction” (Morkūnas, Ambrazas, ed., 1999: 379). The comparative constructions discussed here consist of a comparative conjunction as well as a certain word form, except for the personified form of the verb. This word forms the core of the comparative construction and is called its main word. When the personifying form of the verb is used in each comparative construction, it becomes a comparative sentence. Although the verb is not expressed in the comparative construction itself, it determines the form of other words used in the construction, e.g. : (2) I bear the name of Lithuania as the sun in my hands. In this sentence, the forms of the adjective sun and the pronoun hands are decisive for the syntactic characteristics of the verb to carry: I have no name, as I carry the sun in my hands, although the verb is not expressed in the comparative construction itself. In the Lithuanian grammar it is written: “If the principal word of a comparative sentence is conjugated, it is combined with the conjugated word that is the substantive or adjective of the sentence” (Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 657). The following examples are given: (3) Now disaster has struck like thunder. (4) I loved you as my own child. It is stated that "the comparative phrase like thunder is cast to the verb hit, but its main word thunder is combined in a syllable with the noun nelaimė that is the factor of the sentence. In the sentence Aš tave mylėjau kaip ir savo vaiką, the principal word of the comparative phrase vaiką is combined with the complement pronoun tave“ (Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 657). This interpretation of grammar is not accurate. Grammar does not mention the cases where there is no alignment, e.g.: (5) We do not need a man like John. 3 Based on the rule formulated in grammar, we would expect: We do not need a man like John. But such use is not observed, so we have no reason to say that the comparative word is combined with the verb or complement of the sentence, at least to say that the combination is the main factor determining the form of the comparative word. The fact that the main word is conjugated does not determine the conjugation, it is not the basic principle of conjugation. Therefore, the question arises as to what actually determines or influences the use of a particular verb. The determining, i.e. the main factor, is the semantic function of the principal word of the comparative construction. Let's compare the sentences: (6) The Virgin blooms like a rose. (7) And Vytukas loved him as his friend. In the first sentence, the principal word rose serves as the subject, and in the second sentence, the principal word friend serves as the object. You can determine the function of a noun by reconstructing the whole comparative sentence: (8) The Virgin blooms like a rose. (9) And Vytukas loved him as he loved his friend. If we do not consider reduced variants like rose, like my friend, as sentences, then we cannot define the functions of nouns in terms of sentence parts. We can only talk about the SEMANTICAL FUNCTION preserved in the comparative construction. In general, it can be defined as the function of the subject or the object, depending on whether the noun serves as a factor or an adjective (direct or indirect) in the comparative sentence in question. The SEMANTICAL FUNCTION in the comparative construction corresponds to the SYNTACTICAL FUNCTION in the comparative sentence. If the noun performs the function of the subject, then we would expect the denominator, if the object other indirect pronouns. — However, there are sentences in which the form of the comparative construction is adapted to a certain form of the noun of the main sentence, although their semantic functions do not coincide, e.g. : (10) The water was cold, and he had to catch the air like a fish. If we reconstruct the comparative sentence (to catch the air as a fish does), we would see that the main word of the construction performs the function of the subject, so we would have ti a pronoun: (11) The water was cold, and he had to catch the air like a fish. In this case, we are dealing with case attraction or case assimilation. Attraction is the harmonization of two word forms that are not connected by a direct syntactic connection (Matthews 1997: 29). In the given sentence, the comparative construction of the main word „fišvytei“ is syntactically aligned with the main sentence 4 | VESLAVA ČIŽIK logical subject to him. There is a certain combination with a vowel, but such cases cannot be called true combination, since the use of such a term implies a certain syntactic relationship: according to existing grammar, combination is “the choice of the morphological form (vowel, number, gender) of the dependent word according to the main word” (Ambrazas, ed., 1996: 480). When we talk about combination, we should assign to one of the nouns the term of the main word, and to the other the term of the subordinate word. But there is no direct connection between the noun of the main sentence and the noun of the comparative construction. In addition, conjugation is not the norm, but only one of the possibilities, because more often sentences are used in which the forms of nouns are not compatible. Therefore, in such cases, it would be more appropriate to talk about the attraction of funny people, rather than about matching. This article attempted to find out when such cases of funny attraction occur. 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE EXPERIMENT In December 2002, thirty students of the first year of the Faculty of International Relations of Vilnius University were interviewed (age — 18-20 years). They came from Vilnius, Panevėžys, Šiauliai, Klaipėda, Joniškis, Alytus, Marijampolė. Students were given twice questionnaires with sentences in which it was possible to expect funny attractions (most of the sentences are invented; in the article there will be some examples from Lithuanian grammar, such sentences will have a reference; there will be some examples found in VDU textbook). From the two forms of nouns presented, students had to choose one of the correct forms or both if they thought they could be used. In both cases, various sentences were presented (a total of 75 different sentences; 2250 responses were received- ), operating both with more general categories (belonging to a certain part of the language) and with subcategories (genus, number): the aim was to determine whether it is important which part of the language (e.g.: pronoun, actual / general noun), what categorical characteristics (e.g.: alive / dead, numerable / unnumerable, singular / plural) nouns are used as the main words of comparative constructions (see more details below). Attraction of adjectives occurs only in comparative constructions, therefore comparative sentences were not studied, they were operated in order to highlight the semantic functions of the main words of comparative constructions, to show why one or another form of nouns is used. Only after reconstructing the whole comparative sentence, using the personifying form of the verb, it was possible to understand the semantic functions of the main words of comparative constructions. In this article comparative constructions are divided into certain groups according to syntactic functions in the main sentence, according to semantic functions of the noun in the comparative construction itself, 0 these groups in turn are divided into certain types according to: 1) belonging to a certain part of the sentence, 2) belonging to a certain category or subcategory. It depends on the type whether a funny attraction is possible or not. To say "syllabic attraction does not apply" means that no one of the people surveyed used the sentence with attraction or that sentence was used by only one person (this would make up about 296 of all sentences of a certain type and is considered an error). If the attraction is applied, we can talk about optional attraction (sentences with attraction make up less than half of all sentences of a certain type) LINKSNI ATRAKCJA | 5 and the dominant attraction (sentences with attraction make up more than half of all sentences of a certain type). 3. TYPES OF REFERENCE CONSTRUCTIONS According to the syntactic function of comparative constructions, two types are distinguished: a) comparative constructions, which perform the function of circumstance of manner (i.e., constructions with the conjunction as and the answering word so), e.g.: (12) Romas tave my sūnu. [[so [as a son)) loves) b) comparative constructions, which perform the function of a testament (i.e. constructions with a conjunction like the answering word toks, -ia), e.g.: (13) Always nice to receive such gifts as toys. [[such [as toys]) gifts) The adverb so and the pronoun such, -ia can be omitted. If we reproduce the complete comparative sentence, we would see that the function of the principal word of the first type of comparative constructions can be twofold: either object or subject, e.g. : (14) Rome loves you like a son. = Rom loves you like a beloved son. (15) Why should we be angry as some unreasonable creatures? = Why should we be angry, as some insane creatures are angry. Comparative constructs that perform the function of a testament all reflect one type: a comparative construct such as X reflects the comparative sentence such as X is. The principal word of a comparative construction always performs the function of the subject (it corresponds to the function of the comparative sentence factor), e.g.: (16) It is always pleasant to receive gifts such as toys. = It is always nice to receive gifts like toys. From the examples presented, it is clear that the attraction of verbs is characteristic of such sentences as (15) and (16), when the principal word of the comparative construction, despite the function of the subject performed, acquires the form of an indirect verb that the word of the main sentence has, in relation to which the principal word of the comparative construction performs the function of the standard of comparison. Attraction is not characteristic of sentences like (14), because the verb form of the main word used in them reflects the object function of this word in the comparative sentence. Thus, the principle of verb attraction can be specified as the use of an indirect verb instead of a comparative semantic construct. 6 | VESLAVA ČIŽIK expected direct participle based on the functional function. One special case will be discussed later, when in such sentences as (14) one indirect verb (adjective) is replaced by another indirect verb (pronoun) due to the influence of the negation. 4. LINKSNIŲ ATRAKCIJOS TIPAI 4.1. Firstly, the cases where the comparative construction in the sentence is a circumstance of the way are discussed, i.e. the cases illustrated by the examples (14) and (15) above. 4.1.1. When the function of the noun of the comparative construction is an object, the verb attraction cannot exist in principle. In this type of sentences, the form of the substantive of the comparative construction coincides with a certain form of the noun of the main sentence, but not because of attraction, but because the forms of both nouns are conditioned by the same valency of the verb and perform the same object function: the originator: (17) I will pity you as mothers. Ulvydas, red. (1976: 664) (Sruoga). He is known as the father of the 18th-century sculptor (and sculptor of the 19th-century) Michelangelo. Ulvydas, red. (1976: 523) (Mykolaitis- -Putinas). cf. he was afraid of him, as the fire-man was afraid: (19) I advise as a friend. Ulvydas, red. (1976: 523) (Sruoga). cf. advice, as I advice a friend (20) She only needs to touch with her finger —and everything is done like a real lady. Ulvydas, red. (1976: 523) (Simonaitytė). 21) He carried her up the hill over the woods like a down. Ulvydas, red. (1976: 664) (Cvirka). plg. carried it, as they carried down (22) Deceiving you like little babies. Ulvydas, red. (1976: 664) (Sruoga). 23) Mary was overwhelmed with tears as if she were burning with fire. 1976. pp. 664. (in German). (24) In the world of Adam there was no more faithfulness, on which one could rely as a brick. 1976. pp. 665. (in French). In all these cases, the noun retains the same object verb, which is determined by the verb used in the main sentence and omitted in the subordinate sentence. The verb of the comparative construction is not conditioned by the combination with a certain noun of the main sentence. It is possible to find only one case where the choice of the syllable is influenced by the word of the main sentence, in relation to which the main word of the construction goes as the comparison standard. The tail of the equalizing structure can be replaced by the jeigu pagrindinio sakinio veiksmažodis yra paneigtas, pvz.: LINKSNIŲ ATRAKCIJA | 7 (25) Paul loves nothing more than chocolate. plg. does not love anything like chocolate (26) Physics teacher does not love anything like me. plg. nikoho nebara, ako bara mne (27) Romas respects nothing more than friends. plg. she respects nothing as much as she respects her friends (28) She likes nothing more than borscht. This is a very popular attraction in the area, and it is also used for the construction of bridges and other structures. :: (29) Anna does not meet anyone as often as Peter. "wr — (31) Saul likes nothing like cakes. Sentences with attraction comprise 45.6% and sentences without attraction — 54.4%. The influence of the categorical properties of the noun was not observed — the attraction of syllables is possible with both nouns, and with actual, and with general nouns (such properties as number, living or inanimate object are not affected). In this case, one objective verb is replaced by another objective verb. In this way, this type of attraction differs from most types of attraction, where the objective verbe replaces the subjective verbe. 4.1.2. We will also discuss the cases when the noun of the comparative construction performs the function of the subject. There are several types. 4.1.2.1. The function of the comparative construction is the circumstance of the type, depending on the personified verb. This type of sentences do not have the attraction of adjectives, because the noun of the main sentence acts as a factor and has the form of a nominative, e.g. : (32) He behaves like a little child. Ulvydas, red. (1976: 657). plg. 33 I will sow and reap myself, and I will suffer with men, as my fathers did. Ulvydas, red. (1976: 656). plg. I will suffer, as my ancestors suffered 4.1.2.2. The function of the comparative construction—the circumstance of the type, depending on the factorial interaction. This type of sentence is characterized by attraction. The comparative construction describes the subject of the main sentence, which passes as the subject of the sentence, e.g. : (34) There was nothing left but to tie it up like a hedgehog ball. į plg. to tie, as a hedgehog ties (35) The losers had no choice but to run away like coyotes. plg. run away, like coyotes run away 8 | VESLAVA ČIŽIK (36) It is a small honor to disappear like a bubble of water. Ulvydas, red. (1976: 665) (Cvirka). In this case, the comparative constructions correspond to comparative sentences with the personified forms of the verb. If the verb is omitted, the principal word of the comparative construction enters the impersonal environment of the main sentence and, due to its influence, acquires the form of the logical subject characteristic of impersonal communication constructions — the noun. The form of this verb is jjednodušší, although the noun is also used, e.g. : 37) If the dog catches the child, it is necessary to roll the ball as soon as possible, like a hedgehog, and pargrt gr p lie still. Such sentences belong to sentences with dominant attraction (sentences with attraction make up 76.7%, and sentences without attraction — 23.3%). 4.1.2.3. The function of the comparative construction is the circumstance of the type depending on the complement. A comparative phrase describes a complement-relative verb. There are several subtypes, depending on what the principal word of the comparative construction is correlative to: a) the implied subject of the communication is correlative to the factor of the main sentence (e.g. he promised to sing = he promised that (he) would sing). From the point of view of fun usage, this type is not different from the case discussed earlier (4.1.2.1), where the function of the comparative construction is a circumstance of the type, depending on the personified verb (sentences (32), (33)), e.g.: (38) He promised to sing like a lazy bird. plg. to sing like a bird sings b) the implied subject of the communication is correferential to the complement of the main sentence – the logical subject (e.g., he needs to live = he needs to live). From the point of view of enjoyable use, this type is no different from the cases where the circumstance of the way depends on the communicative factor (4.1.2.2), e.g.: (39) I am not saying that you have to live like a butterfly all your life — you will not succeed if you have a family, children and have to take care of them. In this case, the attraction of a linger is usual. c) the implied subject of the communication is correferential to the direct complement of the main sentence (e.g.: taught her to sing, i.e. made her learn to sing), e.g. : (40) She ją learned to sing like a bird. plg. sing, as sings a bird, as sings a | 9 This type of sentences is also characterized by the prevailing attraction of phrases (sentences with attraction comprise 58,796, and sentences without attraction — 41,396). As can be seen from the examples, the syntactic structure of the main sentence has a major influence on the choice of the verb. If the structure of the main sentence is impersonal and the comparative construction goes through the circumstance of the manner, which describes the common noun used in this impersonal construction, then there is a strong tendency to replace the subject nominative with the subject noun characteristic of impersonal constructions. If the construction of the main sentence is personal (although the comparative construction is not a circumstance of the personified verb form, 0 is dependent on it), the nominative is retained. In addition, there are cases where the comparative construction depends on the complement of the main sentence. In this case, the attraction of the phrases can differentiate between two syntactic interpretations. The sentence (41), without attraction, has two syntactic and semantic interpretations, while the sentence (42) with attraction has only one: (41) He taught her to sing like a bird. (i) ‘I can sing it like a swallow sings’. (ii) ‘I can sing it like a butterfly would have learned’. (42) Taught her to sing like a bird. “They taught her to sing like a bird sings.” It should be assumed that the verb attraction in this case has a functional motivation: it indicates that the comparative construction is related to the communicative sing, and not to the main verb taught. 4.1.2.4. The function of the comparative construction is a circumstance of the type depending on the participant. This type of sentence is also characterized by the predominant attraction of verbs (60.6% of sentences with attraction and 39.4% of sentences without attraction). The comparative construction describes the divisor, e.g.: 43) When she sang like a leaf, everyone stopped singing. P 8! bird, as sings a bird, as sings a bird, as sings a bird, as sings a bird, as sings a bird, as sings a bird, as sings a bird, as sings a bird, as sings a bird, as sings a bird, as sings a bird, as sings a bird, as sings a bird, as sings a bird, as sings a bird, as sings a bird. 4.2 It is more difficult to identify the factors that determine the attraction of phrases when the comparative construction performs the function of a certificate. Such are the comparative constructions with the conjunction as with the answering word toks, -ia. As already mentioned, the comparative constructions of this function cannot be classified according to the semantic functions of the basic words, because they all perform only one function – the subject function. Since all comparative constructions of this type are nouns, in this case the construction used in the main sentence (personal or impersonal, etc.) cannot have a direct influence, but it can have an indirect influence, since the structure of the main sentence determines the choice of the noun's vowel form. In order to determine the influence of the verb, the constructs were divided according to the verb, which, after applying the attraction, should change the noun: 16 | VESLAVA ČIŽIK niai with the finalis: the tendency of this verb to apply attraction is so strong that it overcomes the factors that inhibit attraction. According to the survey, the tendency to attract is strongest in the case of the denominator, i.e. when the denominator should be replaced by the denominator after applying the attraction rule. The weakest tendency is in the case of the subjunctive (the subjunctive almost never replaces the nominative- ), and the pronoun and the servile occupy an intermediate position. Figure 2 shows two hierarchies for determining the probability of an attraction: one based on vitality, the other based on the verb. The higher a word is in each of these hierarchies, the lower the probability of attraction. The two types of factors can intersect, for example, in the case of the final, the attraction applies to both pronouns and nouns: SCHEMA II. PROBABILITIES OF ATTRACTIONALITY BY HIERARCHY OF VITALITY AND BY LINKS attractions pronouns attraction auxiliary probability precisely probability noun and by nouns by adjective vitality general verb final V. nouns V The results of the study suggest that the possibility of attraction is determined not only by vitality, but also by HIERARCHY OF LINKS. This hierarchy was formulated by Keenan and Comrie (1977), but initially it was applied to sentence parts (grammatical functions) rather than to syllable forms. Later, the hierarchies of the funnier forms themselves were also used (e.g., Pittner 1991). The case hierarchy is to be understood as a hierarchy that determines the probability that a noun is covered by a certain syntactic rule, depending on its case form, or on the case form it may acquire by applying the said rule. The higher a verb is in the verb hierarchy, the easier it is for nouns that have the form of that verb to be subjected to certain syntactic operations, or the easier it is for nouns to acquire the form of that verb if those syntactic operations are applied. Pittner provides the following hierarchy for German: noun < suffix < indirect verbs (noun, adjective, prepositional compounds) (Pittner 1991: 47). The functional motivation of the link hierarchy may be related to Jakobson’s proposed link arrangement model: in Jakobson’s scheme, link occupying a peripheral position (e.g., a servant) could occupy lower positions in the link hierarchy (see Jakobson 1984). According to the survey data, the hierarchy of lingers shows the same distribution of lingers, but due to limited material it was not possible to determine the order in which the nobleman and the nobleman lingers should go in this hierarchy; we can represent it as follows: LINKSNIŲ ATRAKCIJA | 17 SCHEME III. The rules of attraction can be formulated as follows: (1) the higher a word is in the kilmininkas hierarchy of verbs, the more easily it is accessible as a starting point for the attraction mechanism; in fact, only two pronouns are replaced by other pronouns in the case of an attraction: the nominative and the adjective. Both are replaced by the syllables below in the hierarchy; (ii) the higher a word is in the hierarchy of links, the easier it can be entered as an attraction result (target); as mentioned above, the nominative is usually replaced by the adjective, rarely (if at all possible) by the noun; the intermediate position is occupied by the originator and the beneficiary; their position in the hierarchy is not yet clear, at least the research does not give grounds to assign these verbs different positions in the hierarchy. A much larger survey would be able to adjust and refine these results, more accurately determine the position of the nobleman and the benefactor in the hierarchy of the lingers, perhaps it would be possible to determine other factors of lingers attraction. LITERATURE AMBRAZAS, V., ed. 1996: Grammar of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. ANDERSON, S. R. 1985: Inflectional morphology. Shopen, T., ed., Language Typology and Syntactic Description 3. Grammatical categories and the lexicon, Cambridge University Press, 151—201. JAKOBSON, R. 1984: Contribution to the general theory of case: general meaning of the Russian cases. Russian and Slavic Grammar. Studies 1931-1981. Edited by L. R. Waugh and M. Halle, Berlin, New York, Amsterdam: Mouton Publishers (Janua Linguarum, Series Maior, 106), 59-103. KAVALIONAITE, G. 2001: Adesyvas in Chylinski's New Testament Translation. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 45, 93-111. KEENAN, E. L., CoMRIE, B. 1977: Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8 (1), 63-99. MATTHEWS, P. H. 1997: Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, Oxford: University Press. MORKUNAS, K., AMBRAZAS, V. ed. 1999: Encyclopedia of Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedias Publishing. PITTNER, K. 1991: Free Relative Seats and the Case Hierarchy. Feldbusch, E., ed., New Questions of Linguistics, Tübingen: Niemeyer, 341-347. ULvypas, K., red. 1976: Lithuanian Grammar 3. Syntax, Vilnius: Mintis. Veslava Cizik Received 2003 03 25 Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, 2055 Vilnius, Lithuania wieslawa- (@ mail.lt