Būdvardžio derinimas ir būdvardžio bevardės giminės problema

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLVIII (2003), 119-136 The article deals with the forms traditionally described in Lithuanian grammar as ‘neuter’ forms of the adjective. This problem is considered in connection with the broader issue of the gender agreement of adjectives. Whereas in traditional Lithuanian grammar agreement is viewed as one of the types of syntactic relationship, it is here described as a formal marker of syntactic relationship. The distinction between controller gender and target gender (as formulated by Corbett) is introduced. The gender system is different for (a) substantivized adjectives, which are marked for animacy vs. inanimacy, with a further differentiation between masculine and feminine for animates (the forms described as neuter are actually marked as inanimate), and (b) non-substantivized adjectives, whose gender forms are determined by agreement. The latter distinguish three target genders, the neuter form being used to agree with inanimate substantivized adjectives and inanimate pronouns as agreement controllers, but also as default agreement forms in those cases where the position of the controller is occupied by a word not marked for gender. The Lithuanian gender system can thus be described as one with three target genders and three controller genders, though neuter controllers are relatively rare. 0. INTRODUCTION 0.1. In Lithuanian linguistics, there are several concepts of 'adjective genitive forms'. Some authors (Ulvydas, ed., 1965: 478; Jakaitienė, Laigonaitė, Paulauskienė 1976: 64; Valeckienė 1984; Tekorienė 1990; Paulauskienė 1994: 211; Ambrazas, ed., 1994: 168; Ambrazas, ed., 1997: 134 and others) distinguish such forms of adjectives from adjectives, others (Kazlauskas 1968: 324, Girdenis, Žulys 1973: 208, Paulauskienė 1983: 209 and others) consider them adverbs, and others — a separate category (Musteikis 1972: 241-249). There is currently no universally established and accepted concept of the traditionally called adjective genitive forms, and there is a debate about the place of these forms in the grammatical classification of words. * I would like to thank Prof. Axel Holvoet for his valuable comments and help in preparing this article. The author is also grateful to Prof. G. G. Corbett, with whom some theoretical problems of the description of the adjective genus system of the Lithuanian language were discussed. The main statements of the article were discussed at the theoretical seminar held at the Grammar Department of the Lithuanian Language Institute on December 17, 2002. In the opinion of Terje Mathiassen (1996: 62), from a synchronic point of view, such forms would be better known as invariant forms. 120 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ 1. Adjectives in the form of adjectives INTERPRETATION IN LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE GRAMMATICS 1.1 As stated in the academic Lithuanian Grammar (Ulvydas, ed., 1965: 478), Contemporary Lithuanian Grammar (Ambrazas, ed., 1994: 168) and in the English language Lithuanian Grammar (Ambrazas, ed., 1997: 134) (the author of the adjective section — Adelė Valeckienė), Lithuanian adjectives have three gender forms: masculine, feminine and bevardés- ®. In the above-mentioned grammar, the genitive forms of the adjective are opposed to the masculine and feminine forms according to their syntactic functions and the nature of their meaning. There is a contrast of generalized/ungeneralized property between the adjective- 's non-generalized genus and the adjective- 's masculine and feminine forms. In the grammar of contemporary Lithuanian language (Ambrazas, ed., 1994: 169) it is stated that unlike the masculine and feminine gender forms of the adjective, which denote a characteristic associated with a certain object, the genitive forms of the adjective are usually not associated with nouns and denote the characteristic in a general way. However, in the academic grammar of Lithuanian language (Ulvydas, ed., 1965: 526) it is stated that adjectives of the non-substantial genus denote a feature separated from the object, or more precisely — a phenomenon similar to that expressed by adjective nouns of abstract meaning. In the case of adjectives, unlike the masculine and feminine forms of the adjective, the genitive forms of the adjective do not have accents in the sentence. 2. GENERAL FORMS OF THE PRONOUN INTERPRETATION IN INDIVIDUAL MONOGRAPHIES 2.0. adjective genitive is also classified as adjective genus in the monographs of Adelė Valeckienė (1984) and Dalia Tekorienė (1990)“. In her monograph Lietuvių kalbos gramatinė sistema (1984: 175, 185-186) Valeckienė states that adjectives of the genitive of the singular belong to the adjectives as a form of the category of the genitive, but since there are no nouns of the genitive of the singular in Lithuanian, they are combined with pronouns of the genitive of the singular. The author also points out that the system of adjective degree category includes not only masculine and feminine genders, but also the forms of adjective gender. The masculine and feminine forms of the genus, together with the forms of the genitive genus, comprise the whole system of adjective conjugation. When the first volume of Lithuanian grammar appeared, Jonas Kazlauskas (1965: 175) questioned the logical adequacy of the treatment of the adjective genitive forms of the nominative. According to him, if the genus of an adjective depends on the genus of a noun, and there are no nouns of the genitive genus in Lithuanian, then to describe the form of the genitive genus as the genitive genus of an adjective means to make a logical error — either in the definition of an adjective, where it is said that the Lithuanian adjective is combined with the noun genus, number and syllable, or to misunderstand the form of the genitive genus. The nameless genus was also supported by Vytautas Sirtautas in his article "On the category of adjective genus" (1968: 135-137). The author notes that adjectives of the non-noun genus in some cases can be independent, i.e. control nouns (short days), and in other cases — dependent, i.e. form a predicate compound. (but not that's interesting). 121 The adjectives of this form in the category of adjectives of the genus are peripheral, their functioning is limited. The genitive forms of adjectives are in opposition to the masculine and feminine forms, have the characteristics of coordination and are transformed into masculine and feminine forms without any difference in meaning (see Ambrazas, Sližienė, Valeckienė 1974: 178). The author concludes that the masculine and feminine forms of the genus only together with the forms of the genitive genus encompass the whole system of adjective conjugation (Valeckienė 1984: 186-187; see also 1998: 244-248). 2.2. In her monograph Bevardės giminės adverbiai (1990), Tekorienė, in order to prove that the adjectives of the adjective genus belong to the category of adjective genus, expands the definition of adjectives similarly presented in many grammar books and textbooks (adverb — an independent part of speech, consisting of words denoting a characteristic and alternated by genus, numbers and syllables (Ambrazas, ed., 1994: 167)). The author includes in the definition of the adjective not only words denoting attribute, but also predicate. It is stated that "adjectives are words used in the indicative and nominative part of the adverb, which have a categorical meaning of an attribute. All adjectives have masculine and feminine forms, alternated in vowel and number and combined with a noun. Some qualitative adjectives also have an invariant form of the genitive of the noun, used as the substantive part of the adverb, when the factor is expressed by nouns without a genitive meaning or when it is not present at all and is not conceivable” (Tekorienė 1990: 67-68). In addition to the masculine and feminine forms of the adjective, the genitive forms of the adjective are classified in the same class of predicative words. According to the author (Tekorienė 1990: 67), adjectives in the genitive form have a non-genitive meaning and can be opposed to adjectives in the masculine and feminine forms according to the common semantic characteristic of genitive-non-genitive. However, one should agree with Aldona Paulauskiene (1994: 219), that by expanding the concept of adjective in this way it is not possible to establish the boundaries between the adjective and other parts of speech that can be adverbial and also, like the genitive type form of the adjective, denote the state characteristic of the subject, cf. : I need. I'm fine. It's an honour. The question arises — are all these predicates adjectives? Therefore, in the traditional morphology, which distinguishes several parts of language that denote a characteristic, Paulauskienė believes that the definition of an adjective cannot be expanded. It is difficult to consider adjectives as forms of adjectives without a noun, because they are not syllabled and do not have a conjunctive, thus they do not have the most characteristic features of this part of the language." 3. GENERAL FORMS OF THE PRONOUN Understanding Lithuanian Language Morphology IN THE MANUALS 3.1.How differently do Evalda Jakaitienė, Adelė Laigonaitė and Aldona Paulauskienė understand the forms of the adjective genitive in the singular in Lithuanian language morphology (1976: 63— 4 Paulauskienė (1994: 217-219) criticizes not only Tekorienės, but also Valeckienės conception of the forms of the adjective genitive in the singular. 122 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ 64). The authors note (the author of the “Adverb” section — Adelė Laigonaitė) that such adjective genitive forms should be called non-noun forms of the adjective and that they do not indicate the characteristics of the object at all, but only a certain abstract state.” It is also stated that the place of the adjective genitive forms in the system of other adjective forms is very peculiar, since they do not form any grammatical opposition to the masculine and feminine adjectives. Therefore, there is no basis for including these adjective forms in the category of genus." According to the authors, it is precisely for this reason that the classification of the adjective genitive forms in the present Lithuanian language as adjectives can only be conditional (cf. Michelini 1988: 53-58). 3.2. The genitive forms of the adjective Paulauskienės are also considered non-genitive forms In the morphology of Lithuanian language (1994: 211-217; see also Paulauskienė 2001: 138-139). The non-verbal forms of adjectives, as well as the degree and noun forms, being internal grammatical categories of adjectives, are called by the authors as incoherent adjective categories, i.e., having no correspondence in the system of grammatical categories of nouns. Such non-conjugable adjective categories are opposed to conjugable adjective categories (letter, number, gender), which are syntactic in nature and reflect the adjective- 's relationship with the noun. According to Paulauskienė (1994: 208-209), as many numbers as a noun has, so many numbers the adjective shows. What has been said about the number of an adjective applies both to the verb and to the third associative category, the genus. Thus, if there are two noun genus, there must be two adjective genus. In the words of the author (Paulauskienė 1994: 210), the non-conformity of noun and adjective relatives is not explained theoretically in any way, nor is it explained in any way why the purely coordinable category should depend on the meaning of the adjective. After all, we see that the other two conjugation categories (letter and number) are completely independent of the meaning of the adjective. There is no distinction between male and female. Or does that form mean no kinship now? Maybe she's not mentioned? —asks Paulauskienė in Lithuanian language morphology. 4. OTHER GENERAL FORM OF THE NAME SAMPRATOS 4.0. Critical evaluation has also been given to other concepts of traditionally called adjective-infinitive forms of the genus. 4.1. One of the concepts of adjective genitive forms states: since the adjective genitive forms of adjectives, like adverbs, are no less regularly composed of the same qualitative adjectives, they also have the same form of the higher degree and the same form of the lower grade. This concept was criticized by Valeckiené (1984: 183-187), Tekorienė (1990: 15). The same opinion is held by Tatyana Bulygina (1970: 35-36). The author, discussing adverbs in Lithuanian language, states that the adjective genitive forms of the adjective do not form an opposition to other adjective forms (masculine and feminine) neither by gender, nor by number, nor by verb. Such adjective forms are a true stem of qualitative masculine adjectives. Differentiating the forms of adjectives in the masculine and feminine genders from adjectives is just as reasonable as distinguishing qualitative adverbs with the same adjective root. | 123 usually can be used in predicative compounds, so they can be considered adverbs (Kazlauskas 1968: 324; Girdenis, Žulys 1973: 208; Paulauskienė 1983: 209Y'. Daniel Klein, author of the First Grammar of the Lithuanian Language (Balčikonis, ed., 1957: 432, 538), also distinguished the forms of the adjective indefinite genus from the adverbs. Kazys Musteikis (1972: 241-249) proposed to consider the forms of adjectives in the genitive of the adjective as a separate part of language — words of the category of being. According to the author, when the nouns of the infinitive genus disappeared in Lithuanian, the adjectives of the infinitive genus passed to another part of the language — the category of state, and the meaning of the property was replaced by the abstract meaning of state.” Musteikio (1972: 249) concludes: the distinction of the category of state as a separate part of language is completely objective, because it is distinguished (as is each part of language) according to differences in meaning, morphological features and syntactic functions. 4.3 As it can be seen, all the concepts of the genitive forms of the adjectives mentioned here briefly have been criticized and so far none of them has been established and generally accepted. 5. CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT 5.1 Again, when it comes to the forms of the adjective in the genitive, the category of the genus itself and the syntactic relationships of the adjective with the words determining its genitive form are important. 5.1.1. The genus category is dual: it includes both words with an inherent genus category (nouns) and words with a non-inherent genus category (adjectives). Nouns, having an inherent category of genus, are first of all divided into two semantic genuses — male and female — in their prototypical implementations (man, father, brother, cock vs. woman, mother, sister, hen, etc.). The genus of such nouns is motivated. The semantic genus of the latter nouns usually coincides with the morphological genus of the noun." These nouns form a kind of opposite to the nouns of the asemantic genus, i.e. those whose genus is unmotivated. The name of the family has no related names. These nouns are assigned to one or another genus according to the morphological characteristics of the genus. On the other hand, the inherent category of noun gender determines the morphological gender characteristics of other words through syntactic relationships. Unlike a noun, the genus of an adjective is an inherent category of it, determined by the combination with another word. The system of adjective genus forms, without coordination with 4 The latter concept was criticized by Valeckienė (1984: 187-188). This concept was contradicted by Kazlauskas (1965: 176), the authors of the first volume of the academic Lithuanian grammar (Ulvydas, ed., 1965: 35-37), Ambrazas, Sližienė, Valeckienė (1974: 180), Valeckienė (1984: 188-199), Paulauskienė (1994: 214-215). The semantic and morphological genus of the noun is understood as in the article of Arturas Judžentis (2002: 39-49). In the above mentioned article, see also the semantic and morphological differences of the noun. 8 19 Except for noun adjectives with an inherenting genus category. 124 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ The masculine and feminine forms of adjectives determined by a noun (or another word used as a noun), e.g., the house is not yet old, the day is beautiful, also include a third form — the form of the adjective without a noun — used when there is no noun with which it could be combined, e.g., read —interesting, etc. 5.1.2. In the case of adjectives in the genitive form, it is often stated that in the sentences where they are used, the syntactic relationship is different than in the case of the masculine and feminine forms of the adjective. It is believed that the adjective's genitive forms are not "combinable", but Slicjamas'? (Mathiassen 1996: 68-69; Ulvydas, red., 1965: 478; plg. Labutis 1998: 41). The assertion that such sentences as „skaityti — įdomu“ (to read — interesting) have a conjugation connection is based on the fact that the communicative is unconjugated, has no gender form, i.e. it does not have, in the traditional sense, the most characteristic morphological (gender, number, verb) features of conjugation as one of the types of syntactic connections. Apparently, because the adjective genitive forms of the pronoun are not harmonized, it has been proposed not to include them in the adjective genus category (Paulauskienė 1983: 209, 1989: 178-196; Bulygina 1970: 35-36; cf. Jakaitienė, Laigonaitė and Paulauskienė 1976: 63). In fact, there is the same syntactic relationship between masculine and feminine adjectives and nouns, as well as between adjectives of the genitive and the words associated with them. The distinction is based on the morphological characteristics of the words connected by syntactic connection. In other words, the combination of the form of one word with another word reflects the syntactic relationship between these words, but it is not one of the types of syntactic relationships (as in the case of control and fusion). The combination is only a formal indicator of the syntactic relationship between two words, expressed by the morphological characteristics of those words. From what has been said, it should be clear that, unlike in Lithuanian linguistics up to now, coordination is understood in the article as a morphosyntactic phenomenon. Agreement is the selection of certain semantic or formal indicators of one word according to the formal indicators of another word (Steele 1978: 610)." Thus, based on the definition of coordination as a morphosyntactic phenomenon, in addition to the masculine and feminine nouns that determine the choice of the respective masculine and feminine forms of the adjective, a third type of factor (general and so on) must be recognized, which determines the choice of the genitive form of the adjective in the pronoun. This form of the adjective must be defined as a form of the genus, which is the same as the form of the adjective in the form of the genus. In Lithuanian linguistic works, the combination is usually described either as a connective connection, when the dependent word acquires the forms of the word that joined it (Balkevičius 1963: 28; Sirtautas, Grenda 1988: 38), or as a connection, when the forms of the dependent word (cf. combining word (Tekorienė 1990: 62)) are adapted (Ulvydas, Ambrazas, Valeckienė ed., 1976: 11), matched (Gaivenis, Keinys 1990: 47), adapted (Labutis 1998: 31) or chosen (Ambrazas, ed., 1994: 480) according to the main word (cf. the base word of the combination (Tekorienė 1990: 62)). Thus, in Lithuanian linguistics, coordination is understood as one of the types of syntactic connections next to control and fusion. For more detailed information about the concepts of coordination in Lithuanian syntax and its scope, see Vaskelaitė (1996: 66–86). t The fusion itself is defined differently in the main Lithuanian grammar (see Ambrazas, ed., 1994: 481-482; Ulvydas, Ambrazas, Valeckienė, ed., 1976: 12-17). * Susan Steele’s definition of conciliation is based on the work of G. G. Corbett (1991: 105, 1999: 105) (see Moravesik 1978: 333; Lehfeldt 1980: 259; Corbett 1986: 996). Corbett (1991: 225-226) separately distinguishes semantic and syntactic (grammatical) matching. 125 dangi it belongs to the same morphological category of gender as the masculine and feminine forms of the adjective. A word whose form determines the agreement relationships is called an agreement controller or agreement trigger in linguistic literature (Corbett 1986: 996, 1999: 103). The word whose form is determined by the agreement relationships is called the agreement target" (Corbett 1986: 996, 1999: 103). Those words whose gender determines the matching are called controller genders. Words whose gender is decisive for matching with control genders are called target genders (Corbett 1999: 150-151). In terms of the category of the genus and the combination, it is important to distinguish between words whose forms can determine the combination and those words whose forms are determined by the combination. 5.2 The Lithuanian language conjugation controls can be nouns, noun pronouns and noun adjectives (see also below). In the case of such self-used pronouns that go in the position of the conjugation control, e.g.: tas, ta, šitas, šita, etc., the living / non-living semantic opposition is distinguished. 1 SCHEME. ĮVARDŽIŲ GIMINĖS SISTEMA gyvas negyvas Man. €. against. g. y tas ta tai Living | dead semantic opposition is also given to noun adjectives (see below). The adjectives, adjective participles, adjective pronouns, some numerals, numeral pronouns, verbs, etc. are to be classified as conjugation objects in Lithuanian (see Corbett 1991: 106-115). As it can be seen, the number of coding receivers in Lithuanian is greater than the number of coding controllers (see Corbett 1991: 159; Tekorienė 1986: 45; Moravcsik 1978: 363-364). 5.3 This article will more specifically discuss the relationship between noun adjectives in the position of a conjugation control and their possessors, and the relationship between adjectives as conjugation possessors and their controls. “4 I thank Dr. Arturas Judžentis for the suggestion of foreign terms —debugging controller, debugging receiver. Page 126 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ 6. PRONOUN (MALE, FEMININE AND ANONYMOUS RELIGIONS) IN DEBUG CONTROLLER POSITION 6.0. As mentioned above, when speaking about noun pronouns in the position of the coordination control, such as ras, ta, tai, šitas, šita, šita, etc., the living/dead semantic opposition is distinguished (see also Valeckienė 1984: 43-47, 137-142; 222tt), which consists of two members. The masculine and feminine forms of noun pronouns usually refer to living objects (a person, living or a group of them), which are told in the previous context by nouns, while the impersonal forms of the said pronouns usually refer to inanimate objects (an object or phenomenon), which are told by compounds that were in the previous context, individual elements of the sentence or even wider context, e.g.: walls wr KT. (2) Daddy responded sympathetically to this daughter- 's sielvartq: "And do you know what a beautiful girl is?" The one who smiles, doesn’t wrinkle, is gentle, polite, studies well, writes nicely, helps mom to shave potatoes, wipes the dust from the furniture every day. (3) Here Izolina screamed, but I reacted to it indifferently, as I would react to the muds that appeared briefly in that stream in CT. 6.1 When discussing noun adjectives (both masculine and feminine forms, as well as the forms of the non-substantial gender) in the position of the control, it is also possible to talk about the semantic opposition liudas | negyvas, which consists of two members. The masculine and feminine forms of the adjective used as nouns, which usually denote a living thing (a person or a living thing or a group of them), are opposed to the adjective’s impersonal forms, which usually denote an inanimate thing (object or phenomenon) (see pronouns 6.0) (see also Valeckienė 1984: 97-101, 1998: 247), e.g.: (4) Pésciajam čia nebėra kur pastatyti kojos, jau nekalbant apie tai, kad jis kvėpuoja išdegintą benziną ir nevalytą aliejų prie visų oro. But pedestrians are also not pests, they bravely dive between these cars, risking their lives in KT. (5) The stranger slowly got dressed, put her luggage by the bench, sat down as if hesitating in KT. (6) And dairy, and green things I eat Grz. LKZ IX 919. (7) I was always wrong when I thought of people as good or bad in the KT. Noun adjectives denoting an inanimate object can be used in almost all verbs to accelerate both with the masculine form of the adjective — as an unmarked member — and with the adjective's nominal form, e.g.: (8) Good far heard, but evil farther bk. (9) In this case, it would appear that most of that evil serves to establish a greater good or to remove a greater evil. Finally, the moral evil is a sin or abomination in the NT. 127 (10) However, despite their great power, the means of communication are and will be only means, i.e. tools that can be used for good or bad CT. (11) “Let us not be weary of doing good,” concluded Cardinal V. Sladkevičius. (12) This does not mean that he goes straight to him and declares: “Here I am, Canderi, with evil and good!” Plg. : (13) Bloga néra amzina KT. (14) You see, I do not wish you anything bad, but I wish you good. (15) Jealousy | anxiety grew, linged — into a bad determining sign... KT (16) I feel like something pierces me when I hear such nonsense about what I consider sacred SHRAG SD 21. In such cases, when the verbs used as nouns can be understood both as alive and as dead, A. Valeckienė (1984: 141) suggests that in the case of dead persons it is better to use the forms of the adjective of the non-adjective genus, e.g.: (17) Gera niekas nemato, bloga —visi KT. Plg. : (18) Three dwarfs, three wise men decided every dispute: the evil was punished, the good praised by the KT. 6.1.1. Syntactically, the masculine form of the adjective used as a noun in the position of the conjugation control (verb) determines the masculine form of the adjective in the position of the conjugation recipient (see sentence 4). The same applies to the forms of the adjective in the genitive of the adjective in the control position. Their form determines the form of the matching recipient (see sentence 13). In other words, the masculine or feminine form of the adjective in the position of the conjugation recipient is syntactically, i.e. according to the morphological characteristics of the genus, combined with the corresponding noun of the masculine, feminine or feminine form of the adjective in the position of the conjugation control. The noun forms of adjectives in the infinitive genus, as well as the masculine and feminine forms of adjectives in the noun genus (see sentence 9), may have conjugative signs — noun or adjective pronouns, passive participle forms of infinitive genus (cf. Paulauskienė 2001: 138; Valeckienė 1984: 99), e.g.: (19) This interaction must be expanded comprehensively, remembering its long-lasting roots, remembering all the good” and rejecting the deceit and evil that occurred in our history, so that we can move forward into the third millennium of the KT hand in hand with hope. 15 Sentences such as the latter can be interpreted in two ways. Both the adjective indefinite form and the prepositional indefinite form of the pronoun can be understood as a conjugation control, e.g. : After all, all the great, new, good ignited in someone- 's fantasy KT; What shall I render to the LORD for all the good that he has done to me? KT. However, it would probably be possible to argue that the principal word of the word combination all good is good, because e.g. all people, but not *all good, unlike in the combination something new (e.g. kažkas naujas), where the principal word is the pronoun kažkas. Page 134 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ 9.4. Taking into account the syntactic position of the adjective in the sentence, it is necessary to distinguish, in particular, non-adjective and noun adjectives, the former of which, according to the syntactic criterion of combination, would be further divided into the masculine and feminine forms of the adjective and the non-adjective forms, which, in terms of combination, differ from each other in their controls, the latter, i.e. noun adjectives, would be further divided into two groups according to the semantic opposition of living / dead. 3 SCHEME. SUBSTANTIVE GENITIV SYSTEM (BY SYNTACTICAL POSITION) i those non-verbal noun of the conjugative rd \ foima living dead r. g. bev. g. r... mot. g. years against. g. ov yes; 8 live. g. beautiful sa and all this young man —the young woman—. and.. beautiful flower 5 v green —beautiful weather beautiful beautiful beautiful SOURCES bk —general language. DvBD - Liudas Dovydėnas. Domeikos Brothers, 1996. KšŽK - Raimondas Kašauskas. Green Mountains, 1982. "Raimondas Kašauskas". All the Children of the Earth, 1995. KT —Computer Linguistics Center of Kaunas Vytautas Magnus University Textbook of Contemporary Lithuanian Language. LKZ, x -Dictionary of Lithuanian Language, 1969, 1973. LR —Lietuvos rytas. M-PT I -Vincas Mykolaitis-- Putinas. In the Shadow of the Altar, 1979. SLCR,, -—Mykolas Sluckis. 1989. pp. 3. The Witch of the West. New York, 1969. LITERATURE AMBRAZAS, V., ed., 1994: Grammar of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. AMBRAZAS, V., ed., 1997: Lithuanian Grammar, Vilnius: Baltos lankos. AMBRAZAS, V., SLIŽIENĖ, N., VALECKIENĖ, A. 1974: The morphology of the Lithuanian language. Baltistica 10 (2), 177-186. BALČIKONIS, J., ed., 1957: The First Grammar of the Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. 135 BALKEVICIUS, J. 1963: Syntax of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: State Political and Scientific Literature Publishing House. BALKEVIČIUS, J. 1998: Syntax of predicative constructions in Lithuanian language, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. BULYGINA, T. V. 1970: Mopdonornueckas cTpykTrypa CJI0Ba B COBPEMEHHOM JIHTOBCKOM JIHTEPATYPHOM S13bIKE (B ero nHcbMeHHoH popme). Kupmynckuii, B. M., Apyrionosa, H. J., pea., Mopighbonozusveckas cmpykmypa c106a 6 unKdo0e6poneilckux xa3brKax, MockBa: Hayka, 7-71. CORBETT, G. G. 1986: Agreement: a partial specification, based on Slavonic data. Linguistics 24 (6), 995— 1023. CORBETT, G. G. 1991: Gender, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CORBETT, G. G. 1999: Introduction. Journal of Linguistics 33 (2), 103-107. GAIVENIS, K., KEINYS, S. 1990: Dictionary of Language Terms, Kaunas: Šviesa. GIRDENIS, A., Žurys, V. 1973: [rec.] Lithuanian Grammar, 1965, t. 1; 1971, t. 2. Baltistica 9 (2), 203— 214. JABLONSKIS, J. 1957: Selected Writings 1, compiled by J. Palionis, Vilnius: State Political and Scientific Literature Publishing House. JAKAITIENĖ, E., LAIGONAITE, A., PAULAUSKIENE, A. 1976: Morphology of Lithuanian language, Vilnius: Mokslas. JUDZENTIS, A. 2002: A new look at the genus category of Lithuanian nouns. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 46, 39-47. KAZLAUSKAS, J. 1965: [rec.] A Study of Lithuanian Grammar. Victory 10, 172-176. KAZLAUSKAS, J. 1968: [rec.] Lithuanian language in the Soviet years. Baltistica 4 (2), 322-327. LaBuTis, V. 1998: Syntax of Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Vilnius University Press. LEHFELDT, W. 1980: YnpaBjienne, corniacoBaHne, pHMbIKAHHe B 249-267. pycckoM s3biKe. Russian Linguistics 4 (3), MATHIASSEN, T. 1996: A Short Grammar of Lithuanian, Slavica Publishers, Inc. MicHELINI, G. 1988: „Bevardė giminė“ lietuvių kalboje. Linguistics 39 (1), 53-59. MORAVCSIK, E. A. 1978: Agreement. Greenberg J. H., ed., Universals of human Language 4. Syntax, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 333-374. MusTEIKIS, K. 1972: Conocmasumeasnas mopghorocusn pycckozo u aumoeckozo aswikos, Vilnius: Mintis. PAULAUSKIENE, A. 1983: Morphology of the Lithuanian language, Kaunas: Sviesa. PAULAUSKIENE, A. 1989: Grammatical categories of Lithuanian nouns, Vilnius: Mokslas. PAULAUSKIENE, A. 1994: Morphology of the Lithuanian language: Lectures for Lithuanianists, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijy leidykla. PAULAUSKIENE, A. 2001: Lithuanian Language Culture, Kaunas: Technologija. SIRTAUTAS, V. 1968: On the adjective family category. Kalbotyra 19, 135-137. SIRTAUTAS, V. 1978: The harmonization of the main parts of the sentence, Vilnius: Lithuanian TSR Ministry of Higher and Special Secondary Education Editorial Board. SIRTAUTAS, V., GRENDA, Č. 1988: Syntax of Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Mokslas. STEELE, S. 1978: Word order variation. Greenberg J. H., ed., Universals of human Language 4. Syntax, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 585-623. TEKORIENE, D. 1986: Harmonization. Our Language 5, 43-46. TEKORIENE, D. 1987: Basic sentence models with predicative unmentioned adjective forms. Lietuviy kalbotyros klausimai 26, 165-170. TEKORIENE, D. 1990: Bevardés family biadvardziai, Vilnius: Mokslas. ULvypas, K., ed., 1965: Lithuanian Grammar 1, Vilnius: Mintis. ULVYDAS, K., AMBRAZAS, V,, VALECKIENE, A., ed. 1976: Grammar of Lithuanian Language 3, Vilnius: Mokslas. VALECKIENE, A. 1984: Grammar of Lithuanian Language. Family category, Vilnius: Mokslas. 136 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ VALECKIENĖ, A. 1998: Functional grammar of the Lithuanian language, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing. VASKELAITĖ, R. 1996: Problems of Word Relations in Lithuanian Language Syntax (master thesis manuscript), Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas. Ekžių —Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1-2, Vilnius: Mintis, 1968-1969; 3-6: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1956, 1957, 1959, 1962; 7-9: Mintis, 1966, 1970, 1973; 10-15: Mokslas, 1976, 1978, 1981, 1984, 1986, 1991, 16-17: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1995, 1996; 18: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 1997; 19: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 1999; 20: Lietuvos kalbos instituto leidykla, 2002. Loreta Semėnienė Received 25/03/2003 Lithuanian Language Institute P. Vileišio g. 5, 2055 Vilnius, Lithuania [email protected]