A. Valeckienė. „Funkcinė lietuvių kalbos gramatika“

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS XLTI- (2000) Review. Reviews. Notes. Opinions. Reviews. Observations and overviews. Reviews. Notes A. Valkyrie. Functional grammar of Lithuanian language, 1998: Vilnius, Lithuanian Language Institute, 415 p. Linguists and ir philologists were delighted by the publication “Functional grammar of Lithuanian language” by Adele Valeckiene, a long-time senior research associate of the Lithuanian Language Institute. It is a theoretical work summarizing many decades of research on Lithuanian grammar, discussing the syntactic morphological structure of our ir language from a new linguistic point of ir view, perfectly combining traditional new methods of ir linguistic analysis. Be no doubt, such a work could not appear in an empty space, jį could prepare only having a huge scientific experience author. A. Valeckienė’s works include a large-scale study “Usage 1957 of nominative adjectives in contemporary Lithuanian language”, an original monograph on the category of genus*, and numerous articles in Lithuanian and foreign linguistic publications. She is one of the main authors of all four academic Lithuanian grammars, compiler, editor or member of the editors’ board of many language publications. Thus, its functional grammar is a generalization of the consideration and research of complex grammar problems. Functional grammar consists of a preface, an introduction, and three large chapters: "Ranking of sentences", "Ranking of groups and words", and "Ranking of morpheme". One may ask why the author does not start from the smallest mų meaningful element of language — the morpheme, from the basic, namely the ir sentence, which is the most important unit of communication. But that's the author's will. It is important for the reader that such teaching of subjects does not cause inconvenience, that the logical connection between all three main ranks of the language system is motivated. 0 — | In the introduction, the author very concisely, but clearly and understandably sets out the basic concepts of functional grammar and the most important terms, so that they can be easily understood even by a reader with not the highest linguistic preparation. ! See. Vilnius: Institute of Lithuanian Language and Literature of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences, 1990. 1957, 161—328. ?Valeckienė A. 1984: Grammatical system of Lithuanian language: Genus category, Vilnius: Institute of Lithuanian Language and Literature of the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences, Central Library of the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences. 209 Discussing the sentence rank, the linguist pays particular attention to the main functions of the continuous sentence: content, — textual function of ir interaction, and thoroughly reveals the grammatical forms that realize them. Since one of the most important iš elements of sentence in our language is the verb, the transitiveness of the verb is briefly examined, formal features of transitive intransitive verbs are described, processes are expressed, semantic functions of verb satellites are ir systematized. Semantics is an area in which it is jų particularly difficult to avoid the subjectivity of the evaluation of the interpreted phenomena. ka It must be said that the author of the grammar, having experience of analyst of great grammar lę phenomena, perfectly cope with this task. su The substaniš ce of her statements does not give rise to any major doubts. However, due to the subtle differentiation of functions somewhere else, the boundaries between functions seem to become ir ne quite clear. This could be said, for example, about the limits of the percipient-- experient ir functions (p. 48), some a) ir b) sections (p. 50-51) explanations of the difference in instrument function ir illustrations. On the other hand, somewhere else this differentiation seems to be missing. ir For example, discussing the time function (p. 60) explains that the final, servile, adverbial and pronoun denotes the time mo interval, period, time span of the action and state (here too it is not clear, what is the difference between the time expressed by these words?). The backman, the sergeant and the lieutenant, yes. However, the meaning of the utilitarian is different: in the sentences Save bread for tomorrow, not work; The use of the noun to indicate the time of an action is not necessarily the time of the action, but the time to which the result of the action is attributed. The same can be said about the time marked by a noun in the examples on p. 61. However, as mentioned, there are really few places that raise such doubts. This shows that the author of the grammar is well versed in semantics and subtle differentiation. In grammar, structural types of sentences are classified based on syntactic and semantic relations of words. According to these relations, two main types of sentences are discussed: personal and impersonal, which in turn are divided into subtypes. In essence, the subtypes described here are the same as those described in academic and other syntaxes. However, the author is not satisfied with the presentation of the results of previous research, but briefly describes the features of their structure: what elements they consist of, what their functions are, what is the possible order of structural elements. In order to explain the function of interaction, particular attention is paid to the consequence of the sentence (modality). The conjugation of the sentence here is associated with the communicative function, so it is understood somewhat differently than usual when talking about the category of verb conjugation. Therefore, in addition to the usual direct, imperative, pronoun and indirect subjunctives, there is also a questioning subjunctive, which is inextricably linked to the questioning intonation and is the main distinctive feature of questioning sentences. Such an extension of the concept of coherence is unquestionable, sufficiently justified and acceptable. By the way, the interrogative suffix differs from other 210 suffixes, which have clearly defined morphological forms, in that the means of its expression are particles and interrogative pronouns and interrogative adverbs. In this case, the question is divided into two parts: 1) the question of the question and 2) the question of the content. What is new here is that it has been established that the root of all questioning words in content questioning sentences — pronouns and adverbs — consists of the consonant k or the root begins with that consonant. It is emphasized that the role of the range clauses of the sentence is not equal: the direct, imperative and question clauses are related to the act of speech, while the pronoun and indirect clauses differ from the other clauses only by modal nuances and do not form new types of sentences. In teaching textual function, the author discusses the concepts of theme and rhyme in detail for the first time in Lithuanian grammar. Especially extensively explained is what is a rhyme, what is its role in the sentence, what it consists of in the affirmative and questioning sentences, what is its morphological expression, what adjectives help to express it. All this is illustrated by ingeniously chosen sentences that help to understand the essence of the problem. Very extensive topics can be understood by means of carefully designed schemas, which include complex topics of different types of sentences. The subsection of the compound sentence in this grammar is very condensed, based on the sections of compound sentences of academic grammar, one of the authors of which is the author of the reviewed grammar. The principles of classification of compound sentences are basically the same as in the “Grammar of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language” (V., 1994, 1996, 1997) and “Lithuanian Grammar” (V., 1997). Although the types and subtypes of compound sentences are discussed very briefly, new features of their structure that were not mentioned in previous grammar are still highlighted. This shows the author’s deep understanding of the problems of various compound sentences, her ability to reveal hitherto unexplored features of sentence structure and semantics. The distinction of the fifth subgroup of compound conjunctives — the indicative conjunctive sentences, alongside the usual sentences of the constitutive, comparative and oppositive, distinguishing and supportive conjunctives, seems to be debatable. It is true, that the author herself distinguished and discussed the sentences of the indicative conjunction in earlier academic Lithuanian grammar. * However, their classification is now based not only on one criterion — the conjunctions, as it was customary to divide the connecting sentences into four subgroups, but also on additional criteria of the structure of the sentence elements and semantic peculiarities. A new look at the so-called parts of language and word combinations in the second part of the grammar “Groups and word rank”. This part also combines tradition and innovation. According to what constitutes the core of the group, three types of groups are distinguished: noun, verb and adverb. The nucleus of the noun group is the noun, so the syntactic functions of nouns are described below. * Grammatika litovskogo jazyka, Vilnius: Institut litovskogo jazyka i literatury, 1985, 715-716; Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 1994, 720; Lithuanian Grammar, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 1997, 768-769. 211 Particular attention is paid to the basic noun categories of number, gender, and — specific degree of definition. ir — ir This is closely linked su jų semantic function and functions jų performed in the syntactic structure of the sentence. Until now, we have not had nė such a comprehensive generalization ar of the analysis of the formal expression of the number category of nouns, numerals and pronouns in one academic grammar or in any other work of Lithuanian language. Theoretical statements are supported ir by accurately selected illustrations. The nucleus of the noun group is the noun. ir From dependent jo words are divided into two groups: modifiable words į qualifiers. In some cases, adjectives are considered to be participles, in other ir cases, numerals are considered to be pronouns. ir — ir They are su combined by noun. The syntactic functions of the grammatical characteristics of the modifiable words are clearly set out. ir A great deal of attention is paid to the classification of pronouns according to their ir syntactic semantic function. The latter distribution is considerably refined compared to su the previous ones, and appears to be the most convincingly acceptable of ir all existing iš distributions so far. Some of the words in the list are commonly used as adjectives, but they are often used as adjectives in the same sense as the words in the list, or as adjectives in the same su sense as the words in the ir list. Their position in relation to the su main noun is described. The functions of the verb adverbial group structure are also briefly outlined. The description of word groups in this grammar synthesizes previous studies of word combinations and provides a general picture of their grammatical structure and ir functions. We find many new thoughts and ir accurate observations about conjunctions, particles, as well as emoticons, which do not form part of the sentence or group, but perform important semantic functions in the sentence and approach the morphemes. Interestingly, the concept of a particle has been considerably expanded: here, in addition to the words already deduced in grammar, the singulars and adjectives are also considered particles. A reader accustomed to traditional grammar stereotypes may be shocked at first, but the author’s arguments are sufficiently convincing to re-evaluate these words and assign them to particles—in their function, pronouns and adjectives do not really differ much from traditional particles. What is different is their morphological structure. However, given that the traditional particles are also different in structure and origin, adding extras and attributes to their class should not be a serious obstacle — it is important to overcome inert thinking. In the section “Groups and word rank” are discussed both monotypic and explanatory, as well as isolated sentence elements. These are traditionally called uniform parts of the sentence, insertions and adverbs. In our grammar, the place of their discussion was not clearly established, so their presentation in the part of spoken grammar "Groups and word rank" should not cause any doubt. An important feature of the paradigmatic plan of noun-group words is the category of genus. The author has already explored this problem in many aspects and for several decades in many of her previous works, so in this grammar, it can be said, presents a 212 synthesis of the research of this category. The Lithuanian noun category is specific because there are two genuses of nouns, three genuses of adjectives, participle numerals and pronouns. The masculine feminine gender of nouns is marked according to syntactic, formal semantic o criteria. ir — ir ir These criteria were not previously explicitly discussed as thoroughly as in the reviewed ir grammar, although they were intuitively relied upon. ir Here, for the first time, the adjective suffixes of masculine and feminine nouns ir with the same lexical root denoting persons by tą gender are systematized, the adjective suffixes of ir so-called common-genus nouns with the same ending denoting persons by gender are registered, the adjective meanings of such nouns are indicated. In grammar, the reasoned traditional view that ir three forms of genus have adjectives, participants į some pronouns and singular numerals is justified. Since the genitive forms of the above-mentioned words are ir already separated from the masculine forms not only in the present Lithuanian language, but also in the nouns of the genitive forms and in the old monuments of our language, they are no longer compatible with anything and are used only as nouns. Therefore, sometimes our literature tends to deny them the status of a genus category, although it does not clearly indicate what place they should occupy in the systematization of language elements and with what term to name them. The author of the functional grammar, based on many years of research, fully justifiedly establishes the status of the genus category for them. A brief but informative presentation of the essence of the verb category. In discussing the functions of nouns, the author creatively adapts the J. The Curly Curly. One of the most important structural elements of a sentence in Lithuanian is the verb. Its grammatical characteristics are given the most attention in all grammar. In the reviewed grammar this class of words, its categories are examined, we could say, quite laconic, but each statement is very informative, contentful, summarizing previous studies of the verb by other linguists and the author herself. Here we cannot fail to mention Table 12 (pp. 283—284), which illustrates the functional relationships between the active and passive forms of the verb, which can be easily understood even by a reader who is not too deeply involved in theoretical statements. The third part of the book “Morpheme rank” is devoted to the problem of Lithuanian word constituent elements — morphemes. It describes in detail the types of morphemes, their distribution, the arrangement of the morphemes in the word, explains the concept of the root, the types of roots, etc. For the first time in the grammar, the positional, operative and systematic variants of morphemes are detailedly recorded and analyzed, what determines their formation is discussed. 213 what the distribution. jų It is an important contribution ne only to į grammar theory. A detailed description tų of all variants is very necessary ir for language practice. After closing the last page of “Functional Grammar of Lithuanian Language”, we must say that this is a capital description of the grammar system of Lithuanian language, which summarizes only the author’s own ne researches on grammar, but opens up space for ir newly raised problems. ir Be This work cannot be done only by linguist ne professionals, but also by Lithuanian teachers, ir philologist students and more knowledgeable users of the common Lithuanian language. The grammar, which was tastefully attractively published by the Institute ir for Publishing Scientific Encyclopedias ir of the State Lithuanian Language Commission Lietuvos Republics With the Seimas funds, he significantly enriches the treasure of Lithuanian linguistics. Albertas Ruže Vilnius University Kaunas Faculty of Humanities NEW FRENCH SCIENTIFIC WORKS ABOUT LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE Daniel Petit Presentation de la Lithuanian language. — Lalies. Actes des sessions linguistique de littėrature et de 19, Paris, 1999, 7-22. Phonology of Lithuanian. Systėme vowels and accentuation. — Up. cit., 23—42. Morphologie nominale du Lithuanian. Le system of declinations et I'expression du genre grammatical. - Up. cit., 43-74. Verbal Morphology of Lithuanian. Diathesis and passive voice. - Up. cit., 75-111. Lithuanian syntax. Syntax of participles. — Up. cit., 113-135. About the Lithuanian Sambaris: The root IE. *bheren eastern baltic. —Bulletin of the Society de Linguistics de Paris 93(1998), fasc. 1, 229-288. The study of Lithuanian language in France has long traditions since the time of Ferdinand de Saussure, Antoine Meillet, Robert Gauthiot; They were later continued by Raymond Schmittlein, Paul Garde, Jean Haudry and other linguists who wrote about the Lithuanian language and used its data for comparative and typological studies. However, in recent decades, with the emergence of new Baltic studies centres in Poland, Italy, Germany and other countries, Lithuanian studies in France have been somewhat weakened. Therefore, great interest in the 214