LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XL (1998)

Loreta VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language, Vilnius

THE MEANING AND VALENCY OF ADJECTIVES

1. In recent decades, much has been written not only about the valency of verbs¹, but also about the valency of adjectives. Since an adjective, like a verb, is a semantic predicate, it can be described in much the same way as a verb.

Plg.: Svečiai dėkoja šeimininkams už vaišes (Sližienė 1994: 173).

He is grateful to me for the help DŽ.

1.1. In discussions of valency, the relationship between the predicative copula and the adjective is characterized in different ways. Some, e.g., G. Helbig (1992: 111), J. Erben, U. Engel, W. Flämig, W. Jung (Starke 1973: 138), and A. Valeckienė (1998: 41), discuss the copula būti in the same way as other verbs, which can take actants and perform a sentence-forming role. Others, e.g., U. Fix (1970: 485) and K. Junker (1969: 111), distinguish the copula from other full-meaning verbs, treating it as semantically empty and capable only of mediating between a noun and a predicative adjective.

G. Helbigas (1992: 111), aptardamas būdvardžio valentingumą, kalba apie valentingumo hierarchiją ir skiria dvi pakopas. Pirmoje pakopoje yra jungties valentingumas, o antroje – predikatinio būdvardžio valentingumas. Jungties valentingumas esąs sintaksės lygmenyje, o semantikos lygmenyje galima esą kalbėti tik apie predikatinio būdvardžio valentingumą, nes jungtis šiame lygmenyje pasirodanti tik kaip tarpininkė.

Taking a Lithuanian example: the son resembles his father, we could represent these two stages as follows:

¹ Further literature on verb valency is cited in N. Sližienė’s “Dictionary of Lithuanian Verb Combinability,” Vol. 1 (1994: 55–57).

59

At the first level, according to G. Helbig, the adjective, like the noun, is a syntactic actant of the copula. At the second level, which is at the semantic level, the adjective is a predicate. It is precisely with the adjective, rather than with the copula and adjective together, that two actants are associated—the subject nominative and a prepositional construction directly dependent on the adjective.

The copula, which cannot be a predicate at the semantic level because it has no lexical meaning (Fix 1970: 486), is merely an intermediary that helps the adjective express the relationship between its dependents (actants) (Helbig 1992: 111).

The attributive use of an adjective in a sentence also shows that the copula is not significant in describing the valency of the adjective as a predicative word.

Generally speaking, the valency of the copula of a predicate is also questionable at the syntactic level. If valency is a property determined by the meaning of a verb, while the copula of a predicate is “semantically empty,” what could its syntactic valency be based on? The fact that the copula of a predicate combines with a subject nominative and a predicative word probably depends on its purely grammatical capacity, as a verb, to combine with other words and their forms. This capacity is characteristic of verbs in general (cf. Apresian 1974: 120).

This article will focus primarily on investigations of the relationship between the meaning and valency of adjectives.²

2. An adjective, as a separate part of speech, denotes a property of an object that does not exist independently.³ The property belongs to an object, which is its bearer. Adjec-

2 Reikšmės ir valentingumo santykis bus nagrinėjamas, remiantis N. Sližienės (1986: 45–95) straipsniu.

3 This article excludes the neuter forms of adjectives, which “are generally not associated with nouns and express a property in a generalized way” (DLKG 1994: 169). Lithuanian has no neuter nouns, so these forms cannot function as attributes or agree with nouns.

60

tive is a predicative word that denotes a feature attributed to an object. A feature is described as either a property of an object or a relationship between two or more objects. As a predicative word, an adjective always opens one free slot for an argument in a sentence, that is, for an object that bears the feature—the descriptor (D)⁴. Most adjectives open only one free slot for an argument, namely, for the descriptor. As with other adjectives, realization of the descriptor is necessary for them, since the adjective depends on a noun and agrees with it⁵.

Some adjectives describe a feature as a relationship between two or more objects. By opening two or more free slots for predicate arguments, the adjective itself governs words denoting the objects to which the feature expressed by the predicate—a relationship—is attributed, apart from the descriptor with which the adjective agrees. The number of free slots opened depends on the meaning of the adjective. The meaning of the adjective also requires a particular form of the governed words to be used (a bucket is slippery with water; a son is dependent on his parents; I am grateful to you for your help).

2.1. The use of an adjective with other words in a sentence depends on its valency properties, that is, on how many free slots its meaning opens for arguments, which are filled by words in particular forms. The valency of an adjective is a property determined by the adjective’s meaning: it opens a certain number of free slots, which in a sentence are occupied by words of particular meanings and forms, or by their equivalents. Valency is associated with three levels: the abstract level of logical semantics and two concrete levels of language—syntax and lexical semantics.

2.1.1. At the abstract level of logical semantics, predicative analysis determines how many free slots the adjective opens for arguments when it functions as a predicative word (that is, for certain entities or individuals in the real world) (Tekorienė 1982: 135). Depending on whether an adjective opens one or more slots, one-valent and multivalent adjectives are distinguished. If an adjective describes property F of object x, it opens one free slot for an argument—the bearer of the feature, that is, the descriptor (the sky is blue, the flower is beautiful). These are one-valent adjectives. If an adjective describes a relationship between two or more objects, its propositional function is R (x, y…), where relation R holds between objects x and y… (e.g., the son is similar to the father). Such adjectives are bivalent or multivalent, e.g.: I owe the neighbor money for the trees that were cut down. The predicative adjective indebted, meaning “not having settled accounts with someone,” opens four free slots for arguments: I [x], neighbor [y], money [z], trees [α]. The adjective expresses the relationship (R) among these four arguments and is four-valent.

⁴ Deskripto terminas D. Tekorienės (1983: 97–107) ir E. Jakaitienės (1988: 62).

⁵ At the syntactic level, realization of the descriptor corresponds to the descriptor word (i.e. a noun)—N_D.

61

2.1.2. At the level of logical semantics, the semantic functions of arguments are also determined according to their relation to the predicate and to other arguments. Arguments with an assigned semantic function are semantic actants. The most common functions of adjectival semantic actants are⁶:

1. Descriptum [D] – a generalized function of the bearer or possessor of a property, which, when analyzing the valency of specific adjectives, can be specified as agent, patient, percipient, beneficient, or content.

2. Agent [A] – the function of the performer of an action, characteristic of animate entities (a man who went as a gooseherd).

3. Patient [P] – the function of the recipient of an action’s effect or the bearer of a state, characteristic of both animate and inanimate entities, as well as abstract things (free people, eyes full of tears, the horrors of war hostile to human nature).

4. Percipient [Pcp] – the function of the experiencer of a mental state, characteristic of living beings who perceive things in reality, have a certain attitude toward them, and react to them psychologically (the son is indulgent toward everyone).

5. Beneficient [B] – the function of addressee or possessor, characteristic mostly of living beings, especially persons for whose benefit or detriment something exists (Jonas owes his father, Juozapota is rich in needles).

6. Content [Con] – the function of the content of a state or property, characteristic of various entities and phenomena (the boss is greedy for glory, the book is worth a hundred litas).

7. Comparative [Comp] – the function of the standard of comparison, occurring alongside the patient of a state and characteristic of an entity with which something is compared or aligned (the son resembles his father, the translation is close to the original).

8. Causative [Caus] – the function of the cause of a state (Adomonis is not to blame for Izidorius’s hardship).

9. Motive [M] – the function of motivation, characteristic of entities and phenomena perceived as the basis of a state (the children are grateful for the help).

10. Finity [Fin] – the function of purpose or intended use, characteristic of entities and phenomena that are sought, to which something is assigned, or for which something is suitable (the chair is comfortable to sit on, a blanket is needed for covering oneself, pigs are needed also for their bristles).

The semantic functions of adjectival actants described above constitute the semantic valency of an adjective, which can be represented by an adjective’s semantic valency structure (SemVS). In a sentence, it is realized by a particular syntactic valency structure.

⁶ Semantinių funkcijų pavadinimai čia pateikiami remiantis N. Sl Žienės (1994: 20) ir E. Jakaitienės (1988: 62) darbais.

62

2.1.3. At the syntactic level, it is determined in what forms words realize semantic actants. An adjective’s requirement for words of a particular form or their equivalents is called the adjective’s syntactic valency, which can be represented by a specific syntactic valency structure (SinVS).

Adjective syntactic actants are grounded at the level of logical semantics, since they are the linguistic (syntactic) realizations of semantic actants. The number of arguments—semantic actants—a predicate adjective has equals the number of syntactic actants.

2.1.3.1. The necessity and optionality of syntactic actants are also determined at the syntactic level. These actants can be distinguished using the elimination test. Necessary actants cannot be omitted from a sentence, since the sentence would then be ungrammatical and incomprehensible.

For example: He is l o y a l to the government DŽ. The institution is s u b o r d i n a t e to the ministry DŽ. *He is l o y a l. *The institution is s u b o r d i n a t e.

Optional syntactic actants may be omitted from a sentence while the sentence remains grammatical and comprehensible.⁸

For example: Science is n e c e s s a r y for everyone DŽ. She was o b e d i e n t to her mother DŽ. Cf.: Science is n e c e s s a r y. She was an o b e d i e n t girl.

2.1.3.2. Besides syntactic actants (necessary and optional⁹), other words may also combine with an adjective; these are called free modifiers. Free modifiers do not belong to the adjective’s syntactic valency structure, since they do not realize any semantic actants at the level of logical semantics. Therefore, they are free and,

⁷ SinV structures are models of the syntactic use of adjectives, denoted by the following symbols: N₍D₎ – descriptor word, Adj – adjective, Pron – pronoun, Inf – infinitive, Part – participle, SD – subordinate clause of a complex sentence, Gen – genitive, Dat – dative, Acc – accusative, Instr – instrumental. For example, the SinVS of the adjective laisvas ‘not required to observe something, untouched’ is N₍D₎ – Adj – from Gen (children f r e e from taxes).

⁸ The use of the elimination test to identify optional syntactic actants is interpreted in different ways. In K. Junker’s (1969: 292) view, the first argument slot of all adjectives must be occupied, while the occupation of other slots may be optional. K.–E. Sommerfeldt (1971: 115), by contrast, argues that almost all adjective partners are necessary [at the level of logical semantics], and that omitting such a partner is associated with the actualization of another variant of the adjective’s meaning.

⁹ G. Helbigas (1992: 106) aptaria K. J. Saebo apibrėžtus (definit) fakultatyviuosius ir neapibrėžtus (indefinit) fakultatyviuosius aktantus. Jie priklauso nuo konteksto. Pvz.: Peteris negali rasti ž o d y n o. Jis jau ilgai i e š k o, bet veltui. Kalbama apie apibrėžto (definite) aktanto praleidimą; klausyt ojas gali tiesiogiai iš konteksto užpildyti ieško argumento laisvą vietą. Plg. pvz.: Peteris sėdi prie radijo. Jis r ū k o. Kontekstas čia nepadeda. Užpildyti rūko argumento laisvą vietą reikia kalbėtojo bendrų žinių apie pasaulį.

63

kaip teigia D. Tekorienė (1983: 106), neaktualūs apibrėžiant būdvardžio reikšmę. Predikatinėje struktūroje laisvieji nariai nariai atitinka ne predikato argumentus, o atskirus predikatus (Helbig-Schenkel 1973: 38; Helbig 1982: 24; Sližienė 1994: 35). Laisvieji nariai gali būti suprantami kaip redukuoti sakiniai (Helbig 1982: 24).

E.g.: The man found a cozy little place for a nap for that afternoon bk.

Cf.: The man found a cozy little place for a nap, which was suitable for that afternoon / suitable for that afternoon / It was very suitable for that afternoon.

Free members can sometimes substitute for the syntactic actants of an adjective. However, even in such cases, free members are not included in the SinVS.

E.g.: He is sad, and because of that […], that a stranger became one of his own at home (cf. for home) Smn.

You are a well-known person in society (cf. to society), and I ask you what interests that society Knd.

And I am only an outsider, quite unneeded in his life (cf. for his life) Rdzv.

In a sentence, free members can be added or omitted. However, it cannot be denied that in a particular context free members (freie Angabe) can be of primary importance and necessary for the communication of the sentence. This communicative necessity of free members is not related to their syntactic-semantic status (as free members) (Helbig 1992: 92). As H. Bluhm (1978: 13) states, communicative necessity is a criterion of language use, not of grammar.

E.g.: In a surprising way, Leonardas this time was not at all needed for that persuasion or his convincing Sv.

The free member this time is communicatively necessary. If it were omitted, the sentence would be understood incorrectly.

Cf.: Leonardas was not needed for that persuasion or his convincing Sv.

It would follow that Leonardas does not need to be persuaded not only this time but all the time. Yet the sentence was specifically intended to say that the persuasion or convincing is unnecessary only this time.

2.1.3.3. The omission of free members differs from that of facultative actants. If, by omitting free members, we lose all the information about the facts they convey, sentences without facultative actants (satellites) mean approximately the same as sentences with them, since they describe a certain part of the situation as we perceive it (Sližienė 1995: 61).

E.g.: Father owes the neighbor bk.

It can be inferred that the father owes a certain sum of money, which is not stated in this situation (as less relevant information).

2.1.3.4. Just as free members can be communicatively necessary, obligatory actants can be omitted in order to avoid communicative redundancy.

64

E.g.: Here Severja, having filled a whole basket with mushrooms, kept gazing into the distance for a long, long time.

Vž.

The obligatory actant may be omitted in dialogue and continuous text. Even then, however, it is conveyed indirectly (a) or can be easily inferred (b).

E.g.: a) He was hurriedly writing something on loose notebook pages, holding it on his knees. Already full sheets (cf. written-on) were scattered around Lnk. Vladukas, even though he had taken only a partially full bucket, would carry water from the pondlet (=pond) Ap. These trolleybuses are always full and full; you even wonder why so many are travelling to the city centre Lnk. b) His whole life leapt up. Granaries are full... (cf. of everything) Mč. My wallet is full (cf. of litas); I am dressed up nicely Šk. – The child was unlucky, – Vainoras mutters vaguely, mouth full (cf. of food) Av.

It is precisely the context that preserves all the information conveyed, and this ungrammaticality (the elimination of obligatory actants runs counter to the language system) is neutralized (Helbig 1992: 50).

2.1.4. At the level of lexical semantics, it is determined which semantic classes of words can serve as syntactic actants of an adjective. This is determined by the adjective’s ability to combine with words of a particular lexical meaning. The adjective’s possibilities for semantic compatibility with other words are called the adjective’s lexical valency.¹⁰ For example, one can say a daughter obedient to her mother, but one would not say * a chair obedient to its homeland; with the adjective vedinas ‘leading’, the described word and the instrumental must denote a living being [+Anim] or a human [Hum] (men leading horses bk, a mother leading a child bk). With the adjective nešinas ‘carrying’, the described word must denote a living being [+Anim] or a human [Hum], while the instrumental denotes a living being [+Anim], a human [Hum], or an object [–Anim] (a cat ran off carrying a mouse bk, a dog came back carrying a goose wing bk, here a girl walked across the yard carrying buckets M–Pt; along that garden path [a woman] walks carrying a baby Bl, a mother came back carrying chicks bk). The lexical environment of the adjective panašus ‘similar’ can vary. For example, a child [Hum] is similar to its mother [Hum] bk, to a withered little stick [–Anim] bk; a rag [–Anim] is similar to a bird circling in flight [+Anim] Cv, to a trampled hope [Abstr] bk, to a mistreated kitten [+Anim] bk; a strange rumbling [Abstr] is similar to the collapse of dreams [Abstr] bk; all the ideas [Abstr] are similar to the delusions of an unhealthy person [Abstr] bk.

Thus, the adjective’s syntactic and lexical valency realizes its semantic valency in the abstract deep structure through the external structure.

¹⁰ Lexical valency is indicated by the following symbols: Hum – human, +Anim – living being, –Anim – inanimate object, Abstr – abstract entity.

65

3. Since an adjective’s valency depends on its meaning, the same adjective, when used with different meanings, has a different syntactic, semantic, or lexical valency in each case. The meaning of the adjective also determines how many valency slots it has.

For example, the adjective kaltas, -a in sense (1), “having transgressed, committed a crime,” is bivalent:

N_D - Adj - (because ofGen)¹¹

The father is not to blame (for the neighbor’s misfortune) bk.

N_D - Adj - (Instr_Pron)

I am (in no way) to blame Vž.

In sense (2), “having borrowed something,” this adjective is trivalent:

N_D - Adj - (Dat) - (Acc)

I owe (a friend) (two litas) bk.

N_D - Adj - (Dat) - (Gen)

Jonas is liable to (his father) (for money) bk.¹²

In sense (3), “owing something to someone,” the adjective kaltas is tetravalent:

N_D - Adj - (Dat) - (Acc) - (forAcc)

The old man owes (the child) (a large amount) (for the work) bk.

N_D - Adj - (Dat) - (Gen) - (forAcc)

The neighbor owes (me) (money) (for the horses) bk.

N_D - Adj - (Dat) - (Instr) - (forAcc)

The sister is guilty (to her brother) (of rye) (for the calf) bk.

The adjective grateful (1), meaning “expressing or feeling gratitude,” is trivalent:

N_D - Adj - (Dat) - (forAcc)

Peter is grateful (to a stranger) (for the help) bk.

Used in the figurative meaning (2) “favorable, suitable,” this adjective is bivalent:

N_D - Adj - Dat

Soil favorable for activity Ž.

These adjectives differ not only in syntactic but also in semantic valency. The SemVS of the adjective guilty, used in meaning (1), is Adj [P, Caus], Adj [P, Con]; used in meaning (2), it is Adj [P, B, Con], and used in meaning (3), Adj [P, B, Con, M]. The SemVS of the adjective grateful, used in meaning (1), is Adj [Pcp, B, M], and used in the figurative meaning (2), Adj [P, Fin].

3.1. Different syntactic valency does not always indicate that an adjective is used with a different meaning. Different SinVS can be parallel models of the same meaning. They can be condensed into a single model with alternative forms of syntactic actants, between which a slash (/) is written. For example, the SinVS of favorable “suitable” is N_D - Adj - (Dat/Inf) (Every plant grows where there are favorable conditions (for living) (cf. for life) Ž). Adject-

¹¹ In syntactic valency structures and examples, optional actants are given in parentheses.

¹² If a sentence contains several optional syntactic actants, one of them usually has to be expressed in the sentence. For example: Jonas is guilty to his father; Jonas is guilty of money. But: *Jonas is guilty.

66

guilty, -a ‘having borrowed something’ SinVS is N_D - Adj - (Dat) - (Acc/Gen) (the father is guilty (to the neighbor) (of two litas / money) bk.). The adjective guilty, -a ‘having failed to settle with someone’ has the SinVS N_D - Adj - (Dat) - (Acc/Gen/Instr) – (for Acc) (the old man is guilty (to Jonas) (of a rabbit / money / apples) (for a hat) bk.). Alternative syntactic patterns correspond to the same SemVS (e.g., favorable, -i SemVS - Adj [P, Fin].

3.2. The same adjective meaning is also possible when both syntactic and semantic valency differ. In that case, the situation being described is interpreted differently. For example, the adjective guilty, -a ‘having transgressed, having committed a crime’ can have two syntactic and semantic valency structures:

(1) SinVS N_D - Adj - (delGen) SemVS Adj [P, Caus] For example: The father was not guilty (of the neighbor’s misfortune), yet something clenched his heart bk.

(2) SinVS N_D - Adj - (Instr^Pron) SemVS Adj [P, Con] For example: (That) and he is guilty Jb; I am innocent of nothing Vž; The father starves them, he alone is guilty of everything Cv. Sentence (1) states the specific reason for the transgression; in sentences (2), the pronoun with generalized meaning does not name the cause of guilt. However, most often, when both syntactic and semantic valency differ, the adjective meanings are different.

3.3. The following relations are possible between an adjective’s SinVS and SemVS.

3.3.1. The adjective’s SinVS are different

a) SemVS are also different. The adjective is most often used with different meanings (except in cases such as 3.2).

(1) persistent, -i a) ‘bothering, annoying by constantly asking, pestering, or repeating something’: Don’t be [you] [P] (to others) [Pcp] persistent Vl. N_D -Adj - Dat) Ramutis’s care [Con] (for him) [Pcp] had become unbearably persistent M-Pt. b) ‘boring’: Strijkauskis [P] (i.e., the book) is boring (to read) [Fin] Dk. N_D -Adj - (Inf) (2) handy, -i a) ‘convenient’: The scythe [P] is handy for me [B] Ž. N_D -Adj - Dat b) ‘suitable’: The cup [P] is handy for pouring [Fin] Ž. N_D -Adj - Inf

b) SemVS is the same. Different SinVS function as parallel patterns.

(1) resistant, -i ‘not yielding to external action’: a. N_D -Adj - Dat The bird’s chest is resistant to winds bk Adj [P, Con] b. N_D -Adj - before Acc The bird’s chest is resistant to the wind Cv. But: heat-resistant metal bk. * metal resistant to heat bk. (2) open, -a ‘sincere, saying everything’:

67

a. N_D-Adj - (Dat)

I am open to you, because I know that you are a good M-Pt.

Adj [Pcp, B]

b. N_D-Adj - (with Instr)

You see, I am open with you, Mr. Vainoras Avž.

(3) greedy “wanting a lot, avaricious”:

a. N_D-Adj - Gen

The calf is greedy for drink Ž.

Adj [Pcp, Con]

b. N_D-Adj - Inf

The calf is greedy to drink Ž.

(4) equal “of the same size, quality; alike”:

a. N_D-Adj - Dat

My friends were equal to me or taller than me.¹³

Adj [P, Comp]

b. N_D-Adj - with Instr

The child is equal to a bachelor bk.

(5) pleasant “giving joy, good, favorable”:

a. N_D-Adj -(Dat)

She (to Mazarini) will not be pleasant Dr.

Adj [Pcp, B]

b. N_D-Adj - (with Instr)

Bernaras knew how to be pleasant (with women) Knd.

(6) capable “able to do much, strong, sturdy”:

a. N_D-Adj - Dat

A person is incapable of creativity Ž.

Adj [P, Con]

b. N_D-Adj - Inf

A person is incapable of creating Ž.

(7) shrewd “agile, resourceful”:

a. N_D-Adj - (nearGen)

A shrewd (at work) person DŽ.

Adj [P, Fin]

b. N_D-Adj - (Inf)

He is clumsy (at working) DŽ.

(8) worthy “suitable, deserving”:

a. N_D-Adj - Gen

Jonas is worthy of mention bk.

Adj [P, Con]

b. N_D-Adj - Inf

Jonas is worthy to mention bk.

3.3.2. The adjective’s SinVS is the same.

a) SemVS differ. The adjective is used with different meanings and in each case belongs to a different semantic group, but its syntactic valency is the same. Cf.:

(1) artimas, -a

a) “similar, almost corresponding to something”: Such conduct [P] seemed close to treason [Comp] Avž.

N_D - Adj - Dat

b) “having close ties”: What a noble, intelligent woman, by her very nature dear to you [P] Rdzv.

(2) imlus, -i

a) “quick to learn, talented”: He [Pcp] is keen on science [Con] bk.

N_D - Adj - Dat

b) “readily taking in”: Soil [P] readily absorbs moisture [Con] bk.

(3) kupinas, -a

13 J. Šukys (1998: 504) teigia, kad lyginant pagal ūgį vartojama prielinks-ininė konstrukcija suInstr, bet kai lyginama pagal vertę, kokybę, reikia rinktis Dat.

68

a) “very full, filled to capacity”: The apple tree [P] was laden with apples [Con] this year. Smn.

_ND - Adj - Gen

b) figurative, “very much filled with something”: Full of the most beautiful impressions [Con] […] I [Pcp] returned to my beloved homeland. Vn.

(4) full

a) “completely occupied, having a great deal of something”: The street [P] is full of dust [Con]. Ap.

_ND - Adj - Gen

b) figurative, “filled with, full of a feeling or quality”: And once again Šimonis [Pcp] full of good hope [Con] looked to the future. Smn.

(5) favorable

a) “approving, sympathetic, well-disposed”: A person [B] well-disposed toward us [Pcp]. DŽ.

_ND - Adj - Dat

b) “suitable”: The conditions [P] are favorable (for living) [Fin]. bk.

(6) necessary

a) “indispensable, necessary”: The child [B] needs care [Con]. bk.

_ND - Adj - Dat

b) “needed”: Pigs [P] are needed for feed [Fin]. Jb.

(7) rich

a) “containing a lot of something within itself”: Food [P] rich in vitamins [Con] Ž.

_ND - Adj - Gen

b) “having a lot of something”: Juozienė [B] rich in needles [Con] bk.

3.4. Different adjectives may have the same syntactic but different semantic valency, and vice versa: the semantic valency of adjectives may be the same, while their syntactic valency differs. Several cases are possible.

3.4.1. The syntactic valencies of adjectives are the same.

a) The semantic valencies are also the same.

(1) a. Fat [Con] filled tub [P] Ž.

b. Ditches [P] full of grass [Con] Cv.

_ND - Adj - Gen

c. Glass [P] brimming with milk [Con] bk.

d. Food [P] rich in vitamins [Con] Ž.

All these adjectives share the general meaning “containing a lot of something within itself.” Naturally, their individual meanings may differ, but they may also be synonymous (cf. full, replete).

b) SemVS differ.

(2) a. He [P] of a horse [Con] is necessary Jb.

b. Ona [B] rich in needles [Con] bk.

_ND - Adj - Gen

c. People [Pcp] greedy (for money) [Con] Ž.

69

Although the syntactic valency of the adjectives is the same, their meanings are completely different.

3.4.2. Adjectives with different SinVS.

a) SemVS are the same. Such adjectives belong to different syntactic classes but to the same semantic group.

(3) a. N_D - Adj - Gen A man full of rage bk.

b. N_D - Adj - Dat Vincas indifferent to poetry bk.

c. N_D - Adj - Instr A brother certain of his own death bk. Adj [Pcp, Con]

d. N_D - Adj - užAcc A man responsible for the path he has chosen bk.

These adjectives denote a person's mental attitude toward an object or phenomenon.

b) SemVS differ.

(4) a. N_D - Adj - Dat Daughter [Pcp] obedient to her mother [B] DŽ.

b. N_D - Adj - Instr The men return on horseback [P] led DŽ.

c. N_D - Adj - nuoGen The husband's point of view [P] different from the wife's point of view [Comp] bk.

d. N_D - Adj - (Inf) The father [Pcp] is capable (of teaching) [Fin] bk.

Adjective meanings differ because they describe different situations.

4. Thus, the relationships between an adjective’s meanings and its valency can be quite varied, as is the case with verbs. If an adjective has the same syntactic valency, its semantic valency may differ, and its meanings also differ. If an adjective’s syntactic valency differs, its semantic valency may differ as well; moreover, the adjective’s meanings are usually different too. But the same adjective’s SemVS may correspond to several syntactic valency structures, which generally function as parallel models, while the adjective’s meaning remains essentially the same. Several adjectives may have both the same syntactic and semantic valency. In that case, all these adjectives share a common meaning (they belong to the same semantic group), and that meaning may be further specified. However, when the syntactic valency of adjectives coincides, their semantic valency may differ; the meanings of the adjectives then differ because they describe different situations. Such adjectives belong to different syntactic classes and different semantic groups. One may agree with N. Slizienė (1995: 69) that syntactic valency, which is the first thing that catches the language user’s eye, does not by itself indicate either identity or difference of meaning.

Received 1998 11 02

ABBREVIATIONS

Ap – Juozas Aputis

Avž – Jonas Avyžius

70

Blt – Juozas Baltušis

bk – standard language

Cv – Petras Cvirka

Dk – Simonas Daukantas

Dr – Petras Dirgėla

DŽ – Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian. Vilnius, 1993

Jb – Jonas Jablonskis

Knd – Saulius Tomas Kondrotas

Lnk – Romualdas Lankauskas

Mč – Jonas Mačiulis

M-Pt – Vincas Mykolaitis-Putinas

Rdzv – Bronius Radzevičius

Sv – Jurgis Savickis

Smn – Ieva Simonaitytė

Šk – Antanas Škėma

Vl – Motiejus Valančius

Vn – Antanas Vienuolis

Vž – Vaižgantas (Juozas Tumas)

Ž – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas. T. I–XVII. Vilnius, 1968–1996.

LITERATŪRA

A p r e s i a n 1974: Апресян Ю. Д. Лексическая семантика, Москва: Наука.

B l u h m H. 1978: Über kommunikative Notwendigkeit und Valenz. – Valence, Semantic Case and Grammatical Relations. Ed. W. Abraham, Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V., 9–21.

DLKG 1994 – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Red. V. Ambrazas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

DŽ 1993 – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Vyr. red. St. Keinys, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

F i x U. 1970: Zum Verhältnis von Syntax und Semantik im Wortgruppenlexem. – WZ der Karl-Marx-Universität Leipzig. GSR. 19(4), 483–501.

H e l b i g G., Schenkel W. 1973: Wörterbuch zur Valenz und Distribution deutscher Verben, Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut.

H e l b i g G. 1982: Valenz-Satzglieder-Semantische Kasus-Satzmodelle, Leipzig: VEB Verl. Enzyklopädie.

H e l b i g G. 1992: Probleme der Valenz – und Kasustheorie, Tübingen: Niemeyer.

J a k a i t i e n ė E. 1988: Leksinė semantika. Vilnius: Mokslas.

J u n k e r K. 1969: Zur Valenz beim Adjektiv. – WZ der Humbolt – Universität zu Berlin. GSR. 18(2), 291–293.

Ž I–XVII – 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.

S l i ž i e n ė N. 1986: Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių valentingumas ir sintaksinė klasifikacija, – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 25, 45–97.

71

S l i ž i e n ė N. 1994: Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių junglumo žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

S l i ž i e n ė N. 1995: Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių valentingumas ir jo aprašymo principai, – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 33, 54–74.

S o m m e r f e l d t K. E. 1971: Zur Valenz des Adjektivs. – Deutsch als Fremdsprache 8(2), Leipzig. 113–117.

S t a r k e G. 1973: Satzmodelle mit prädikativem Adjektiv im Deutschen. – Deutsch als Fremdsprache 10(3), Leipzig, 138–147.

Š u k y s J. 1998: Lietuvių kalbos linksniai ir prielinksniai: vartosena ir normos, Kaunas: Šviesa.

T e k o r i e n ė D. 1982: Sintaksinė semantika, jos nagrinėjimo metodai ir žodžių junginių semantikos problemos. – Kalbotyra 33(1), 132–139.

T e k o r i e n ė D. 1983: Lietuvių kalbos būdvardžio semantinis valentingumas. – Kalbotyra 34(1), 97–107.

V a l e c k i e n ė A. 1998: Funkcinė lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

BEDEUTUNG UND VALENZ DER ADJEKTIVE

Zusammenfassung

Im letzten Jahrzehnt sind viele Publikationen erschienen nicht allein zum Problem der Valenz der Verben, sondern auch zu dem der Adjektive.

Das Adjektiv als prädikatives Wort im Satz hat immer eine Leerstelle für ein Argument, d. h. für ein Ding, das den Träger der Eigenschaft ausdrückt – für das Deskript. Es gibt Adjektive, die zwei – oder auch mehr – Leerstellen für die Argumente des Prädikats haben. In diesen Fällen reagiert das Adjektiv selber die Wörter, die Dinge ausdrücken, welchen das durch das Prädikat ausgedrückte Kennzeichen zugeteilt wird: es ist eine Beziehung – mit Ausnahme des Deskripts – die auf der Kongruenz des Adjektivs beruht.

Die Zahl der Leerstellen hängt von der Bedeutung des Adjektivs ab. Die entscheidende semantische Eigenschaft des Adjektivs ist eine bestimmte Anzahl von Leerstellen zu bedingen, die im Satze Wörter mit einer gewissen Bedeutung sowie deren Formen – oder ihre Entsprechungen – ein nehmen. Die Valenz bezieht sich auf drei Ebenen: auf die abstrakte Ebene der logischen Semantik und auf zwei konkrete Ebenen – auf die der syntaktischen bzw. der lexikalischen Semantik.

Die durch die Aktanten des Adjektivs ausgedrückten semantischen Funktionen bilden die semantische Valenz des Adjektivs, die durch die Struktur der semantischen Valenz (Sem VS) dargestellt werden kann. Der Anschluß an das Adjektiv obligatorischer Wortformen (oder ihrer Entsprechungen) heißt syntaktische Valenz des Adjektivs, die durch die entsprechende Struktur der syntaktischen Valenz (Sin VS) darzustellen ist. Die syntaktischen Aktanten des Adjektivs treten dabei als sprachliche Realisierung der semantischen Aktanten auf.

Da die Valenz des Adjektivs von seiner Bedeutung abhängt, können die Beziehungen der Bedeutungen des Adjektivs zu seiner Valenz ziemlich unterschiedlich sein. Wenn die syntaktische Valenz des Adjektivs einheitlich ist bei unterschiedlichen Bedeutungen des Adjektivs, kann sich seine semantische Valenz unterscheiden. Aber der gleichen Struktur des Adjektivs Sem VS können einige. Strukturen der syntaktischen Valenz entsprechen, die gewöhnlich als parallele Modelle fungieren, wobei die Bedeutung des Adjektivs im Wesentlichen die gleiche bleibt. Manche Adjektive werden durch die gleiche syntaktische wie auch semantische Valenz

72

gekennzeichnet. In diesen Fällen weisen alle diese Adjektive die gleiche Bedeutung auf (sie gehören zur gleichen semantischen Gruppe) die weiterhin detailliert werden kann. Doch wenn auch die syntaktische Valenz der Adjektive übereinstimmt, kann sich die semantische Valenz unterscheiden, wobei sich auch die Bedeutungen der Adjektive unterscheiden, die unterschiedliche Situationen bezeichnen. Diese Adjektive gehören zu unterschiedlichen syntaktischen und semantischen Klassen bzw. Gruppen.

73