Įterpinių sampratos lietuvių kalbos sintaksėje

XXXVI (1996) LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXXVI (1996) LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE: RESEARCHERS AND. RESEARCHS Gintautas AKELAITIS INTERPRETATING THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE SYNTACSIS The history of Lithuanian language syntax has been written only in fragments. One such fragment should be the history of the study of inserts, in which the development of the concept of inserts is particularly important. In Lithuanian language studies up to the end of the 19th century it is possible to find syntactic constructions and words that are called insertions by modern syntaxists, but they are neither named nor discussed. For example, the author of the first scientific grammar of the Lithuanian language, A. Šleicheris, discussing the preposition anot, used only in insertive constructions, states: "anot meaning is unclear to me; it is possible and used in such combinations: anot tevo, anot jo zodzo <...>“ (Schleicher 1856: 280); he was followed by F. Kuršaitis (cf. Kurschat 1876: 389). And this is not surprising: until 1911 J. Jablonski's "Lietuvų kalbos sintaksės" was not a description of sentence syntax — the subjects of syntax were presented on the basis of the syntax of language parts (cf. Būda 1987: 13 and others), and in general the syntax of the Lithuanian language was little developed as a field of linguistics (cf. Sabaliauskas, 1979: 197, Zinkevičius 1992: 153). Nevertheless, even before J. Jablonski’s works, in the first Lithuanian language studies, what is called insertions in the current term was tried to be named, although not discussed separately. The first terms used for insertions and the first examples of insertions were given in the explanations of punctuation. For example, A. Baranauskas's "Language of Lithuanian Language" (1896: 59), discussing the comma writing, states: "By a punctuation mark (comma — G. A.) are separated words for injecting, sentences for injecting..- ." ; Peter Gražbylis (P. Januševičius) "In the Syntax.." (1905: 28) use the terms "words thrown", "words thrown in"?. Unfortunately, these works do not provide any examples to show what these terms mean. A. Stuobris in his *Kalbamoksly" (1906 64—65), explaining the writing of bracketed (descriptive) verbs, used the terms "inclusive words and sakyniy" and identified examples that show that the author's use of these terms to name constructions is considered in the present syntax science as insertions, e.g. : Brotherhood, equality—those beautiful bonds (which Christ proclaimed to mankind long ago) only after he had reconciled all forever with God. About Lithuanian works he wrote in Lithuanian (truly in Žemaičių) only one in 1 De la historio kaj dato de eldono de ”Kalbomokslis” zr. : Sabaliauskas 1979: 168; Zinkevičius 1992: 113 ir kt In his recent study of Lithuanian linguistic terms, A. Balašaitis did not specify the latter term variant. (see section 4.4). Balašaitis 1961). 179 Daukantas et al. | [interpinius as a syntactic phenomenon —a certain "diversity" of sentences ”savotiskum" separate- — ly discussed J. Jablonskis 1911 m. Rygiškių "Slovenski jezik" (in Slovenian) "Slovenski jezik" (in Slovenian) "Slovenski jezik" (in Slovenian) Whereas, be apibré; tions, syntax theory, and thus the theoretical discussion of insertions, that ”Syntax” does not have (by the way, there is no basis for missing it in the textbook), the greatest value are the numerous examples, the selection, distribution, presentation of which shows the author’s theoretical approach. Iš abundant examples show that J. Jablonski as insertions limit seeing, says, so, one word and so on. ir type words and phrases, where in today's syntax forms the center of insertions (in relation to the inventory). Incidentally, J. Jablonski defined insertions as sentences: "An independent sentence, which, being interpted by another, does not have a grammatical connection with it, į brings into the whole su statement some explanation of the į thought, a confirmation, a related selection,— is called an insertion sentence" (Jablonski, 1990, p. 1957: 519); s J. Jablonski regarded them as compounds (see section 4.4). Jablonski 1957: 531), in this a view J. Jablonski- 's view coincided su to Russian syntaxists statements which, in summarizing, the researcher inserts A. Ostanin stated: "the insertion problem first arose as a <...>the problem of another, more optional sentence in the sentence” (Ocranun 1969: 4). J. Jablonski spoke only ne of interjections, immediate- — ly po ap brezimo he added: ”interpjami ir anyway already sayings ir individual words This is not any definitional clarification by the — authors of to the Syntax of Time textbook D. Ovsiannik-Kulikovski, later ir A. According to jų Peshkovskiy and previous interpretations, inserted words are parts of an incomplete sentence or, conversely, of a shortened sentence* (plg. Ocranun 1969: 11). Ką means inserted, as can be seen from iš the J. definition, Jablonski no described only approximately": 'makes the į whole sentence a little bit of an explanation, a narrowing'. Ta very generalized indicated insertions x mantine purpose, one, neatspindéjo meaning typical iterpiniy father, see, — an seem, say, called, one word etc., which are distinguished by tar ir ir J. examples provided by Jablonski; secondly, the emphasis on the explanatory, indicative narrowing purpose allowed J. "Jablonski's inserted temporal constructions su without, plg. : There were seven be brothers, Peter. Be ši t appearances, there ir were many other, even greater (Jablonskis 1957: 521 3 For J. Jablonskii 1911 m. ” "Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė" (in su Lithuanian- ). : Palionis 1957: 47—48, Pirochkine 1978: 78—80; Sab: liauskas 1979: 197. | Yes, already exposed A. Peskov, said M. Door: ”interjections) are (i fragments of full <...> sentences" (Doors 1927: 79). | Enablement of the formal grammatical direction (although J. Jablonski remained faithful to the logical-grammatical direction), little attention was paid to semantics. Be tc J. Jablonski does not seem to consider the content of the inserts important: ”interpunktional sentences are ir sometimes easy to ir discard altogether, nė and this discard does not affect the full meaning of the syntax. Saying: "You, s a k o, yesterday in town" means the same as the sentenci e: "You were in town yesterday" (Jablonskis 1957: 521). 180 True, those narrowing constructions did not match the most important characteristic J. In Jablonski's — definition that su insertions in a sentence "does not have a grammatical conjunction- ." These and similar constructions were later limited by J. Balkevičius as insertive, "grammatically linked to the sentence" (see Balkevičius 1963: 270 et al.). J. Jablonski's concept of "interptional sentences" includes those constructions that in academic In "Lithuanian grammar" they are (1976: 714—719) called insertions. It is interesting that typical cases of inserted sentences (from a modern point of view) (e.g.: Once — the girl was already twelve years old — the manors began to talk) J. Jablonskis presented not together with "interptych sentences", but separately — explaining the writing of the hyphen and the brackets (see Jablonskis 1957: 546—547, 548). Such a separation, hardly accidental", perhaps allowing us to guess cautiously ir J. Jablonski felt a certain difference in ir insertion inserts (current terms). J. Jablonskis also considered the author's words inserted into direct speech as "interpth sentences". J. Jablonskis had enough reasons for treating the author’s words as insertions. Considering the sentences of direct language with author's insertions as syntactic completeness' (see Jablonskis 1957: 521), J. Jablonskis must have seen here the "connection", "joining", "coinciding" or "interposition" of the sentences. Of course, the connection of the author's words with the literal language is closest to "interpiping"*. Another thing helped to see the “interpime” here: J. Jablonskis did not differentiate between narrative language sentences with insertions and direct language sentences with the author’s words. He presented both in a mixed manner, using the same punctuation, e.g.: "We lay down", he says, "two of us — I and our child". Son. "You, mother, stay with the sick man," said the father, "and I'll go get the doctor." Jt. "You have to wash it first," the old man added. Jt. "Now go", he says, "home", "late", ¢ and d i, "we'll find out who's to blame". No., etc. The most important argument explaining why J. Jablonski did not differentiate between these sentences is apparently that in colloquial language (of which J. Jablonski gave the most examples) the recounted sentences often have the form of “atmintiniy” sentences (cf. *"<...>later", hear, "we will find out who is to blame here") and differ from indirect language, which is "the language of the participants" (Jablonski 1957: 527). It is interesting that J. Balkevičius with insertions hears, says only the participatory sentences of indirect speech presented. The sentences with insertions, where all words are said by the speaker, can be contrasted with the sentences of direct language, which contain: the words of the author, —the latter are "two-person sentences with separate modal categories, which in one sentence are the words of the author, and in another sentence already * TNillustrating the writing of the comma, J. Jablonski repeated the sentences with insertions previously presented (see Jablonski 1957: 544). According to A. Pirochkin (1957: 81), "syntactic completeness" duplicated the term of the sentence (usually compound). ; : Discussing the place of the interpunct in a sentence, J. Jablonskis stated: "<...> restate the interpunct sentence, and by building it from the beginning we will also get the simple base sentence. For example: Father said: "You, mother, stay with the sick man, and I will go to bring the doctor", —There will be no interjection" (Jablonskis 1957: 521). The letter shows Jablonski's efforts to interpret the direct speech with the author's words as a compound sentence. 181 the view of another speaking person the į real reality of the said ir thought (Balkevičius 1963: 390). Such a contradiction J. Jablonskis did not ir dė emphasize, the aforementioned similarity of the author's words ta rp inserts’. A long time — from 1911 m. Rygiškių Jono “Lietuvių kalbos sintaksės" ik 1963 in the year when it was published J. Balkevičius' "Modern Lithuanian language syntax s¢”,— there were no generalizing works on sentence syntax. About Lithuanian language; syntax development, so the ir understanding of insertions can be judged by iš syntax: textbooks for schools. P. In the Klim Syntax Handbook (I leid. 191; m.), prepared in accordance with Rygiškių Jono "Lithuanian language syntax? content, M Durio (1927), P. Meškausko (1929). Z. Kuzmickio (I leid. 1930 m.), as well as J. Later, the ir J. Ambraškos (1940), Žiugždos J. leid. (I 1945 m. A. Kalnius’ (1943) textbooks on Lithuanian language syntax neither attempted to discuss insertions more originally, nor the jų concept, compared su J. Jablons! of which is presented in more detail. As you can see Iš tų textbook illustrative materials"?, inserts (especially inserted sentences) are understood almost as broadly as J. Jablonski- 's work. j | Nevertheless, in those textbooks something has been ne done to clarify {terpiniy sam prata. First of all, when describing the iterpiniy semantic feature, the undefined Jablonskian indication is no longer satisfying, o modals of doubt, conviction, etc. are emphasized. ir shades. Secondly, the ir inventory of insertions, especially insertions, expands according to the frequency of use. (plg. Kalnius 1943: 45—46); in the broad sense of insertion, there are inserted "syntactical plenaciy” (text insertions) (see section 4.4). Kuzmickis 1930: 104, 160—161). This is influenced by the emerging new criteria for the standardization of literary language, no longer satisfied only with the spoken language of k i the people, reorienting the material of racial sources ir į (plg. Palionis 1979: 277). i Substantial changes in the concept of insertion made in the scientific descriptions 1 of Lithuanian language syntax — J. Balkevičius' "Contemporary Lithuanian Language Sin= (1963 267—181) ir Taxonomy" in Academic Lithuanian Grammar (LKG: 698—719, I'm: 666—670)!!, r The scientific interpretation of the insertions was influenced by two different trends. The first trend was to establish a broad category į that would include all that k s not the real parts of the sentence (so ir inserts). In syntax, there are several variants of this category: category of expandable sentence elements (ocroxnenne — see, for example, Pymnen 1959), category of accompanying sentence parts (see section 4.4). : Dumasiii- ? True, interpunction says related su construction says [someone] having an author. the syntactic function of words. T d Tų textbook paragraphs for inserts, the abundance of examples ne iš by far exceeds J. Jablonski- 's work; some authors (P. Klimas, M. Durys, P. Meškauskas) repeated J. Jablonski's sentences in su insertions. i į Sections "Inserted words and ir phrases" in the academic "Lithuanian grammar" (1976, t. 3) signed Z. Danube River; iš of all Lithuanian linguists has ji mainly studied insertions in separate articles, wrote a comprehensiji ve chapter on insertions in the academic publication "Lietuvių kalbos rašyba skyryba” ir (1976: 299—323). In Russian " "Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos" (1985) (in Lithuanian). The second trend —to differentiate A. Rose. : 182 more those phenomena, which in syntax are called inserts: inserts were separated from inserts (see e.g. Cenyn 1959: 186—194; also zr. TPA, 1960: 140—174; MLLVG: 566-681 et seq.). In J. Balkevičius' "Syntax of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language" insertions are considered to be roughly what constitutes the expandable elements of the sentence, in both academic "Grammars of the Lithuanian Language" insertions are o distinguished from insertions. In J. Balkevičius's "Contemporary Lithuanian Language Syntax" a very broad concept of insertions is presented. The broadness of the lemme of understanding is a non-strict main criterion for determining insertions —insertion into a sentence, which is somewhat concreted in semantic terms: insertions do not reverse the sentence's meaning"'*. The absence of grammatical connection in sentences. su which was traditionally considered the most important feature of insertions, “ in the syntax of contemporary Lithuanian language" has only a classificatory meaning: according to the presence/absence of a grammatical connection with the sentence, all broadly understood insertions are divided into two types: 1) "inserts grammatically linked by a su sentence", ir 2) 'insertions not grammaticsu ally linked to a sentence'. Insertions, grammatically linked to the sentence, were a new thing in Lithuanian syntax and, moreover, significant: according to the common feature of insertion, many syntactic elements were sublocated, which until then in Lithuanian syntax works had not been properly discussed or classified in any way. By the way, as we will see below, in academic works on syntax, after rejecting insertions, grammatically linked to the sentence, those elements were not adequately explained in other aspects. What are actually insertions, grammatically connected to the sentence, is shown by the jy division: they are 1) insertion parts of the sentence and 2) explanatory insertions of the sentence parts. There are two types of inserted sentence parts: a) comparative insertive sentence parts (Mikutis, like his IL é vas, knew how to please everyone), b) insertive sentence parts denoting the exclusion of the negation (Niekas ten neaugo, katp tik buckwheat). Explanatory insertions of sentence parts: Domestic animals, such as: horse cow. kEitauwle tr other, very useful to man; The equator, or equator, divides the earth | two equal hemispheres; In the wilderness, in a narrow stretch of grass, there's a boy. All of them have the same grammatical relationship: they enter the sentence through an intermediate word, the syntactic function of which they repeat. Only their role in the sentence and their logical semantic relationship with the intermediate word are different, and this was the basis for their more detailed division." What in the "Syntax of the Modern Lithuanian Language" is considered to be insertions, grammatically connected with the sentence, are syntactic elements that are connected by non-verbal elements. Av Sa Teas T is clearly seen from the definition of interpunction: "[interpunctions are all those words and combinations of words that are inserted into a sentence to expand the thought expressed, to explain individual parts of the sentence and the whole sentence, or to mark the speaker's remarks and emotions" (Balkevičius 1963: 268). | E.g.: "Explanatory insertions of sentence parts differ from inserted sentence parts in that they do not raise new, adjacent phenomena <...>, but explain the phenomenon already described by the sentence part <...>* (Balkevičius 1963: 271). 183 not only the mentioned insertive nature of the use, but also the exclusion intonation, the grammatical connection and syntactic function, the peculiarity of the logical and semantic relationship with the intermediate word. Each of the ty attributes can be given priority by blocking these syntactic elements with others by defining the jy = syntactic status. Thus, what is considered to be insertive, grammatically connected with the sentence in the "Syntax of Modern Lithuanian Language" can be evaluated several times from different positions. In other works on Lithuanian language syntax, the concept of insertions, grammatically linked to the sentence, was not developed and deepened for a long time. The elements corresponding to the distinguishing insertions of sentence parts are interpreted in two ways: 1) as exclusive sentence parts (exclusive suffix, exclusive corrective sentence parts) and as insertions (in academic works), 2) as explanatory corrective sentence parts ir (Kareckaitė 1965: 5—18; 1983: 182–198. And the elements corresponding to inserted sentence parts are almost not examined at all'?. In the "Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė" published in 1994, V. Labutis, having pointed out that the concepts of insertions may be of different scope, supports the broad concept of insertions developed by J. Balkevičius (see Labutis 1994: 101—106). Academic syntax descriptions do not talk about the grammatical relationship of insertions to the sentence, not because it is obsolete, but rather because the problem of relation is avoided. Here are the definitions of narrowly understood inserts (LKG: 701; T JI A: 666; DLKG: 641), without mentioning the grammatical connection, constructions that have such a connection are still inserted. And what to say of the interjections — many of them are grammatically linked to the sentence. J. Balkevičius' work is important for the formation of the concept ne of insertions not only because of the extension of the concept of insertions, but also because of those new statements that allowed to have a more accurate concept of insertions. 1. For the first time in Lithuanian syntax the specificity of the content of insertions, grammatically not connected by a sentence, su is generalized: "they speak about ne objects and phenomena of real reality, as insertions of sentence parts explanatory insertions of sentence ar parts bring to the fore the views, remarks <...>, o and emotions of other persons of ar the speaking person in relation to the individual parts of the ar sentence of the said thought" (Balkevičius 1963: 275). Now inserts šį are distinguished from inserts by character. O Most — importantly, this feature is a hint of the idea that all syntactic elements used in the sentence are secondary in communicative terms. 2. It is precisely explained that insertions (of course, su real ones) in other sentence words do not have the grammatical connection characteristic of the word combination stage: "they <...> word combinasu tions of other sentence words Rl SL 11 They, except for one other random example, are not even discussed in summarizing academic papers (LKG; I'J15). | 15 Pai primarily controlling prepositional constructions su be (without me, gifts be etc.), also ir next to, next to su (zr. LKG: 708), corresponding to the interjectional parts of the sentence, signifying the distinction {. They are considered to be ! inserts, apparently because of the misleading analogy of the real iterpiniy (plg. such interjecbe tions: be abejo, to, be | we ko ir The real — iterpinial constructs of — specialized significance. 184 do not constitute —are not harmonized with them, are not cleaned by them or added to them" (Balkevičius 1963: 275). 3. Although in the "Syntax of the Modern Lithuanian Language"*, according to the traditions of earlier syntax, the interjections, grammatically not connected in a sentence, are joined su with a preposition, but, on the other hand; restricted, albeit without any single basis, such groups of insertively used sentence elements, which can be considered a clue to the classification of true parentheses elements. First of all, pertarai'® (so to speak, called...), which in colloquial language are "repeated constantly because of a bad habit" (Balkevičius 1963: 279), are mentioned (in fact, in addition to the inserted words). Separately restricted are the introductory words (and so, and enough, and all...), with which "the speaker ends the sentence, emphasizing the said thought as his final and irreplaceable conclusion" (Balkevičius 1963: 281). Inserts are described as individual, isolated elements in traditional syntax, because they do not have the usual grammatical relationship with the other words in the sentence and are therefore different from them. Therefore, there is no need to explain what rank and place they occupy among other elements of the syntax. This significantly reduces the possibility of describing the inserts themselves, localizing them in the system of other syntactic phenomena. | This tradition in Lithuanian language syntax was first attempted to change by Z. Dumašiūtė in her article “On sentence parts and their interrelationships” (1963). Asserting that in a sentence "there are and cannot be words without any syntactic function", Z. Dumašiūtė divided all the possible sentence words into four groups: 1) words that are so-called meaningful parts of the sentence, 2) words that have no meaningful functions and are used as an essential component of meaningful parts of the sentence, 3) conjunctions and words with a connective function, 4) words that say something from the speaker himself. There are three types of sentence parts: 1) significant ones, 2) connecting ones, 3) accompanying ones. Insertions belong to the fourth group of words and the third type of sentence parts. In the class of conjunctive sentence parts, the blocking of the adverb, as well as the statement yes and the statement no with insertions, which is already common in syntax works, became motivated; it turned out that the expressively said emoticons, demonstrative particles (antai, aure, štai, etc.) no longer need to be dragged to the insertions (this is unfortunately done even in current syntax descriptions), — all these are accompanying parts of the sentence. Although the accompanying parts of the sentence are not without limitations (with other parts of the sentence do not form a classification, because they are all limited in more than one respect; the accompanying parts of the sentence themselves are very different; Most doubts are raised by their new relationship with other sentence words - syntactic accompaniment - "found" next to predication, determination and coordination'“), although they did not become Lithuanian16 J. Balkevičius (1963: 279) still called them signs. The so-called relation of the parts of the sentence are invented in order to artificially separate the relationships of the words in the compound and the relationships of the parts of the sentence in the sentence. In fact, the so-called relationships of the parts of the sentence are the same relationships on the level of the compounds (of the same words): connection, connection and, in the present term, mutual dependence (interface). . Dumašiūtė calls syntactic accompaniment such a relationship of two 185 sentence elements, when "one of them (the accompaniment) with the other (the accompart niment, "significair nt") is only related to the fact of the description of the syntax of their own language, it must be admitted that the attempt to separate sentence parts to discuss syntactic accompaniment helped Z. Dumašiūtei to clarify the concept of ir iterpiniy concept, compare su J. Balkevicius's presentetajal®, motivated to turn the į opposite side. | Z. Dumašiūtė observed that all the ne elements of the sentence, which were then considered insertions, are characterized by a relationship that she ji calls syntactic I p. driving. I resisted the temptation to use such insertions in Aš sentences; merge ir (I have not 0) sinned against my imagination. I remembered, my sister— it's been a long time! — shook off the horror, — ji pointed out; "The latter insertions su are linked to other language elements by syntactic relations typical of the basic language plan. In this way, they form an extended ir compositiį on of basic (significant) language elements. But, pronounced with the characteristic intonation of extraneous remarks, such words ir jų compounds are still just as if by the way insertions, only, unlike the ko previously mentioned insertions, the latter are called false insertions” (Dumašiūtė 1963: 245). | This is the ir beginning of the internal narrowing of your scope. Later, writing academic "Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos" section on inserted words and phrases, ir Dumašiūtė those Z. She separated the ”false” interpunctions from the real interpunctions by insertions, of course, ir having before her eyes the example of Latvian, Russian and other language grammar. ir It is only a pity that so remained ir undeveloped the idea that some ty "false" insertions according to their connection su in the sentence "like in ir į <...> the composition of the basic (significant) language elements", i.e., there are only meaningful parts of the sentence or other syntactic constructions that have acquired certain features characteristic of insertions. In the academic "Lithuanian grammar" the majority of insertions were so-called free insertions (mostly insertion sentences), which "definite ri lexical expressions of ir non-specific semantic functions" ir "because of their additive nature <...> only go inside or at the end of the sentence, usually the parts of po tų the sentence su with which they are connected by their meaning?" (LKG: Inserts 714). are separated from free ne inserts, this is a part of a newly restricted syntax phenomenon, — because as iš inserts were described those sentence elements, which in previous works of syntax were disregarded, ir for example: various "technical" inserts iš (His pupil Vytautas (photo on the right) is one of the most — talented young astronomers); various parts of a sentence elements of ir a compound sentence even several ir sentences of the text, which are isolated by intonation (separated in writing by brackets or hyphens) due to their external character. į significant functions, but do not extend each other <...>. The fusion expresses the necessary ir place of the accompanying consonant element in the same coherent unit of ir r language by a certain to unit intonation that encompasses both of these elements. The form of the melting element does not depend on the melting element’ (Dumašiūtė 1963: 246). As you can see, the so-called k accompanying signs are not something new either, they are — roughly what is said in the explanation of the statement that the inserts have no grammatical connection in the su sentence. ; r in insertion concept, which is J. Balkevičiaus " In the syntax of the contemporary Z. Lithuanian language”, o Dumašiūtė did not deny, held ją "a broadly understood concept of inserts? (Dumašiūtė 1963: 245). | 186 | In "Lithuanian grammar" all inserted words and phrases are initially examined together, their general (though very vague) characteristics are indicated: 1) indicate additional remarks related to the content of the sentence or its parts, thus being associated either with the whole sentence or with individual parts of the sentence; 2) they are followed by variable and fixed words, their conjunctions and constructions; 3) according to their structure, some inserted words and phrases correspond to parts of sentences, others — to elements of compound sentences; 4) their relation to the whole sentence or its parts is expressed by the place in the sentence with a certain intonation ir (they are usually spoken in a lower tone and at a faster pace than the words that express the main idea; sometimes inserted words and phrases are separated by pauzémis'® (zr. LKG: 698—700). However, the {terptinial } words and phrases of this "Grammar" cannot be considered a syntactic mi category connecting the interpunctir ual brackets. Discussing all the elements used in insertion iš together at the beginning seems to be still tų supported by the tradition of indifferentiated examination of elements. A number of facts indicate that this is the correct understanding of the term "inserted words and expressions". First, in the academic publication published at the time, as well as in me the third volume of the "Lithuanian Grammar", "Lietuvių kalbos rašyba ir skyryba" talks only about interpunctions, and some cases of interpunctions are supported by such features as foreignness, peculiar intonation, etc., which coincide with the general features of interpuncted words and phrases." Secondly, if the inserted words and phrases had had the status of categorical concepts, this category would probably have been enshrined in the 1985 academic "Grammar of the Lithuanian language". In this grammar, however, the elements of the sentence used in insertion are no longer discussed together, and therefore it seems that here, compared to the 1976 "Grammar of the Lithuanian language", insertions are more separated from insertions. Finally, if the inserted words and phrases had been a categorical concept, it must be assumed that a term corresponding to its status would have been chosen. Thus, in the works on Lithuanian language syntax, the concept of insertions was developed in two directions: expanded, especially in J. Balkevičius' "Syntax of Contemporary Lithuanian Language- ", V. Labutis' "Syntax of Lithuanian Language" (II d.), and narrowed in academic Lithuanian language grammar. In both directions of the analysis, what are inserts was in a way clarified. By expanding the concept of insertions, the aim was to combine as many sentence elements as possible, having one or other signs of insertion, and to separate, albeit indirectly, 19 such intonation and pauses, determined by self-observation, more suitable for insertion. a "30 The example of the interpretation of the elements of undifferentiated insertive sentence in "Lithuanian spelling and punctuation" apparently led to the fact that in language practice and language teaching works (e.g.: LKKN: 15—16; Kniūkšta, Lyberis: 54—56; Gedvilas, Kadžytė, Kuzavinis: 198—200; Dobrovolskis: 122—129) the traditional (wide) concept of insertive verbs remained. Therefore, two concepts of insertions are used in parallel at present: the broad one — in works on language practice and language teaching, the narrow one — in scientific works on syntax. Although the broad concept of insertions is sometimes more convenient for language practice, the ambiguity of the concept of insertions prevents a better understanding of the phenomenon itself; By the way, it would be useful to separate insertions from iterpiniy, because insertions are usually separated by commas, and starts or brackets, hyphens. 187