Aktualus tyrinėjimas

CURRENT RESEARCH V. Schmidt, Die Streckformen des deutschen Verbums. Substantivisch-verbale Wortverbindungen in publizistischen Texten der Jahre 1948 bis 1967, Halle (Saale), 1968, 144 p. The study by the German linguist Veronika Schmidt on combinations of verbs with verbal nouns (for example, Vortrag halten, Mitteilung machen, Entscheid(ung) treffen, corresponding in Lithuanian to make a report, adopt a decision) may also attract the attention of Lithuanian scholars because of the problematic nature of this issue. As is known, J. Jablonskis, although he himself used duoti patarimą, gauti pakvietimą, neturėti pasitikėjimo, generally corrected similar combinations.¹ Some disagreed with such corrections and defended these combinations. J. Palionis, editor of J. Jablonskis’s “Selected Works,” acted similarly.² Yet even today these forms are evaluated differently, and their usage varies even more. Therefore, without claiming to offer a comprehensive review, we would like to highlight a few theoretical ideas from this work that may also be relevant to the Lithuanian language. For her study, the author collected more than eight thousand five hundred examples from German journalistic writing spanning the 20-year period from 1948 to 1967. This substantial book consists of an introduction, three chapters—grammatical and syntactic analysis, stylistic analysis, and a summary of extensive statistical data—conclusions, and appendices comprising two indexes: verbal nouns and verbs (with frequency indications). V. Schmidt defines combinations of verbs and verbal nouns³ as analytic phraseological constructions consisting of a nominal abstract and a semantically bleached verb that serves as the structural center, and existing alongside synthetic verb forms that are approximately equivalent in meaning. The author explains their emergence by the substantivization of the verb, which disrupts the sentence—the content is lost. Another verb then comes to the rescue and becomes the link. It should be assumed, however, that nominalization takes place outside the sentence, while substantivized forms—these transformations of the verb—are employed in sentences as already formed units. The linking verb is most often polysemous, since its meanings change through the weakening of concrete semantic elements and the strengthening of abstract ones (with the abstract meaning correspondingly becoming stronger in the core lexical meaning as well). 1 Žr. J. Jablonskis, Rinktiniai raštai, t. II, Vilnius, 1959, p. 515. 2 See ibid., p. 532. 3 In German, Streckformen literally means extended forms. One can only admire the convenience of this unpretentious term (and its analogous counterpart, Streckverb) and regret that we have no similarly concise term. 223 ity in the core lexical meaning as well). They are also highly combinable (multivalent), and therefore form many analytic constructions. These linking verbs are most often called semi-auxiliary verbs4. German has quite a large number of them, just as it has a more strongly developed category of auxiliary and modal verbs. Because the meaning of the verbal link has become abstract and bleached, the meaning of the construction is not the sum of the meanings of its components. A certain idiomaticity and isolation of meanings are evident here. This is one reason why these analytic forms are not entirely equivalent in meaning to synthetic ones. Other authors express similar views. The synthetic form is stable, and the action has a more general, broader meaning. In the analytic construction, however, the action is elaborated and made more specific, and the semantics are as narrow as possible5. Here we encounter a truly interesting phenomenon: the combination of a semantically bleached verb and a verbal abstract yields a more concrete, narrower meaning than that of the synthetic form. V. Ambrazas notes that such a construction denotes not only an action, but also its object or result6. The author then shows how the meaning of an analytic construction is modified to a greater or lesser degree when its aspect changes in comparison with the synthetic form (ingressive, durative, egressive, inchoative, continuative, resultative, causative), as do other grammatical categories (active, passive, reflexive) and syntactic categories (the construction of a personal or impersonal sentence). Changes in aspect in analytic constructions do indeed provide new possibilities for variation. Lithuanian examples illustrate this too; cf.: to fight and begin a fight, draw into a fight – continue the fight, wage a fight – end the fight, break off the fight. V. Schmidt considers this the principal grammatical and syntactic motive for choosing analytic forms. Substitution is impossible in such cases. The role of the modifier, noted by the author, is also highly significant and relevant; cf.: to report and make an interesting report, to decide and adopt an important decision. Substitution is entirely impossible in these cases. The author’s statistics show that modifiers (or other expansions, e.g., make a report about...) may occur in about 70 percent of cases. In the area of style, treating analytic and synthetic forms as optional and approximately equivalent, V. Schmidt identifies the following motives for using combinations of verbs with verbal nouns: the formality, solemnity, and publicity of the report, its topical relevance, and so on. The author notes that evaluations of these forms are increasingly moving away from reckless, superficial condemnation and unfounded accusations. The growing prevalence of these combinations is said to be connected with other linguistic tendencies—substantivization, nominalization, and so on. Developments in science, technology, education, and culture also influence the process of thought and, through it, language. Tendencies toward greater scientific rigor, abstraction, and conceptualization are becoming increasingly strong. 4 Since they are often wholly desemanticized and become something like grammaticalized formatives, some researchers call them “empty verbs” (cf. M. A. Пеклер, Аналитизм и идиоматизм сочетаний с „пустыми“ глаголами, „Проблемы лексикологии и грамматики“, вып. II, Минск, 1967, p. 137. 5 See В. И. Андрусенко, К вопросу о синоформии (о лингвостилистическом характере синонимических отношений между глаголом и глагольно-именным словосочетанием), Русский язык, его изучение в высшей и средней школе, Астрахань, 1970, p. 22. 6 See V. Ambrazas, Issues in the Syntax of Contemporary Lithuanian, “The Lithuanian Language in the Soviet Years.” Vilnius, 1967, p. 132. 224 The aim is to ensure the stability of linguistic forms. That stability is precisely guaranteed by constructions with a stable nominal nucleus. This is confirmed not only by modern languages. For instance, H. Jakobi (H. Jacobi) observed a similar phenomenon as early as 1903 in the scholarly style of Sanskrit, where, according to H. Jakobi, it had grown to an extraordinary, one might say, excessive degree. Analyticity is also increasing in language. Combinations of verbs and verbal nouns provide more possibilities for expressing new content, because combining several semantic elements creates more variants for which there are no synthetic equivalents. Of course, this process also has a flip side. The author says that she avoided a critical tone. Nevertheless, she notes that there are concerns and dangers as well. As these analytic constructions become more numerous, a tendency to circumvent the dominant structural role of the verb in the sentence is growing, and its semantic weakening is increasing. There are cases of unjustified usage. Sometimes it is difficult to say whether a combination of a verb and a verbal noun has been consciously chosen for stylistic reasons or is used merely by analogy. This is said to be a real danger to language. Through growing abstraction, vividness and clarity may be lost. However, the author believes that the development of language can be influenced, and all the more effectively the more cultivated the society. Such ideas raise no doubts. Although the stylistic use of these forms will remain relevant in Lithuanian in practice, a theoretical investigation of this phenomenon would also be highly beneficial. V. Schmidt’s work would be a great support here and an indispensable source for microtypological comparisons, from which important conclusions can be drawn about the affinity of languages and their lexical distinctiveness. For example, there are nearly 300 semi-auxiliary verbs in German. Yet Lithuanian equivalents of only a few of them may match them in frequency and combinability (geben — duoti, machen — daryti, haben — turėti, etc.). The combinability of the others is much lower or even nil, e.g.: Vorsitz führen — pirmininkauti, Untersuchung führen — tardyti (although Kampf führen — kovoti /vesti kovą/; Verzicht leisten — atsisakyti; Sorge tragen — rūpintis, Verantwortung tragen — atsakyti, būti atsakingam; Opfer bringen — pasiaukoti, in Ordnung bringen — sutvarkyti, zu Ausdruck bringen — išreikšti, and so on). There are fewer such combinations in Lithuanian because it has fewer abstract verbs overall. Consequently, synthetic forms are more frequent in Lithuanian. It is precisely the concreteness of the semantics of the Lithuanian verb that strengthens this synthetic character. In other cases, although analytic constructions are used, their verbal components are inappropriate, e.g.: Beweis führen — pateikti įrodymą; Gefahr bringen — (su)kelti pavojų, Hilfe bringen — (su)teikti pagalbą; Frage, Aufgabe stellen — kelti klausimą, uždavinį; Klage erheben — paduoti skundą. The same is true in other languages. For example, Russian делать in analytic constructions corresponds to German machen, tun, geben, ziehen, treiben, wirken, erteilen, bringen, etc.—about 60 verbs in all⁷. Russian оказывать (влияние, любезность, помощь, предпочтение) corresponds to Ukrainian робити (вилив, ласки), подавати (допомогу), віддавати (перевагу)8. The inadequacy of the verbal components (as well as their interchangeability, cf. e.g. padaryti /atlikti tyrimus)) confirms the idea of their 7 See М. А. Пеклер, cited work, p. 138. 8 See Д. Н. Шмелёв, Основные процессы в лексике современных восточнославянских языков, Славянское языкознание, Москва, 1966, p. 403. 225 emptiness, desemantization, and at least partial grammaticalization. At the same time, these are important factors in the distinctiveness of languages. Another matter is verbal nouns. V. Ambrazas argues that their sphere of use is considerably narrower in Lithuanian. Undoubtedly, we would also find major differences between abstracts with the suffix -imas, on the one hand, and those formed with other suffixes, especially those formed with endings, on the other. The latter have a more concrete meaning. And only an abstract that has become concrete can serve as the object of an action, which is a necessary condition for an analytic construction. Because derivatives with the suffix -imas, for example, sėdėjimas, ėjimas, veikimas, šokimas, dauginimas, sudėjimas, brėžimas, are abstracts that cannot become objects of an action, one does not say, for example, vykdyti sėdėjimą; atlikti ėjimą, veikimą, šokimą, dauginimą, sudėjimą; daryti brėžimą. But it is entirely possible to say turėti posėdį; duoti eigą, atlikti veiksmą, šokį, daugybą, sudėtį; daryti brėžinį, because in these combinations the verbal nouns have a more concrete meaning. The same can be said of combinations such as atlikti kelionę, pareigas; vykdyti sėją; turėti kosulį, svajonę, rūpestį, nuostolį; daryti priekaištą, mankštą; sudaryti paliaubas, santuoką, sandėrį; duoti pastabą, pažadą; paduoti skundą; suteikti pagalbą; pasiekti pergalę, and so on. And if one says padaryti pranešimą, then the derivative pranešimas with the suffix -imas has become so concrete that, say, if that report were lost, it would be difficult to make it. Undoubtedly, this valuable work by Veronika Schmidt will receive more detailed study and assessment in the future, while the Lithuanian language will receive a comprehensive investigation of verbs and verbal constructions. The need for such a study is evident. J. Klimavičius 9 See V. Ambrazas, cited work, p. 137. 226