Prijungiamasis ryšys sovietų okupacijos laikų lietuvių sintaksės darbuose

Arturas Judžentis. Conjunction in Lithuanian Syntax Works of the Soviet Occupation 133 Artūras Judžentis Vrublevskių Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2022.95.08 Connection in the time of occupation In Lithuanian syntax the key words are: connection, coordination, control, fusion, Vytautas Amh b razas, Jonas balkevičius, Pranas gailiūnas, Zelma dumašiūtė, Česys grenda, bronius kalinauskas, Vitas Labutis, Vytautas sirtautas, Juozas žiugžda. AnotAciJA The article reviews how in the times of Soviet occupation, approximately from the middle of the 20th century to the end of the 1980s, Lithuanian syntax works described the ways of prijunų birth. It begins with Juozas Žiugžda’s Lithuanian Language Grammar (1945) and ends with Vytautas Sirtautas and Česis Grenda’s textbook for higher schools Lithuanian Language Syntax (1988). The concepts of connection methods are examined, including drawings and their application in describing the relationships between words, word combinations, describing sentence parts. AbstrAct the article analyses, how the types of syntactic relations are described in the works on Lithuanian syntax, during the soviet occupation, during the years be tween the middle of the 20th century ant the end of eighties. The investigation opens with the Grammar of the Lithuanian language (1945) by Juozas žiugžda and ends with manual for higher schools Syntax of the Lithuanian language (1988) by Vytautas sirtautas and Česys grenda. the concept and definition of subordination types and their application when describing relations between words, word groups and sentence parts are taken into account. INTRODUCTION This review continues the study of the description of syntactic relationships in Lithuanian linguistics, started by the author’s previous publications: Syntactic Relationship of Factor and Targeting: Change in Concept (Judžentis 2020) and Connective Relationship in Lithuanian Syntax Works (First Half of the 20th Century) (Judžentis 2021). 134 bendrinė kALbA | 95 After analyzing Lithuanian syntax works of the first half of the 20th century, it was found that they talk only about two types of connection – coordination and control, although they are often not yet perceived as connection (or belonging) atmaiė nos (Judžentis 2021). harmonization is mentioned in all Lithuanian syntax works of that period, they talk about the harmonization of the factor and the adverb, indicate the harmonization of the multitude with the indicative word. Control is rarely perceived as a syntactic connection. usually it is either not mentioned at all or mentioned only in reference to the types of plug-ins. The works of the period are characterized by not distinguishing syntactic relations from their morphological expression (combined by genus, person, number; verbs are controlled). moreover, especially in the case of control, the syntactic nature of the word connection is not separated from its semantic basis (syllables are required). In this article, explaining how the system of three variations of connection – coordination, control and weaving – which still prevails today, was created, we look at more significant articles, school and university textbooks, monographs and academic grammar from the Soviet occupation period. It begins with Juozas Žiugžda’s Lithuanian Language Grammar (1945) and ends with Vytautas Sirtautas and Česis Grenda’s textbook for higher schools Lithuanian Language Syntax (1988). After the Soviet Union occupied Lithuania and many Lithuanian linguists fled to the West, Lithuanian linguistics, like the whole nation, went through difficult times. The remaining scientists had to adapt to the occupation conditions of life and thinking, to the provisions of the new ideology. After a short time, Lithuanian syntax science also had to adapt to the Russian language order of description and interpretation of the phenomena of the sinan tax. Paradoxically, however, the traditions of Lithuanian syntax science in occupied Lithuania were kept and thus the existence of this science in the school was as if prolonged by one of the ideologists of the occupation regime J. žiugžda. It took approximately two decades for Lithuanian linguistics to adopt the definitions and classification of syntactic relations of Russian linguists. This work was started by his friend bronius kalinauskas, but it was adapted for secondary schools by Pranas gailiūnas, and for high schools by Jonas balkevičius. thus, in the Lithuanian language in the mid-1960s, a trinomial division of syntactic relations became common. It seems that b. kalinauskas, based mainly on the works of Russian linguists, has also made famous in Lithuanian linguistics the direction of tyak rhyming and description of word combinations. Later it was taken over and mainly expanded by Vitas Labutis Arturas Judžentis. Connective connection in Lithuanian syntax works of the Soviet occupation period 135 to the end of the 20th century. Another direction of syntax research and description, taken from the times of Lithuania’s dependence on it, is sentence parts. It was mainly developed by Vytautas Sirtautas. The parts of the sentence are examined, they are disputed in Lithuanian linguistics to this day. and academic Lithuanian grammar. This topic was alive until syntactic relations are perceived by the author as a syntactic layer phenomenon based on semantic relations, usually expressed in morphological forms. two types of connection are distinguished – control (completion) and description (modification). A syntactic relationship is called control when one word requires another word for meaning. a relationship where neither meaning nor syntax requires any addition to a word, but where it is syntactically related to that word, is called a descriptor. syntactic relationships I propose to distinguish strictly from their grammatical expression. two types of such expression are distinguished – the choice of the verb form and the combination of them. In the first case, the form of the dependent word is chosen according to the syntactic and semantic characteristics of the paap ground word. In the second case, the form of one word is chosen according to the morphological characteristics of another, semantically related word. The aim of this review is to find the origins of some of the main concepts of Lithuanian syntax in the 20th century, to look at how the concept of syntactic links, which still prevails today, was formed. Having set such a goal, the tasks become obvious: to describe the syntactic relationships distinguished by each syntax work, to compare them with those described in previous (in terms of inheritance) and later (in terms of possible influence) works, to highlight the implied origin of the theoretical bases. It is also intended to look at how Lithuanian linguists in the middle of the 20th century succeeded in delimiting the domains of semantics, syntax and morphology. working methods common to similar types of work. Initially, each of the reviewed works is discussed separately, then it is compared with earlier and later works in order to determine its place in the development of syntax theory, finally, a more general look at the works of the investigated period is given, the features of the development of syntax thought are distinguished, the tendencies of changing theoretical bases. The article, apart from the introduction, consists of the following chapters: Continuation of the traditions of independent Lithuanian syntax science and the adoption of Russian syntactic relationships, Syntactic relationships as the foundation of word combinations and Syntactic relationships as a property of sentence parts. the article ends with a summary. 136 general kALbA | 95 1. In the 1945 edition of Juozas Žiugžda’s Lithuanian grammar for schools, syntactic (or word) relations – coordination and control – are discussed in several places. true, they are not called syntactic links, they are considered ways of expressing the interrelationships of seen mantic words. This is a list of the most commonly used phrases in the English language (1914–1945). It states that the pure preposition or the combination of adjective and adjective preposition with a factor, expressed in the noun vowel, is deed in person and number. In addition, the noun part of the conjugated participle with such a factor is combined by number and syllable, but in the genus they may not be combined, e.g., Šarka – bird. it is important that the combination of the noun of the adverb with the substantive is no different from the combination of the pure adverb or the aggregate and aggregate adverb with the substantive. This is a list of the presidents of the United States of America (1945–1989). It begins with the fact that words often control more than one syllable, but "of these controls, the control of the suffix is the most important", therefore such control is called direct. It is “[always] necessary because the meaning of the verb without the ending will always be as if incomplete, unclear”. the control of the other lingers is called secondary. It is “[n]e always necessary because the meaning of that verb, even without the mentioned vowels, only with the suffix of the final, can be quite clear, as if final”. direct control is distinguished from secondary control not by verb notation, but by necessity. here the adjective full directly controls the nobleman, favourable – the utilitarian. and action minors, and adjectives may have no direct control at all, „[J]ie ir be papildinio yra pakankamai aiškios“. indirect control is called prepositional control of verbs. It is noted that some nouns and numerals can also control, so they do not have to be serviles. The threefold division of control was a novelty in Lithuanian syntax science. He was succeeded by Bronius Kalinauskas. There is no mention of any third variation of word relations in this grammar. In the 1954 edition of the Lithuanian grammar, J. Žiugžda expanded and revised the section on management. It includes knowledge of word relationships, coordination and is called Relationship of Words in a Sentence. "Structure and function" (1916-1917). According to the author, the word forms represent semantic relations: words in a sentence “are bound to each other by their meaning, and the meanings Arturas Judžentis. The connection in Lithuanian syntax works of the Soviet occupation period 137 relations in the sentence are expressed in their forms". There are two kinds of word relations: “the ways of word interrelationship are two: word coordination and word management.” thus, coordination and management are perceived as ways of expressing semantic relationships of words. Definitions of these methods are provided. „ word combination is such a word sanan where one word (adjective, numeral, pronoun, participle) always takes the same form as another word (noun).“ in addition, the combination of verbs (consonants) with pronouns (but not nouns) is also recognized. “the control of words in a sentence is such a san’a of them, when one word acquires such a form (syllable) as the other word requires according to its meaning.” Verbs and some adjectives can be controlled. as well as in previous editions of the grammar, direct, secondary and indirect control are distinguished. This distribution and description of syntactic connections (tiksų liau, ways of expressing semantic relations) remained in the 1960 edition of this grammar (cf. žiugžda 1960: 16–18). In the same year, in the teachers’ press, Bronius Kalinauskas published the article The word and the word group in a sentence (1954), which refers to three types of word connections: coordination, control and addition. The latter variant is mentioned for the first time in Lithuanian linguistics – the author himself points out this: “There has been no mention of the addition in the Lithuanian grammar manuals so far” (kalinauskas 1954: 18). Based on the Russian equivalent primykanije indicated next to the name of this connection and the literature used, it can be assumed that the model of triangular connective connections in Lithuanian language syntax works was adopted from Russian linguistics. In her dissertation on the models of syntactic relations in Lithuanian linguistics, r. Vasu kelaitė is much more cautious: she speculates that the syntax of the Russian language could only have supported the distinction of the third type of relation between words in Lithuanian (Vaskelaitė 2009: 69). b. kalinauskas considers that there is a “grammatical relationship between two words, when those words are matched with each other in person, number, verb or genus” (kalinauskas 1954: 18). The syntactic nature of the phenomenon perceived by the author of the article (or his authors) is “grammatical relation of words”, it is associated with “compatible” meanings of certain morphological forms. It is clear from the categories listed that, in his view, the combination may not only be an adjective with a noun, but also a verb with a noun or a pronoun. The author of the article refers to the interrelationship of words as control, when “from one word depends the form of another word” (kalinauskas 1954: 18). as it can be seen, the definition also relies on the morphological expression of the connection, the syntactic nature of the phenomenon is not yet discussed here. Adhesion definition 138 general kALbA | Article 95 does not provide, but only lists its cases (verb and surrounding cubic words, sentence words and inserted words, addresses, emoticons, negation relations), which, in the opinion of R. Vaskelaitė, would show that the addition “is intended to cover those sentence words for which no connection with other words is recognized” (Vaskelaitė 2009: 69). More detailed syntactic relations (called grammatical) are described in the article of Bronius Kalinauskas The word combination as a syntax object (1961). initially they are divided into connecting and connecting. the following joiners are divided into three types – matching, control and joining. word combination is considered to be “the addition of nouns, adjectives, numerals, adverbs, participles to nouns, where the added word acquires the forms of the word that added it” (kalinauskas 1961: 31). as you can see, it only deals with the combination of nouns and adjectives. although the related words are mentioned, the relationship itself is linked to their morphological expression (graan matine forms). there is a distinction between full coordination (when all forms of the conjunctive are acquired) and incomplete coordination (when only some forms of the conjunctive are acquired). The word management is considered to be “the attachment of nouns to verbs, other nouns and some adverbs, where the attached word acquires the forms required by the meaning of the word that attached it” (kalių nauskas 1961: 31). This definition also refers to the parts of the Zhou language that are connected by communication. the nature of the connection is conveyed by its expression, which is determined by the meaning of the main word (rather than grammatical features). The formal criterion in the definition is far too broad: control is expressed by the vowel of the dependent word, which is only one of the form components. as in J. Žiugžda’s grammar, there are three types of word control: direct, secondary and prepositional (or indirect). in the direct tense, the addition of such noun syllables as are “necessarily necessary by meaning, most common, most frequently used by the dominant word” (kalinauskas 1961: 31–32). directly controlled can be the galine, nobleman, utility and innagininko amusements. some verbs can directly control two pronouns (e.g. ask, ask for). secondary control – is the addition of such noun verbs, “which are not necessary for those controlling words by meaning, are only secondary” (kalinauskas 1961: 32). this definition contradicts the author's general conception of control: after all, control is assigned according to the requirement of the meaning of the word of the basic compound, which is satisfied by the form of the dependent word... Arturas Judžentis. Conjunctive connection in Lithuanian syntax works of the Soviet occupation period 139 lesson) and examples of secondary control of nouns (e.g.: uncle’s tale, sowing rye, man of science, silk scarf; girl with light coats). After all, prepositional, or indirect, control is the control of a verb through a preposition. not the control of prepositional constructions, but the control of verbs through the intermediary – the preposition. Although it is recognized that the verb of the controlled word depends on the preposition... b. kalinauskas' article paaj provides an interesting section about the relationship of prepositional and non-prepositional control, which shows that some words can be controlled in both ways, e.g.: mirti ir mirti iš bado. The addition of words is called "a way of joining words based only on semantic connections, not related to the change of forms" (kalinauskas 1961: 34). The definition raises doubts about the syntactic nature of this variation of the relationship. there is a distinction between full and partial adhesion. In the case of a simple sentence, the words that are used to explain the meaning of the sentence are either unchanged or changed. partial priliij jimas is called such “interrelating of words, where the same word is controlled by one word or is harmonized with it, and is attached to another word” (kalinauskas 1961: 34). The following examples are given: Katrė atsistojo apžiūrėjo; The goose flew over joyful; At the opening beyond the threshold is the mother. It is clear that what b. kalinauskas calls partial addition was later in Lithuanian language considered simply as a fusion (one of the syntactic relationships of double or double-sided taring signs) or as semantic correction (correctable circumstance) relations, and the concept of partial addition was abandoned. the word combination discussed in the following article – the relationship between “equal members of the combination” (kalinauskas 1961: 35). we can see that even in the drawing the value is used from Russian. A few years later, Bronius Kalinauskas in his article Words and word combinations in the sentence (1963) also distinguished three ways of conjugation: coordination, control and addition (kalinauskas 1963: 5). In classifying and defining them, the author repeats the definitions of his previous article and essentially follows the grammar of the Russian language prepared by Evdokiya Galkinose Fedoruk (Sovremennyj russkij jazyk. As in the previous article, combining is considered to be the connection to nouns characteristic only of certain parts of speech, when “the connected word acquires the form of the word that connected it”, and there is a distinction between complete and incomplete word combining (kalinauskas 1963: 5). neminimas verb in combination with nimas with a noun that passes through the verb. The definition of management also coincides with the definition given in the previous article (kalinauskas 1963: 6). In the opinion of b. kalinauskas, not only verbs can be controlled, but also Zelma dumašiūtė’s article Dėl sakinių dalių ir jų tarpusavio santykių (1963), published in the same year, takes 140 common kALbA | 95 nouns and some adverbs. direct and indirect (i.e. prepositional) control are distinguished. as it appears, the questionable secondary management identified in the previous article has disappeared. In the definition of adjectives, the previous article is also followed and adjectives are considered to be "a connection of words based only on semantic connections, not related to the change of forms". Not only unchangeable, but also changeable words can be joined, but "they do not change their form", i.e. their form does not depend on the join. also distinguished two ways of attachment: full and partial attachment (kalinauskas 1963: 9). into account their syntactic relationships when describing sentence parts. In classifying them, the author relied on the work of Czech scientists (e.g., P. mrazeko). There are three main types of “relationship of meaningful sentence parts”: predication, determination and coordination (dumašiūtė 1963: 237–248). The author associates coordination with the connective of these relations, and predication and determination – with the connective. Predication is considered to be “the relation of the predicate (adverb) to the factor” (dumašiūtė 1963: 242), while determination includes “objective (additional), attributive (significant) and circumstantial relationships” (dumašiūtė 1963: 242–243). In the case of determination, one part of the sentence “logically extends some other part of the sentence (one word – another word) and thus forms certain combinations of words” (dumašiūtė 1963: 243). it is clear that semantic relations are not clearly distinguished from syntactic, they are shaken into one (see definition of determination). Syntactic relations Z. dumašiūtė classifies according to morphological expression. In fact, in her words, the syntactic relationships of words (control and coordination) are expressed in the morphological form of dependent words, it requires a substantive word. other (casting) – not to be indicated. the weaving is based only on the mantic relationship of the words seė (the dependent word is related to the main word only in meaning), and its morphological form does not indicate a syntactic connection, “remains completely free” (duū mašiūtė 1963: 243). thus, the expression in the morphological form of the dependent word is the main basis of this division of syntactic relationships. The author concludes: “<...> the conditionality of the morphological form of some words indicates only certain syntactic relations [control and coordination – A. J.] and therefore cannot be considered as a criterion for all syntactic relations” (dumašiūtė 1963: 243). Thus, the author relies only on semantic relationships of words in syntactic time and such word relationships that are not expressed by morphological means. at the same time, in Jono Balkevičiaus's Syntax of Contemporary Lithuanian Language (1963) for higher schools, three words were Arturas Judžentis. In the works of Lithuanian syntax of the Soviet occupation period 141 ways of joining are divided similarly as in the works of b. kalinauskas. as an addition not related to the morphological form of the dependent word is defined, even the term is the same: “the addition of words is only based on logical connections, not related to the change of forms of words” (balkevičius 1963: 35). Not only unchangeable, but also changeable words can be glued together. like b. kalinauskas, there is a distinction between full and partial attachment (balkevičius 1963: 36). coordination and control are related to the change in the form of the dependent word. The nature of that interface distinguishes coordination from control. The word combination is called “such connection of conjugated words <...> to nouns, where the connected word acquires the forms of the word that connected it” (balkevičius 1963: 28). It appears that J. balkevičius considers only the connection of object nouns with adjectives as a combination. as in b. kalinausko works, there is a distinction between full and incomplete coordination (balkevičius 1963: 28). word management is defined as “the attachment of nouns and other syllables to verbs, nouns and adverbs, where the attached word acquires the form (syllable) required by the meaning of the attaching word” (balkevičius 1963: 29). it's just a slightly refined definition of b. kalinauskas. the significant requirement is inextricably linked to the control of the form (syllable). as in J. žiugžda and b. kalinauskas works, three types of control are distinguished – direct, secondary and prepositional (balkevičius 1963: 29). secondary control – is “the addition of such noun verbs, which are not necessarily necessary verbs for the controlling word according to the meaning” (balkevičius 1963: 29). Such control is characteristic not only for verbs (e.g.: I worked there for a longer time; The pupils went on vacation), but also for nouns, which by secondary control join a noble or insignificant sign (e.g.: The branches of dry spruce were scratched; Men were gathered in festive clothes). The concept of secondary management is taken from previous works of b. kalinauskas. it appears that the basis for this classification is composite. First of all, the management is based on semantic requirement (the matched word is not required by the main word). The morphological form of the control word is determined by the form of the main word as in the case of combination, but it does not coincide (at least partially) with the form of the main word as in the case of combination, but is obtained (chosen). and thirdly, the parts of speech of the words that can be controlled are listed (differentiated according to meaning and expression). The innovations of the Lithuanian language syntax science were finally transferred to Juozas Žiugžda’s Lithuanian grammar for secondary schools, a decade after their publication in b. kalinauskas’ article. She renewed the jinta with the help of co-author Pranas Gailiūnas. available to me 148 bendrinė kALbA | 95 main sentence parts mutual relationship”, it is concluded that “[T]he verb is not accurate to be regarded only as the dependent (or ‘independent’) part of the participle aktanan tu” (sirtautas, grenda 1988: 85–86). 3. Syntax relations of words in compounds The interest in word compounds in Lithuanian linguistics in the period of the occupation came mainly through Russian linguistics. It was from the works of Russian grammar mathematics that many concepts, terms and classifications were brought into Lithuanian linguistics by the articles of B. Kalinauskas (1954, 1961 and 1963), which have already been reviewed in this article. syntactic relationships are discussed as the basis of word combinations. The word combinations were briefly described and divided into solid and composite in the Syntax of Contemporary Lithuanian Language (1963) by J. Balkevičius. In the educational aid Syntax of Lithuanian word combinations (1972) prepared by Bronius Kalinauskas, the classification of syntactic relations is further refined. In addition to the description of syntactic relationships published in previous works, the author added a further division of control “according to semantics, i.e. according to the semantic relationships of the controlling word with the controlling word” (kalias nauskas 1972: 3). Based on this criterion, control is divided into “the strong first, where the vowels of some nouns alone or with prepositions are necessary for the meaning of the words with the controlling dentate, the most common, most often used, when, after saying the controlling word, the association with that vowel or prepositional construction arises first” (kalinauskas 1972: 3) and “the weak first, where, after saying the controlling word, the associations with some vowel or some prepositional construction do not necessarily arise in our consciousness, i.e. when those vowels or those prepositional constructions are not necessary for the meaning of those words with the controlling dentate, they are only secondary” (kalinauskas 1972: 4). the division into strong and weak management is based on the semantic relationship of words and their psycho-chological perception. weak management in terms of semantic relations is no longer management, because the dependent word is not required. The distinction of this variant of the wording was probably prompted by an externally similar expression, e.g.: jaučiu vasarą and gražu vasarą (the ending in the first case is grammatical, and in the second case ju – semantic vowel). apparently, realizing that he has introduced an innovation, the author adds the following remark: „some linguists regard the so-called weak control as an addition of verb or prepositional constructions, because the controlling words Arturas Judžentis. The connective connection in Lithuanian syntax works of the Soviet occupation period 149 here no longer answers questions of the verb, but questions that are missing due to circumstances or a sign” (kalinauskas 1972: 4). this shows that the semantic (syntakkan sinis) and formal criteria of classification are irreconciliable. Since the choice was made to classify according to semantics, the “semantic relationships of the controlling word with the controlling word” are in all cases similar (the controlling word is controlled) and classification on this basis is not possible. it would turn out that those “some linguists” who considered cases of “weak control” to be fusion are right. The concept and classification of adhesion in the textbook are almost identical to those presented in the previous article (kalinauskas 1972: 4). Thus, in the works of the forerunner of the trinar classification of syntactic relationships we find many of their smaller differences (strong and weak, direct and indirect control, complete and incomplete coordination, complete and partial attachment), probably taken from Russian linguistics, which caused considerable controversy in later Soviet syntactic works. When dividing syntactic relationships, b. kalinausko relies on several criteria: meaning, morphological expression, belonging to a part of the language. there is an insurmountable problem of weak control (and, in fact, control in general) and the distinction of attachment, related to the reign missed level of significance. In Vito Labutis’s teaching aid Problems of Word Combinations (1976), in the section Ways of Expressing Word Relations, four types of word relationships are already distinguished: coordination, control, fusion and coordination of forms. as it can be seen, V. Labutis considers the harmonization and coordination of forms as distinct types of syntactic relations. They differ, first of all, in the independence of the comma categories of the connected words (in the sense that the categories of adjectives that are being combined are independent, and the corresponding categories of verbs are independent): “combining words is the adaptation of non-independent word forms with categories to other word forms” (Labutis 1976: 29), while “coordination of word forms is the independent possible (but not necessary) mutual application of forms of words with categories” (Labutis 1976: 31). Furthermore, the definitions show that harmonisation is a one-way relationship of dependence, while coordination of forms is a two-way relationship. brackets indicate that coordination of forms is possible but not a syntactic relationship. these remarks are not about the harmonization, only it is said that „[d]erinimas is not a complete resemblance of forms, but only a selection according to the noun forms“ (Labutis 1976: 29). V. Labutis has well grasped the conditional nature of the combination, although only from the point of view of the role played by the adjective in the sentence: “the combination shows to which word the adjective is related, but says nothing 150 general kALbA | 95 this word can be a sign, a noun, and even a circumstance" (Laua butis 1976: 29). There are two variants of coordination of word forms: not only coordination of the forms of the nouns connected with the verb and the adverb, but also coordination of the forms of the nouns connected with the apostrophic connection (Labutis 1976: 31). The definition of control differs little from the definitions given by other authors: “word control is the selection of the noun verb for a certain sinan taxic and semantic function according to the meaning of another word or some other semantic element” (Labutis 1976: 33). only the syntactic and semantic connection of the verb is well distinguished from its expression in the form of a verb. There is little difference between this and the definition of weaving: “word weaving is a way of expressing word connections, where the connection is shown only by the meanings of the connecting words, without any form being added” (Labutis 1976: 37). about the content of the connection: in the third volume of the Lithuanian grammar (1976) dedicated to syntax, edited by Kazis Ulvydas, Vytautas Ambraz and Adele Valeckienė, syntactic connections are also examined in the section of word combinations as their essential constitutive feature. minor types are discussed when examining conjugative word combinations. The introductory part of the section Syntactic word combinations was written by A. Vaa leckienė. distinguish (as written, most often) three varieties of syntactic relationships of connective word combinations: coordination, control and blending. Their assignment “depends essentially on the lexical and grammatical characteristics of the main substance [of the word combination]” (Lkg 1976: 11). The combination is defined by the grammatical coincidence of the form of the dependent word with the form of the main word: “the combination is the adaptation of the form of the dependent object to the form of the main object. by means of combination, such words are combined that have the same grammatical categories: gender, number and verb” (Lkg 1976: 11). There is also talk about the combination of two nouns: “by means of combination, compounds are formed from two nouns, e.g.: writer Žemaitė, son Petras. They are combined by verb, number, frequency and genus.” However, the peculiarities of the combination of nouns are recognized: “but the combination of two nouns is slightly different than the combination of an adjective with a noun. two consonant nouns one is subordinate to the other only in its meaning, and syntactically, it could be said, not belonging, but koree liing with each other: they are possible in the same position and without each other, e.g. : Son Peter came and Son came, Peter came. Therefore, the relationship between two harmonized pronouns is sometimes called correlation and is closer to a connection than an addition” (Lkg 1976: 11). Here the significant subordination of objects is questionable, especially since their reference (the marked thing) is the Arturas Judžentis. 1500–1501) in the Romantic period of the Byzantine Empire. the same thing in the same sense, but in different nouns (reference to a kinship relationship and the proper noun assigned to it). it is possible to assume that the number of relatives (sons) in relation to the speaker is smaller than those named by the corresponding real name (although more often, perhaps, the opposite is the case). However, in this case, the proper name, at the point, does not denote all the possible speakers named by it, but only those that relate to the speaker, thus specifying the reference of the first noun. A similar correlation can be seen between the indefinite pronouns something, somebody, etc. (something foreign) and the masculine forms of adjectives, and the non-indefinite pronouns who, something, somehow, somebody, everything, this, that, etc. (something new, something new) in the noun and suffix and the adjectives of the indefinite genus: "the adjective is only semantically subordinated to the indefinite pronoun. It gives a more specific meaning to the broader concept of the pronoun. sina taxonomically in this type of compound the adjective is almost as independent as the noun. It is similar here to the adjective with adjective (Lk 1976: 11-12). on semantic subordination here seems to be wrong. Something foreign and something new in terms of meaning is “heavier” in the compounds, and thus the substantive member is apparently an adjective of a specific meaning, not a pronoun of an indefinite meaning (and reference). the syntactic relationship of matching seems to be opposed to the syntactic relationships of control and blending (taken together). The latter have in common that they "help to distinguish them in many cases by the form of a dependent spot". for “the controlling is often considered to be the connection when the indirect conjugated noun verb or prepositional construction joins the main element, and the fusion is the connection when the non-conjugated foran ma joins the main element” (Lkg 1976: 12). However, it is emphasized that “the morphological form of the dependent noun does not always help to distinguish the syntactic relationships of the words. For example, this morning it rained and this morning it rained mean the same syntactic relationships, but the morphological form of the dependent pronoun is different. the same for I want sleep and I want to sleep” (Lk 1976: 12). Here we see a tendency to distinguish valg dym from šleejimas only by the form of the dependent word, but such a basis of distinction is denied by the author. from the examples given it is clear that the meaningful relationships of the words in the compound are probably considered more important. Control is defined as a relationship “where the main focus requires a certain form of the dependent focus (the dependent focus is formally defined by the main focus)” (Lkg 1976: 12). It appears that the definition assumes formal affiliation or dependence of 152 general kALbA | 95 or prepositional phrase. The belonging itself here seems to be perceived syntaktically rather than semantically (the connection is distinguished in the section of word combinations). According to the strength of the control or the importance-dependent necessity, there is a distinction between necessary (or strong) and unnecessary (or weak) control (Lkg 1976: 12). however, it is immediately indicated that their boundaries are blurred, there are always transitional cases. weakly controlled unnecessary specific verbs to supplement the lexical meaning of verbs, prepositional phrases signifying quantity, exclusion, comparison, etc. (Lkg 1976: 13). In this case, the grammar, as in the works of b. kalinausė ko, has taken a wrong path, yielding to the influence of formal expression (syllables). complex, or gradual, control is also mentioned, when “the presence of one vowel next to a verb as if conditioned the presence of another vowel next to the same verb”, for example, carve a stick for a child (Lkg 1976: 13–14). This is a wrong interpretation of syntactic relationships and their expression: both nouns are semantically and syntactically dependent on the verb, and their expression is not dependent on the other. the word form, i.e. such affiliation that is marked by the word form – a relationship called a verbal fusion, when “the dependent focus joins the main, the latter is not required; it is formally undefined, only logical when it is connected with the main focus” (Lkg 1976: 12). In defining the supporting mass not only the formal expression of the syntactic connection, but also the semantic (logical) interface of the elements of the compound. is new to the definition of this relationship. In the one-volume Lithuanian grammar in the Russian language Grammatika litovskogo jazyka (1985), written mainly by researchers of the Institute of Lithuanian Language and Literature and edited by V. Ambraz, a lot of space is devoted to the description of word combinations, but more attention is paid to the parts of the sentence, especially to the structure of a continuous sentence. in this grammar distinguishes three kinds of syntactic relations: connection, interconnection and suj connection (gLJ 1985: 417). According to the type of syntactic connection, word combinations are also divided. Connection variants are distinguished in the section of connecting joints. the reconciliation (upodoblenie) of the form of the dependent member with the form of the principal member (gLJ 1985: 422). The adjective koordij natie with the main word is considered a special form of conjugation, as is the relationship of indefinite pronouns with masculine or non-masculine pronouns and participles (gLJ 1985: 422). The choice of a variable form of the dependent word other than the paaj ground word, depending on the lexical and grammatical characteristics of the main word, is considered to be controlling (gLJ 1985: 422). Arturas Judžentis. In the works on Lithuanian syntax during the Soviet occupation 153 there is a distinction between prepositional and imperfect, strong and weak control. Control is considered strong when it expresses the necessary (inter-word) and weak – the non-necessary, usually adverbial, connection (gLJ 1985: 422-423). The attributive ancestor is also considered to be controlled, e.g.: worker, forest bird (gLJ 1985: 423). meltdown is called a variation of the connective syntactic connection, not expressed by the variable forms of the dependent word (gLJ 1985: 423). splattering usually denotes adverbial semantic relationships. Some verbs have strong conjugation, e.g. started to work, I want to read, was here, looked nice, behave manly. such word combinations express objective and complete semantic relations (gLJ 1985: 424). In the programmatic article of V. Ambraz Units of the Syntactic and Semantic Structure of the Sentence in Lithuanian Language (1986), prepared to summarize the experience of writing the Russian-Lithuanian grammar, the most important aspects of the syntactic and semantic structure of the sentence are reviewed. In the introduction, the author very correctly emphasizes that in the works of Lithuanian language syntax researchers “it is necessary to try to define as clearly as possible and to distinguish on a single basis at least the most important categories of form and semantic domains” (Ambrazas 1986: 4). However, even this quotation shows the main flaw of the article – in order to clarify some essential concepts of syntax and semantics used by Lithuanian linguists, the syntactic structure of the language itself is constantly confused with the morphological level of expression. In the quoted statement, instead of the “form” (i.e. morphology) domain, the author probably meant the syntax domain or sinan taxonomy (like morphology) perceived as a language expression domain. Ambrazas divides syntactic relationships into connective, connective and mutual dependence or interconnection (Ambrazas 1986: 7). The latter differ from the first two in that they are mutual. in typical cases they are expressed by coordination of forms (Ambrazas 1986: 7). The most striking example of such interdependence is the verb’s connection with the noun or pronoun’s noun (exactly!): this noun form depends on the verb’s minor, but it “in turn determines the number form of the verb” (Amų brazas 1986: 7). This and other reasonable examples of interrelationship (personified verb forms and noun members with a substantive, the verb being in the personal form with a conjunction and the forms of nouns associated with it, even invariant verb forms in the place of a noun and conjunctive verbs) clearly undermine the syntactical connection of listening and its morphological expression. V. Ambrazo knows that the “question of interdependence” can be solved in a different way, he reviews various ways of such a solution (some of them suggest that the so-called 154 bendrinė kALbA | 95 sis “mutual” connection is of different kinds), but the “Lithuanian” way of solving the matter was chosen, because “the syntactic nature of the mutual connection of members is quite clear” (Ambrazas 1986: 10). The lack of distinction between syntax and morphology is also clearly seen in the division of the connective connection. Its (i.e. syntactic phenomenon) variants are distinguished according to the formal (i.e. morphological) expression. in the conclusions it is said even more clearly: “syntactical connections are formally realized by coordination and koor’s dynamic, control and fusion” (Ambrazas 1986: 35). It would appear that the listed syntactical connections are morphological phenomena… on the basis of expression three traditional connections are distinguished: combining, binding and weaving (Ambrazas 1986: 7). The combination is called “adaptation of the connected word form to the paang g row according to the morphological category” (Ambrazas 1986: 8). The use of the word drawing itself does not express the syntactic nature of the phenomenon. The drawing clearly shows the morphosyntactic (i.e., syntactic nature expressed in morphological forms) nature of the phenomenon, which in no way can be called purely syntactic. The independent combination of nouns with grammatical categories, called coordination, in the opinion of V. Ambraz, should not be an obstacle to considering it as a certain subspecies of coordination (Ambrazas 1986: 8). Control is called "the choice of the variable form of the connected word <...> depending on the conjugability and grammatical characteristics of the main word" (Ambrazas 1986: 8). Again, the word choice is hardly suitable to express the nature of the phenomenon syntakk sinei, but the definition does not aim to remain in the field of syntax lyuk – it boldly goes into morphology (the changing form of the word), as if it and syntax form one level of language structure and its analysis. fusion is called “a connection not expressed by the inflection of words” (Am b razas 1986: 8). This definition makes a clear distinction between morphological and syntactical terms. but it does not say anything about the syntactic nature of this variation of the connection. what is the difference between the invariant verb forms such as the semivocal possessive relationship with the verbal past (live the passing)? The classification of the ‘strong casting’ subspecies is even more questionable. It is attributed to "incomplete" verb and communicative connections: stopped working, tried to return, can eat (Ambrazas 1986: 9). how does the syntactic nature of the relationship of these words differ from control (e.g.: I want dinner and I want to eat)? Nevertheless, this article succeeded in separating the (morpho)syntactical aspect of sentence analysis from the semantic one. However, the definition and classification of the concepts of the sinan taxonomy in many cases failed to clarify their syntactic nature, the syntactic level was mixed with the morphological level. Arturas Judžentis. Conjunction in Lithuanian Syntax Works of the Soviet Occupation 155 AP I B E N D R I N I M A S initially continued the tradition of independent Lithuanian syntax in school grammar and in the conditions of occupation and distinguished only two forms of connective connection – coordination and control. Paradoxically, this tradition was continued by the works of J. žiugzda, the ideologist of the occupation regime in the soom places. Since 1964, when P. Gailiūnas, who worked in the Ministry of Education, came to the aid of J. Žiugžda, the three-fold model of conjunctive division – coordination, control and weaving – already adopted by scientific grammar from Russian linguistics was adapted to moūd kyla. J. Žiugžda’s distinction of three types of control – direct, secondary and indirect – is also probably taken from Russian linguistics. The trinomial model of the Russian language conjunctive division was transferred to Lithuanian linguistics in the 50s and early 60s, and the term was chosen mainly by b. kalinauskas. From him or directly from Russian, this model was adopted and adapted for secondary schools by P. gailiūnas, and for higher ones – by J. balkevičius (the latter perhaps also through Latvian linguistics). such a division of the connective connection became the identity of Lithuanian linguistics, which existed throughout the period of occupation. this model still prevails in schools and workplaces today... In b. kalinauskas’ works we find for the first time many differences in the variants of syntactic connections (complete and incomplete coordination, strong and weak control, complete and partial attachment), as well as probably taken from Russian grammar works, the examination of which in later Lithuanian syntax works significantly defined the field of consideration in this area of grammar. Connective syntactic relationships in the period under consideration are described in two directions of syntax studies: by describing sentence parts as one of the characteristics of sentence parts (in J. žiugžda, V. sirtautas works), and by examining word combinations as the basis of their structure (in b. kalinauskas, J. balkevičius, V. Labutis, A. Valeckienė works). Only in 1985 V. Ambrazo’s Lithuanian kalb bos grammar was more clearly turned in the direction of merging both directions. Syntactic relationships are not distinguished from semantic relationships throughout the period under consideration, especially when defining the management relationship. and only at the very end of the time period (in the programmatic article by V. Ambraz) these shortcomings of the description of syntactic relations began to be understood, and attempts were made to clearly distinguish syntactic and seä substantive units. However, the syntactic level of examination is still closely linked to the morphological (expression) level (coordinated by genus, person, number; controlled by verbs), both of which are considered to be “superficial”, expressively assigned language levels. 156 general kALbA | 95 coordination was already perceived at the beginning of the 20th century as an application of morphological forms, i.e. as a phenomenon of expression rather than semantics or syntax. It is also known as a syntactic connection connection, without going into the semantic relationships that this connection conveys. In essence, this multifaceted – initially mixing semantics and morphology, and later syntax – his concept survived throughout the 20th century, and is still partly preserved today. In the school grammars of J. Žiugžda, which continued the traditions of syntax science in independent Lithuania after the war, governance is defined as the semantic relationship of words. moreover, the semantic nature of this connection is mixed with its morphological expression. this approach was later supplemented by a syntactic interpretation of this variation of the connection. In the early period of the occupation (until the publication of the third volume of the academic Lithuanian grammar in 1976) the management and coordination of the language was linked to the interest in word combinations as the basis of their structure, which had come from Russia. in Lithuanian linguistics (for the first time – by b. kalinauskas) as a semantic, probably also syntactic, word connection not expressed by morphological means. so he relied only on the expression, i.e. its absence, and had no clear syntaksis content. syntactically it could not be strictly distinguished from either control (when the dependent word is represented by an adverb with an invariant gender) or coordination (when the invariant gender is a factor). LiterAtūrA Ambrazas Vytautas 1986: Lietuvių kalbos sakinio sintaksinės ir seman tinės struktūros vienetai. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 25: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksės tyrinėjimai, 4–44. balkevičius Jonas 1963: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos sintaksė, Vilnius: Vals tybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. dumašiūtė Zelma 1963: dėl sakinio dalių ir jų tarpusavio santykių. – Lietuvos TSR MA darbai. A serija 2(15), 237–248. gailiūnas Pranas, žiugžda Juozas 1969: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. II dalis: Sintaksė, 2asis patais. leidimas, kaunas: šviesa. gLJ 1985: Grammatika litovskogo jazyka, vyr. red. V. Ambrazas, 1985: Vilnius: mokslas. Judžentis Artūras 2020: sintaksinis veiksnio ir tarinio ryšys: sampratos kaita. – Bendrinė kalba 93, 1–25. Prieiga internete: http://journals.lki.lt/ bendrinekalba/index. Judžentis Artūras 2021: Prijungiamasis ryšys lietuvių sintaksės darbuo se (XX a pirmoji pusė). – Bendrinė kalba 94, 1–15. Prieiga internete: http:// journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba/index. ArtūrAs Judžentis. Prijungiamasis ryšys sovietų okupacijos laikų lietuvių sintaksės darbuose 157 kalinauskas bronius 1954: žodis ir žodžių grupės sakinyje. – Tarybinė mokykla 2, 17–25. kalinauskas bronius 1961: žodžių junginys kaip sintaksės objektas. – Tarybinė mokykla 5, 31–39. kalinauskas bronius 1963: žodžiai ir žodžių junginiai sakinyje. – Kai kurie gramatikos ir stilistikos klausimai, kaunas: Valstybinė pedagoginės li teratūros leidykla, 3–23. kalinauskas bronius 1972: Lietuvių kalbos žodžių junginių sintaksė: mo kymo priemonė, Vilnius. Labutis Vitas 1976: Žodžių junginių problemos, Vilnius: Vilniaus valstybi nis universitetas. Lkg 1976: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 3: Sintaksė, vyr. red. k. ulvydas, Vilnius: mokslas. sirtautas Vytautas 1969 [2019]: Veiksmažodinis tarinys dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje, šiauliai: Litera [Bibliotheca actorum humanitaricorum universitatis Saulensis 18]. sirtautas Vytautas 1972: dėl derinimo sąvokos. – Kalbotyra 24(1), 108–110. sirtautas Vytautas 1976a: dėl veiksnio ir tarinio santykių. – Kalbotyra 27(1), 78–80. sirtautas Vytautas 1976b: Sakinio dalys. Problematika, pagrindinės sąvokos, šiauliai: šiaulių k. Preikšo pedagoginis institutas. sirtautas Vytautas 1978: Pagrindinių sakinio dalių derinimas (Vientisinio sakinio gramatinės struktūros analizė), Vilnius: Lietuvos tsr aukštojo ir specialiojo vidurinio mokslo ministerijos Leidybinė redakcinė taryba. sirtautas Vytautas 1981: Sakinio dalys. Problematika, pagrindinės sąvokos, kaunas: šviesa. sirtautas Vytautas, grenda Česys 1988: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė, Vilnius: mokslas. Vaskelaitė ramunė 2009: Sintaksinių ryšių modeliai lietuvių kalbos sintaksėje: humanitarinių mokslų daktaro disertacija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, Vytauto didžiojo universitetas. žiugžda Juozas 1945: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. II dalis: Sintaksė. Progimnazijoms ir gimnazijoms, kaunas: Valstybinė pedagoginės literatūros leidykla. žiugžda Juozas 1954: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. II dalis: Sintaksė. Vidurinėms mokykloms, 8asis leidimas, kaunas: Valstybinė pedagoginės litera tūros leidykla. žiugžda Juozas 1960: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. II dalis: Sintaksė, 14as leidimas, kaunas: Valstybinė pedagoginės literatūros leidykla. received 20 03 2022 Adopted on 17 October 2022