Sintaksinis veiksnio ir tarinio ryšys: sampratos kaita

BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS Vilniaus dailės akademija SYNTACTICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FACTORS AND SUBJECTS: CHANGE IN COMPREHENSION ESSENTIAL WORDS: syntactic relationships, syntactic relationship between factors and objects, interconnection. ANNOTATION The article reviews the change of the concept of factor and dialectal syntactic connection in Lithuanian linguistics from the middle of the 20th century to the present day. An overview of the most important grammar works on this subject is given. It is examined how this relationship can be explained using the theoretical tools of modern grammar. INTRODUCTION The article aims to draw attention to an important theoretical and practical problem of Lithuanian language syntax, to provoke controversy and contribute to finding its solutions. Therefore, it briefly reviews and evaluates the most important syntax works that had a greater impact on the development of Lithuanian linguistics, published since the 1960s, which examine the syntactic relationship between the factor and the dialect. The most detailed analysis of this topic is in Ramunė Vaskelaitė’s PhD dissertation Syntactic Relationship Models in Lithuanian Syntax (2009). In this article, less attention is paid to various aspects of the terminology of syntactic relations, to the inconsistencies of the classification and their causes, and the general differences in the theoretical foundations of the description are highlighted, a possible periodization of their concept is presented, a clear path is drawn between the traditional and the new interpretation of the nature of this relationship, and an overview of Arthur's Revenge. Syntactic relationship between the verb and the participle: a change of concept | 2 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.11 BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 the latest works in this field is extended. It can be said that the article completes and sharpens some of the observations and conclusions of the dissertation. The third chapter of the article provides a brief explanation of this connection based on the new concept, and sets out the lyginami ir istoriniu bei teoriniu atžvilgiais vertinami pirminiai šaltiniai – svarbesnieji lietuvių arguments supporting it. The article is based on the methodology typical for review works: the language syntax works are examined. After examining them, general conclusions are drawn about the syntactic veiksnio ir tarinio ryšio sampratos kaitą lietuvių kalbotyroje. 1. TRIPLE DIVISIONS OF SYNTACTIC RELATIONSHIPS The syntactic relationship between the factor and the adverb in Lithuanian language syntax works (e.g., DLKG) is placed at the highest level of the syntactic relationships, next to the connection and conjunction. The reason for distinguishing this connection variant was probably given by the fact that it relates to the so-called main parts of the sentence – the factor and the preposition. Due to the fact that they represent the center of the predicative sentence, a special syntactic relationship between them was identified in the syntactic domain of the concept – mutual belonging or mutual interrelationship expressed by coordination. However, such a concept did not appear immediately, but was purified gradually. It is important to emphasize that the first attempts to allocate a third variant of syntactic connections next to joining and joining did not arise when Lithuanian language science was self-running, but after losing its independence and the possibility to think freely. The spread of Lithuanian linguistic traditions in the Soviet Union was made more difficult, contacts with exile and Western scholars were cut off, and everything that spread from Russian science was encouraged and supported. Under such conditions, the provision of the Lithuanian language syntax science to distinguish two types of syntactic relations – connective and conjunctive relations (Dambrauskas 1939: 84) – was displaced by teaching about three types of syntactic Arthur's Revenge. Syntactic relationship between the verb and the participle: a change of concept | 3 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.11 BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 relations. Gradually, the concept of a third type of predicate connection (later called more syntactic terms) became established in Lithuanian linguistics. 1.1. Relationship between verb and adverb as a semantic (and syntactic) phenomenon After some time after the Second World War, the perception of the 1960s and 1970s is dešimtmečio pradžios lietuvių sintaksės veikaluose predikatinis ryšys buvo suvokiamas ne tiek kaip sintaksinis, o veikiau kaip semantinis reiškinys – žodžių semantinis santykis. Tokį reflected in the name of this connection. This is clear from Bronius Kalinauskas and Jonas Balk's Work. 1.1.1. B. Kalinausko darbuose predikatinis ryšys suvokiamas kaip semantinis santykis – it is a comparison with objective, attributive and adverbial relations. As Ramunė Vaskelaitė points out in her dissertation Models of Syntactic Relations in the Syntax of the Lithuanian Language, at that time “the concept of syntactic relationships was influenced by the linguistic ideas raised by the so-called Soviet specialists in the field of syntax” (Vaskelaitė 2009: 13), so this term and its concept are probably also taken from Russian linguistics. The fact that he was still new to Lithuanian linguists is evident from B. Kalinauskas’ article Words and word combinations in sentences (Kalinauskas 1963). The semantic relationships of words are confused with syntactic ones: “In a sentence there are various syntactic relationships between words, namely: predicative (between the factor and the adverb), forming the logical basis of the sentence, objective (between the adverb and the complement), attributive (between the indicative and the indicative words), adverbial (between the adverb and various circumstances)” (Kalinauskas 1963: 3). Almost a decade later, in the teaching aid Syntax of Word Combinations in Lithuanian Language (Kalinauskas 1972), predicative syntactic relationships are not mentioned, but when dividing word combinations according to the dependent component, predicative, attributive, objective and relational (or adverbial) combinations are indicated. Kalinauskas Arthur's Revenge. Syntactic relationship between the verb and the participle: a change of concept | 4 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.11 BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 explains the importance of determining the semantic relationships of a sentence as follows: santykius, tam tikrus sprendimus, apibendrinimus, nes, tik palygindami reiškinius vienus su “Dependent components of word combinations, connected to the main components, enable us to express certain phenomena of reality or objects in other words, we can make decisions about reality. This is why it is very important to establish the semantic relationships of the žodžių ryšiu. Jais siejami žodžiai sakinyje yra labai svarbūs: „Šie žodžių junginiai yra patys components of the compound of main and dependent words” (Kalinauskas 1972: 15– 16). In other words, the predicate relationships are considered by Kalinauskas as the semantic compounds forming the most important sentence. They form the center of the most important abu tokio junginio nariai lygiai gali būti ir pagrindiniais, ir priklausomaisiais, žiūrint, iš kurio communicative unit of language – the sentence” (Kalinauskas 1972: 16). The most important, according to B. Kalinauskas, syntactic (called grammatical) property of predicative word combinations is indicated: "Their main grammatical feature is that the component raises a question." This is not the case in the later works of the school, which are generally generalizing syntax. As R. Vaskelaitė writes (2009: 58), one of the first to discuss the relationship between the factor and the taric separately from the connective links was Jonas Balkevičius. 1.1.2. Although in J. Balkevičius’ Syntax of Contemporary Lithuanian Language (1963) predicate is perceived as a semantic (logical) and syntactic (grammatical) property of the sentence, these two conjunctions seem to be insufficiently distinguished from each other: “The assertion, negation or question is essential, the most important phenomenon of reality in the požymis, vadinamas predikatyvumu. Sakinio predikatyvumą sąlygoja loginiai ir gramatiniai santykiai, esantys tarp dviejų sakinio dalių, kurių viena, būtent veiksnys, pasako sentence, which is concerned by the assertion, negation or question raised in the sentence, and the second – the predicate – reveals the content of the assertion, negation or question <…>. The logical and grammatical relations of the factor and the predicate are called predicative relations in syntax, and the factor and the predicate are the predicative center of the sentence” (Balkevičius 1963: 17). Arthur's Revenge. Syntactic relationship between the verb and the participle: a change of concept | 5 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.11 BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 The predicative relationship is expressed by the coordination of: "the predicative relations <...>, the grammatical expression of which is the coordination of the main parts of the sentence <...>" (Balkevičius 1963: 26). However, as can be seen from the table Grammatical derinimas skiriamas nuo derinimo kaip prijungiamojo ryšio raiškos būdo. relationship of words in a sentence, presented on page 41, this relationship between the verb and the adverb was later understood and defined in the works on Lithuanian language syntax primarily as a syntactic phenomenon, sometimes indicating that it conveys semantic predicate relations. 1.2. Relationship between verb and adverb as a syntactic phenomenon In the 1970s, when in Russian linguistics sentence itself (for example, it is no longer observed in predikatinį centrą siejančio abipusio sintaksinio ryšio samprata tapo nebepopuliari the academic grammar of the Russian language edited by Natalija Švedova, published in 1980), in Lithuanian linguistics predicative connection, which began to be perceived primarily as a syntactic phenomenon, became its own and established. A Lithuanian term representing its new concept was sought. In Vytautas Sirtautas’ dissertation (1969), in the academic Lithuanian grammar (1976) and in V. Sirtautas’ and Česio Grenda’s textbook on syntax (1988) it is still called predicative (or predicative), but in Vito Labutis’ Problems of word combinations (1976), based on the syntactic nature of the connection, it is proposed to be called mutual conditional. Later, the name was changed to the two-way interface. Vytautas Ambrazas chose the term of interconnection in the Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian Language (1994). 1.2.1. Vytautas Sirtautas in his dissertation Verb conjugation in contemporary Lithuanian language (1969; published only in 2019) gives relatively little space to the discussion of the relation between the syntactic factor and the taring. Furthermore, it deals mainly with the expression of this syntactic relationship, namely the various cases of conjugation and non-conjugation or non-conjugation (Chapter V on verbal conjugation). V. Sirtautas, following L. Barchudarov, chose to name the connection of the main parts of the sentence ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS. Sintaksinis veiksnio ir tarinio ryšys: sampratos kaita | 6 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.11 BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 The term predication, clearly distinguishing it from the predicate (or predicativity) of the sentence: "predication is completely different from predicativity. If this term were adopted, it would be convenient (because of its brevity, etc.) to describe the relationship of a factor to a tenant” (Sirtautas 2019: 68). He opposes the predicative syntactic connection to the conjunction and association. It is a mutual, "interdependent" relationship. V. Sirtautas perceives harmonization as a means of expressing the syntactic relationship between the factor and the servile: “harmonization is an excellent manifestation of the relationship between the factor and the servile, but it is also clear that harmonization is not necessarily necessary for the realization of such a relationship” (Sirtautas 2019: 325); “Although coordination is not a necessary realization of the revelation of their [verb and participle] relationships (cf. I run), it is (in the case of coordination) a clear manifestation of the correlation of the main parts of the sentence, their mutual dependence” (Sirtautas 2019: 327). 1.2.2. The third volume of Lithuanian grammar, dedicated to syntax, published in In 1976, the syntactic connection connecting the elements of the word combination is not examined separately, only according to the nature of the connection are distinguished three varieties of compounds: connective, predicative and conjugative (LKG 1976: 9). Elements of compounds formed by predicative connection “one cannot be without the other”; These combinations “always form sentences”, apparently, so they are simply identified with sentences and are not examined separately in the section on word combinations. We learn more about the predicate connection from the section on solid binary sentences, where the concept of the main part of the sentence – the factor – is discussed (LKG 1976: 279–280). Already in the definition it is stated that “[t]he verb simply relates to the predicate”; these parts of the sentence “one requires the other” (LKG 1976: 279). Gramatikoje atkreiptas dėmesys į tai, kad veiksniu einančio žodžio reikšmė (o iš tiesų – In addition, the word "condition" is used to describe the condition of the subject: "The subject is conditioned. Usually, the factor denotes the subject of the action, but it can also denote a characteristic or the object of the action. The significance of the verb depends in part on the form of the taring. ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS. Sintaksinis veiksnio ir tarinio ryšys: sampratos kaita | 7 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.11 BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 For example, the forms of the active kind of verbs that form the adverb show that the object represented by the agent is the subject of the agent <…>, while the forms of the passive kind show that the object represented by the agent receives the action from the outside, is the object of the action <…>.” The grammar states that “the forms that make up the verb and the accent are often combined with each other”. In order to understand the syntax of the phrase, we have to distinguish between two types of phrases. In sentences with a continuous adverb, the noun of the verb and the first and second person forms of the verbs forming the adverb are combined by the number <...>. On the other hand, “[t]he noun of the verb relates to the verb forms that make up the adverb and to the category of person. When the factor consists of a first-person pronoun, the adverb takes the form of a first-person verb (I am going; We are going); when the factor is a second-person pronoun, the adverb takes the form of a second-person verb (You are going; You are going); and when the factor consists of a noun, a third-person pronoun or any noun pronoun, the adverb takes the form of a third-person verb (Father, he, parents, they, someone is going). In sentences with a compound adverb, “the noun of the verb and the form of the adjective or adjective word that forms the adverb are matched by gender, number and syllable <...>” (LKG 1976: 280). This is about combining the form of a predicate (or a tactical pronoun) with a factor. The application of the compound participle with a factor in relation to the person and number categories is not discussed. Kaip matyti, šioje gramatikoje sintaksiniams ryšiams neskiriama daug dėmesio. The third variant is still called a term from the field of semantics – predicate connection. Its specificity is based on the mutual dependence expressed by harmonization. 1.2.3. In the 1976 chapter of V. Labutis's Problems of Word Combinations "Word Relations by Character and by Direction of Relation" the basis for the division of word relationships is named: "Equivalents of charakteriu laikome tai, kaip ir kiek sintaksiškai veikia vienas kitą susietieji elementai. Ryšio charakteris priklauso nuo to, ar siejamieji vienetai yra sintaksiškai nelygiaverčiai ar Arthur's Revenge. Syntactic relationship between the verb and the participle: a change of concept | 8 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.11 BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 word relationships. The direction of communication is also important here” (Labutis 1976: 38). According to these two characteristics, he distinguishes three types of word connections: connection, connection and mutual conditioning. The nature of the latter connection is described as follows: "The twisted and syntactic character of this connection: here two equivalent units are connected (similarly as in the case of conjunction), but these units, as a factor and preposition, condition each other (near conjunction), the connection here is reciprocal <...>. This relationship can be called mutual conditioning (cf. Burlakova 1975, 21–22)” (Labutis 1976: 40–41). However, V. Labutis (not the only one in the works on Lithuanian language syntax of the traditional direction) indicates as possible another way of interpreting this syntactic relationship between words: “Semantic syntax researchers, strictly looking at the level of word relationships and the relationship with the parts of the sentence, the relationship between the subject’s noun and the verb’s time connection, and its way of expression – controlling <…>” (Labutis 1976: 41). In addition, Labutis clearly distinguishes the syntactic nature of the word connection from its expression (or marking) and describes it in the section “Modes of expressing word connections”. He distinguishes four types of expression of word connections: coordination, coordination of forms, control and weaving, the second of which is characteristic of the relationship of interconnection: “In terms of expression, we called it [i.e., the relationship of mutual conditioning] coordination of forms” (Labutis 1976: 40). “Coordination of word forms is the possible (but not necessary) mutual application of forms of words with independent categories” (Labutis 1976: 31). 1.2.4. In Vytautas Sirtautas and Česis Grenda’s textbook Lithuanian Language Syntax (1988) skiriami trys gramatinio žodžių ryšio tipai: predikatinis, sujungiamasis ir prijungiamasis. “Predicative relationship – is the relationship between the factor (noun) and the adverb, usually its personified form <…>” (Sirtautas, Grenda 1988: 37). The syntactic relationships between the verb and the adverb are discussed in the dedicated section on sentence parts. “The subject is santykiais. Ta sąsaja yra būtina. Jeigu yra keli vienarūšiai veiksniai ir keli vienarūšiai tariniai, related to the predicate by predicative means that each subject is necessarily related to each Arthur's Revenge. Syntactic relationship between the verb and the participle: a change of concept | 9 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.11 BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 predicate <…>. This is a very important feature of the relationship between the factor and the taric, distinguishing it from the relationship of other parts of the sentence. <…>. Another feature emerges from the relationship of homogeneous factors with the pronoun, e.g. : The berries were bought. Mushrooms and berries to buy. Mushrooms, berries and everything else bought. This clearly shows that the components of the factor composition determine the forms of the taring (and which form of the genus is dominant). Thus, the preposition directly depends on the factor. Here we should also remember the previous correlation of the relation between the factor and the adverb (Daugelis fabrikų buvusios rentabilios / Daugelis fabrikų buvę rentabiliūs), (ar „nepriklausomuoju“) tarinio aktantu, be to, „kairiojo“ aktanto sąvoka dar miglotesnė už veiksnio sąvoką“ (Sirtautas, Grenda 1988: 85–86). Tai nuoroda į valentingumo teoriją, which undoubtedly shows the mutual relationship of the main parts of the sentence” (Sirtautas, Grenda 1988: 85). Among other things, it is observed as if by accident: "It is incorrect to consider the action only as dependent in its various forms. The first comment refers to the view that a noun that acts as a predicate in a sentence is dependent on a verb that acts as a pronoun. As can be seen, the authors of the textbook find this approach inaccurate. The authors clearly distinguish syntactic relations from their morphosyntactic expression. This is shown by the following remark: “Sometimes the relation of the servile of the factor is unnecessarily identified with the coordination, which is, of course, also one of the indicators of those relations” (Sirtautas, Grenda 1988: 86). 1.2.5. In Vytautas Ambrazos edited Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian Language, whose pirmasis leidimas išėjo 1994 m., sintaksinių ryšių atmainos aprašomos, pradedant nuo interrelationships. “Interconnection is the syntactic relationship between the sentence structure units that condition each other. The word form through which the other is included in the sentence is in turn grammatically dependent on the latter. Thus, the relationship of interconnection is <...>. Tipiškais atvejais jis reiškiamas žodžių formų koreliavimu (abipusiu derinimu)“ (DLKG reciprocal (1994: 478). As the most obvious case of this syntactic connection is indicated the connection of the verb with the noun or pronoun noun and it is stated that the noun depends on the verb (in a sentence formed by an impersonal verb, subject noun Arthur's Revenge. Syntactic relationship between the verb and the participle: a change of concept | 16 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.11 BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 It emphasizes the necessity of distinguishing syntactic relationships from their morphosyntactic indicators: “In order to examine the types of syntactic relationships as a purely syntactic phenomenon, one must, of course, take into account the morphosyntactic phenomena, since they reflect syntactic relationships; but morphosyntactic phenomena and syntactic relations cannot be identified” (Holvoet, Judžentis 2003: 12). 2.2. In the third volume of Lithuanian Grammar Studies, Studies of Grammatical Functions (Holvoet, Mikulskas, ed., 2005) introduced the concept of syntactic dependency (the Lithuanian equivalent of the English term dependancy), with which the connection is identified. Dependency is defined as “a type of syntactic relationship between words (or other units of language) where one of them occupies a higher position in the syntactic hierarchy than the other” (Holvoet, Judžentis 2005: 11). In other words, in the case of a conjunctive connection, the syntactic conjunction property of one word, derived from the predicate it denotes, is stronger than that of the other. The following article clarifies the two distinct types of connection – control and modification. 2.3 In the chapter “Syntactic dependence” of the draft of the new Lithuanian grammar published on the Internet by Rolandas Mikulskas and Akselis Holvoetas (Holvoet, Mikulskas 2009b), the concept of connection (which also includes the cases previously referred to as interconnection) is further refined. It states that the direction of connection (what is connected to what) is usually perceived intuitively, but can also be more strictly defined (Holvoet, Mikulskas 2009b: 3). The directions of syntactic and morphosyntactic connection can even be opposite (Holvoet, Mikulskas 2009b: 4). The section also emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between syntactic connections (e.g., I want ice cream) and morphosyntactic connections (e.g., I want to go for a walk). It is pointed out that morphosyntactic control usually indicates syntactic connection, and matching may not indicate connection: “matching cannot be an indicator of syntactic dependence” (Holvoet, Mikulskas 2009b: 6). This is a new concept of coordination as a morphosyntactic phenomenon. ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS. Sintaksinis veiksnio ir tarinio ryšys: sampratos kaita | 17 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.11 BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 In the opinion of the authors of the chapter, the type of connection management always expresses semantic dependence of words. In this case, "the syntactic connection is measured by the semantic connection and reflects it". However, this is not always the case: the combination of the semantic relationship of words often, but not necessarily. For example, in the sentence I met John concerned, the combination of the participant concerned with the noun John indicates that there is a semantic relationship between them, but does not indicate a syntactic connection (Holvoet, Mikulskas 2009b: 7). Perhaps the most thorough criticism of the distinct variation of the syntactic relationship between the factor and the taric in traditional Lithuanian grammar is made by Axel Holvoet in his article “The Hierarchy of Arguments and Grammatical Functions” (Holvoet 2009a: 26–30). He emphasizes that the relationship of interrelationship in DLKG is based on morphosyntactic, when the combination of a verb with a factor is perceived as a sign of its dependence on the factor. On the other hand, the same verb controls the denominator of the factor. Thus, this relationship, assigned at the highest level of syntactic relationships, “is defined on the basis of criteria which are introduced only at the lower level of classification (management and coordination)’. A. Holvoet shows that, according to the theory of Western linguistics, the coordination can be used not only to denote the dependent, but also the main element of syntactic dependence, i.e. not the factor, but the preposition. In other words, the combination of a participle with a factor indicates that the factor depends on the participle. In this sense, the third variant of syntactic relationships – interconnection – has to be abandoned, because there is no distinctive feature that distinguishes it from connection. The question is also whether the coordination can actually be considered as an indicator of a syntactic connection. According ne sintaksinį, o tik semantinį ryšį, jis „tiesiogiai rodo į tą žodį (tuos žodžius), su kuriuo to Igor Mel’chuk and William Croft, it is shown that the combination denotes (with whom) the word being combined has connections” (Holvoet 2009a: 29). Arthur's Revenge. Syntactic relationship between the verb and the participle: a change of concept | 18 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.11 BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 3. THE NATURE OF THE SYNTACTICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ACTIVE AND THE TARIC Kaip matyti iš apžvalgos, naujasis sintaksinių ryšių skirstymas nuo ankstesniojo essentially differs in that it does not recognize the third type of syntactic relationships – the interconnection (or otherwise called type) and treats it as a connection. How are cases of a factor link with a presumption interpreted in such a case? The DLKG gives two, so to speak, typical examples of this connection, reflecting two variants of it: the connection of the sentence factor and the adverb (We had pity on our friend) and the connection of the factor with the (composed adverb) conjunction (Brolis byl naštvaný). Let's discuss them in more detail. 3.1 The first example in the DLKG states that “The noun of the pronoun we in this sentence depends on the conjugation of the verb regretted; After using the verb pagailo [i.e. an impersonal verb] we should change the noun to the noun, cf. : We pity our friend. However, the personal and numerical form of the verb regretted in turn is chosen according to the pronoun form we (e.g.: I regretted, you regretted, they regretted), so the connection here is reciprocal” (DLKG 1994: 479). The first dependency (control) is that the noun of the pronoun does not depend on the verb, but the pronoun itself. Since it is a noun in the sentence, it is marked with the usual noun syllable for a personal noun. The verbs to regret and to pity are connected only by the common root and its meaning, and otherwise they are two verbs of different meanings, morphology and syntactic characteristics. Therefore, replacing one with another does not prove much. The verb pagilti also requires a subjective suffix (which is an atypical factor), sintaksinis vaidmuo beasmeniame sakinyje gali būti įvairiai aiškinamas (papildinys arba but it is marked not by a noun but by a noun. Thus, the verb in the case is dependent on the verb in the pronoun. This is the type of connection management. Arthur's Revenge. Syntactic relationship between the verb and the participle: a change of concept | 19 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.11 BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 Jis žymimas įvardžio (kitais atvejais – daiktavardžio ar daiktavardiškai vartojamo žodžio) the denominator (or its indicator is such a denominator). In the case of the other direction dependence – the person and number forms of the verb parinkimo pagal įvardžio formą naujausioje lietuvių kalbotyroje išsakyta įvairių nuomonių. According to one of them, the person and number form of the verb is chosen independently of the pronoun passing as a factor according to the circumstances of communication. Since these circumstances are the same and when choosing a personal noun, its and the verb's grammatical forms of person and number coincide. This interpretation is supported by the entirely possible, and even more frequently used in oratory language, sentence We had pity on our friend, which says the same thing. For Lithuanian language this would be enough to interpret the choice of verb form. And only the typological data (see Holvoet, Mikulskas 2009a: 4, footnote 1) make us admit that the verb in this case is nevertheless combined with a pronoun. It would seem that the authors of the New Lithuanian Grammar, by acknowledging the combination of the verb with the pronoun, agree with the interpretation given by the DLKG. Moreover, in an attempt to defend the idea of interconnection, V. Ambrazas in his last works proposed to perceive it as a dual connection, only of different directions (Ambrazas 2005: 167–168; LKE 2008: 548). However, this is only a deceptive impression. In the context of the new grammar, coordination is not considered an indicator of syntactic connection (Holvoet, Mikulskas 2009a: 6). It only indicates the semantic relationship of the verb with its required complement, but does not indicate the syntactic connection (Holvoet, Mikulskas 2009a: 7). Thus, the syntactic relationship between the predicate and the adverb is one-way – the adverb requires the predicate, which is a characteristic feature of the conjunction. Bendrosios sintaksės pagrinduose A. Holvoetas dar patikslino anksčiau išdėstytą the concept of harmonisation. It is a means of marking the member of the main and secondary Derinimas deiktiškai nurodo veiksmažodžio argumentus arba diskurso dalyvius, taigi compound. matching is not a way of noting a syntactic connection (see Holvoet 2009b: 130). Arthur's Revenge. Syntactic relationship between the verb and the participle: a change of concept | 20 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.11 BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 Holvoet refers to Christian Lehmann, who argues that “alignment is by nature a means of establishing reference: by copying the grammatical features of their arguments – person, number, gender – verbs help to establish their reference” (Holvoet 2009b: 129). The conjunction 3.2. Antrasis DLKG pavyzdys šioje gramatikoje aiškinamas labai panašiai kaip pirmasis. must also determine the form of the noun’s noun, because “[w]hen replacing the personified form with an inactive participant or a communicative, the noun must also be replaced with another vowel, e.g. : Brother was angry, (How) brother to be angry. The person and number forms of the verb in the conjunction are chosen according to the denominator of the factor, e.g. We were angry; I was angry" (DLKG: 479). The conjunction be requires additions (controls) as well as other verbs. Thus, it joins the noun (and not its noun). Depending on the circumstances of the speech, the grammatical form of the conjunction is chosen, and its arguments are atypically in a noble vowel. The same (priklausiniai) žymimi skirtingais linksniais. Beasmenė būtojo laiko dalyvio forma būta kitaip pateikia kalbėjimo metu esančias aplinkybes, todėl ir jos reikalaujamas veiksnys žymimas applies to the communicative being, which joins a noun that is a factor (or adjective) in the sentence. It is a well-known craftsman. The fact that in relation to the number and the person the conjunction is combined with the word that goes with the factor has already been discussed earlier. Once again, it should be emphasized that this combination does not indicate another syntactic connection (or another direction of it), but only once again indicates the semantic dependence of the noun on the verb, which is also indicated by the choice of the noun verb. In other words, this affiliation is marked twice in the sentence: parinkimu (vardininku), o semantinis – veiksmažodžio skaičiaus bei asmens suderinimu su syntactic – the noun verb with that noun. Arthur's Revenge. Syntactic relationship between the subject and the predicate: change of concept | 21 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.11 BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 4. FACIT The change in the concept of syntactic factor and dialectal connection in Lithuanian linguistics can be summarized as follows. In the 1960s and 1970s, the binary division of syntactic relationships was replaced by a triangular one, giving the relation between the subject and the predicate the role of conveying the predicate of the sentence. Initially, it was perceived as an indefinite ir sintaksinis ryšys, vėliau, aštuntojo dešimtmečio antroje pusėje, buvo išgryninta jo sintaksinė semantic nature, accordingly changed and the name. Since the basis for the division of syntactic relationships was not clearly defined, the nature of the factor and the dialectal relationship remained unrevealed. The controversial concept of the factor and the dialectal connection is still discussed in many places in Lithuanian linguistics. At the beginning of this century, a new method of syntactic relationships classification was proposed, which essentially extends the tradition of binary syntactic relationships classification of independent Lithuanian language science, but is based on a new level of theoretical thought of Western linguistics. According to him, the syntactic relationship between the predicate and the adverb is considered to be connective: the verb connects (controls) the noun that goes through its subjective argument, and itself is combined with it by person and (not always) by number, thus expressing the semantic relationship between the predicate and its argument. Regardless of the perception of the combination of the personal sentence’s participle form, the new division of syntactic connections is superior to the previous one in at least one way: one variant of syntactic connection is allocated less than in previous works on syntax. At least in terms of the theoretical basis of the grammar description, this is obviously more economical. In addition, the new theory is more economical in terms of the basis for the distribution of syntactic relationships: it is based on only one characteristic of the phenomena to be distributed. The previous classification, as has been shown, is based on at least two characteristics (not to mention that they are not properly distinguishable). As it is clear from the overview presented in this article, the relationship of interconnection (then called predicative) in Lithuanian syntax works began to be distinguished only after the occupation of Lithuania and not without ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS. Sintaksinis veiksnio ir tarinio ryšys: sampratos kaita | 22 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.11 BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 influence of Russian grammar (see also Vaskelaitė 2009: 13). In view of this, it would be time to abandon this Soviet theory of Lithuanian syntax, the fruit of the slave consciousness, and to return to Western scientific thought, the spontaneous spread of which in Lithuania was roughly interrupted by the Soviet occupation. LITERATŪRA Ambrazas Vytautas 2005: Axel Holvoet, Artūras Judžentis, red., Sintaksinių ryšių tyrimai [rec.]. – Acta linguistica Lituanica 52, 167–170. Balkevičius Jonas 1963: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos sintaksė, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. Balkevičius Jonas 1998: Lietuvių kalbos predikatinių konstrukcijų sintaksė, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Dambrauskas Leonardas 1939: Žodžių santykis sakinyje. – Gimtoji kalba 6, 84–86. DLKG 1994 – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, red. Vytautas Ambrazas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. DLKG 2006 – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, red. Vytautas Ambrazas, 4-oji pataisyta laida, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Holvoet Axel 2009a: Argumentų hierarchijos ir gramatinės funkcijos. – Gramatinių funkcijų prigimtis ir raiška, red. Holvoet A., Mikulskas R., Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas, asociacija „Academia Salensis“, 1–36. Holvoet Axel 2009b: Bendrosios sintaksės pagrindai [Bibliotheca Salensis IV]. Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas, asociacija „Academia Salensis“. Holvoet Axel, Judžentis Artūras, 2003: Sintaksinių ryšių tipai. – Sintaksinių ryšių tyrimai, red., Hovoet A., Judžentis A., Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 11–35. ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS. Sintaksinis veiksnio ir tarinio ryšys: sampratos kaita | 23 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.11 BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 Holvoet Axel, Mikulskas Rolandas 2005: Sintaksinės priklausomybės tipai: papildymai ir patikslinimai. – Gramatinių funkcijų tyrimai, red. Holvoet A., Mikulskas R., Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 11–38. Holvoet Axel, Mikulskas Rolandas 2009a: Gramatinės funkcijos (rankraštis). Prieiga internete: http://old.lki.lt/LKI_LT/images/Padaliniai/Gramatikos_skyrius/Gramatines%20funk cijos.pdf. Holvoet Axel, Mikulskas Rolandas 2009b: Sintaksinė priklausomybė. Prieiga internete: http://old.lki.lt/LKI_LT/images/Padaliniai/Gramatikos_skyrius/Priklausomybe.pdf. Holvoet Axel, Judžentis Artūras, red., 2003: Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai 1: Sintaksinių ryšių tyrimai. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Holvoet Axel, Mikulskas Rolandas, red., 2005: Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai 3: Gramatinių funkcijų tyrimai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Holvoet Axel, Mikulskas Rolandas, red., 2009: Gramatinių funkcijų prigimtis ir raiška [Acta Salensia I], Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas, asociacija „Academia Salensis“. Kalinauskas Bronius 1963: Žodžiai ir žodžių junginiai sakinyje. – Kai kurie gramatikos ir stilistikos klausimai, Kaunas: Valstybinė pedagoginės literatūros leidykla, 3–23. Kalinauskas Bronius 1972: Lietuvių kalbos žodžių junginių sintaksė: mokymo priemonė, Vilnius. Labutis Vitas 1976: Žodžių junginių problemos, Vilnius: Vilniaus valstybinis universitetas. Labutis Vitas 1994: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Labutis Vitas 1998: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė, 2-as patais. leidimas, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. LKE 1999: Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija, par. K. Morkūnas, red. V. Ambrazas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS. Sintaksinis veiksnio ir tarinio ryšys: sampratos kaita | 24 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.11 BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 LKE 2008: Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija, par. K. Morkūnas, red. V. Ambrazas, 2-as patiksl. ir papild. leidimas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. LKG 1976: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 3: Sintaksė, vyr. red. K. Ulvydas, V. Ambrazas, A. Valeckienė, Vilnius: Mokslas. Sirtautas Vytautas 2019: Veiksmažodinis tarinys dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje [Bibliotheca actorum humanitaricorum universitatis Saulensis 18]. Šiauliai: Litera. 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. Gauta 2020 11 29 Priimta 2020 12 30 THE RELATION BETWEEN SYNTACTIC SUBJECT AND PREDICATE: CONCEPTUAL CHANGES Summary The article reviews the development of the concept and classification of the relation between syntactic subject and predicate during the last seven decades in Lithuanian linguistics. This type of syntactic relations was singled out only in the Soviet period, its separation was influenced by the works of Russian syntax. Initially, its concept did not clearly distinguish between the semantic and syntactic levels of sentence analysis, it was called a ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS. Sintaksinis veiksnio ir tarinio ryšys: sampratos kaita | 25 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2020.93.11 BENDRINĖ KALBA 93 (2020) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 predicative relationship. Later, terms more syntactic by nature (mutual dependency, interdependency) were proposed. Attempts were made to explain this type of relations, but it failed to do this on the basis of one criterion. Both the direction of relation and it’s these morphosyntactic notation have been relied upon, often without proper distinction between criteria. At the beginning of this century, with the rapid renewal of Lithuanian grammar theory, there was a come back to the dual division of syntactic relations based on one feature as subordination, – syntactic equivalence. The term interdependency was abandoned; its cases were interpreted marked at morphological level by the selection of case of the argument word. The semantic relation between the verb and its argument is also marked on the verb that is agreed in person (and number) with his argument. At the end of the article, it is shown how several examples of the relation between syntactic subject and predicate are interpreted in the Lithuanian grammar and how they could be interpreted on the basis of the theoretical grounds common to Western linguistics. KEYWORDS: syntactic relations, relation between syntactic subject and predicate, interdependency. ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS Vilniaus dailės akademija Maironio g. 6, LT-01124 Vilnius, Lithuania [email protected]