Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis „labui“ dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) kalboje

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language THE NOMINAL AND POSTPOSITIONAL FOR THE BENEFIT IN CONTEMPORARY LITHUANIAN (WRITTEN) LANGUAGE KEYWORDS: dative of a noun, desemantization, postposition. ABSTRACT This article, based on material from the Corpus of Contemporary Lithuanian (DLKT), discusses labui used nominally and postpositionally. Based on the hierarchies, the study found that the dative of the noun labas generally functions as an object or an adverbial when its dependent is expressed by the genitive of a noun (pronoun) denoting a person (necessary for the benefit of society; created both for oneself and for the benefit of other nations). Such nominal labui foregrounds the benefactive, and also corresponds to the finite verb, the patient, and the content, and expresses manner. The most characteristic meaning of the construction consisting of the postposition labui with a genitive is purpose. A typical genitive dependent of object-functioning postpositional labui is an abstract noun (for the common good), whereas that of an adverbial is lexically unrestricted. INTRODUCTION The Great Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (LKŽₑ)1 distinguishes three meanings of the masculine singular noun labas: (1) “well-being2, benefit3” (see sentences 1–3), (2) “wealth, treasure, riches” (see sentences 4–5), and (3) “greeting” (see sentence 6). The Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian (DŽₑ) and the Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian (BŽₑ) give the first two meanings: “well-being, benefit” (see sentences 7–8) and “wealth, treasure, resources” (see sentences 9–10). 1) Jum negera, ir jam ne labas Sv4. 1 The second volume of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (C–F), whose editor-in-chief was Jonas Kruopas, was published in Vilnius in 1969. 2 Cf. DŽₑ: well-being – a good, comfortable life: They live in material comfort—they have everything they need. 3 Cf. DŽₑ: benefit – 1. something useful, valuable, or profitable: This work will bring great benefit. 2. well-being, good: Let us all work for the benefit of our homeland. 3. a positive, favorable result: The match ended in our team’s favor. 4. wealth: We have never had so much wealth. 5. crops, grain: The crops yielded well this year. 4 Abbreviations such as LKŽₑ. BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) kalboje | 2 2) We make use of everything best <...> for the benefit of the people labui sp. 3) The parents worked for the sake of the good of their children A1885,6. 4) The castle was destroyed, and all their good was taken A1884,335. 5) But, thinking of the forest’s good, to describe and explain it, it is necessary to say what one experienced there. 6) For good you won’t get so much as a word, but you won’t get anything to eat PrLXVII26. 7) I worked all my life for the benefit of people [the homeland]/labui. BŽe 8) The authorities should be guided by the pursuit of the common good. BŽe 9) That good will be enough for a lifetime. BŽe 10) Here is all our good. BŽe 11) Later I understood that he had tamed Seth’s power, the immeasurable might of heaven, and used it for the sake of harmony, not chaos. DLKT 12) When the fifth fort, which had resisted only briefly, surrendered, the gradgrots decided that, given the dangerous shortage of time, for the sake of the matter labui they would talk with the remaining gunners themselves. DLKT In sentences 2 and 7, the purposive for the benefit of is close to the dative of the noun well-being (cf.: We use all that is best for the people's well-being; I worked all my life for the well-being of people5). The situation is different in sentences 11–12, where replacing for the benefit of with the synonymous for the well-being of is awkward (cf.: ?They used their strength for the well-being of harmony, not chaos;?The matter's well-being will be discussed by the remaining gunners themselves). It may be that the nominal character of for the benefit of—the clarity of the meaning ‘well-being, benefit’—is related to whether the genitive noun (or pronoun) functioning as its dependent constituent denotes a living or an abstract entity. For the benefit of with a genitive, used in sentences 2, 11 and 7, 12, differ in terms of their necessity in the sentence: the first, semantically distinct uses of for the benefit of with a genitive are valency-governed actants of the verb (to) use6, whereas the latter are not. The non-obligatory construction for the benefit of with a genitive in sentences 7 and 12 can be compared with the purposive prepositional construction using for in sentence 3 (cf. Balkevičius 1963: 226). Purpose is expressed by the dative of the noun benefit in sentence 7 (cf. sentence 2), by the prepositional construction using for in sentence 3, and by the secondary preposition7, more precisely, the postposition for the benefit of with a genitive 5 Cf. an example from the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language (DLKT): [Pliusnys] would continue working for the glory of the Creator and the well-being of people. 6 Plg. Nijolės Sližienės (1998: 10) teikiamą naudoti „vartoti kaip priemonę, įrankį kokiam tikslui, taikyti kur“ junglumo aprašą, kur naudininkas atliepia finitývo – tikslo, paskirties funkciją (žr. Sližienė 1994: 23). 7 “Secondary (derived) prepositions are those that can be associated with words from other parts of speech, mostly with adverbs” (Vaiulytė in: DLKG 2006: 438). BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) kalboje | 3 konstrukcija (plg. Šukys 1998: 552; Kazlauskienė, Rimkutė, Bielinskienė 2011: 150–1518) 12 sakinyje (plg. 11 sakinį). Pagal 3 ir 7 sakinių analogiją ir atsižvelgiant į tai, kad tipiška priežasties (siaurąja prasme) raiška – prielinksnio dėl konstrukcijos, o daiktavardžio naudininkui priežasties reikšmė nėra būdinga, taip pat galima manyti, kad polinksნიო labui konstrukcija ir (arba) prielinksniu dėl su kilmininku (gali būti) žymima priežastis. Kokią vietą tikslo, priežasties raiškoje užima daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui? Ar jais pasakomos tik šios reikšmės? Kaip bus matyti, ir kitos. The following (see Section 2) seeks to answer the question of what criteria can be used to distinguish nominal and postpositional labui, or, in other words, what influences when the meaningful labui becomes (is) desemanticized and acquires postpositional status. It may be assumed that, besides the aforementioned animacy criterion, grammatical function also has an influence: the dative of the noun labas functions as the object (complement) of an atypical beneficiary9, for example, in the sentence All animals are beneficial to human welfare (cf. for human welfare, to humans), whereas a construction with the postposition labui functions as an adverbial of purpose. On the other hand, it is perhaps more appropriate here to speak of the more nominal and more postpositional uses of labui, which denote object-related and adverbial meanings (of cause in the broad sense (inter alia Balkevičius 1963) or in the narrow sense—that of (actual) cause and purpose (inter alia LKG 1971, 1976; DLKG 2006; Labutis 1998)10). Thus, the subject of this article is labui used nominally and postpositionally. The aim of the article is to discuss the functions of labui in the sentence on the basis of hierarchies. To achieve this aim, the following tasks are set: without claiming to provide an exhaustive literature review, briefly mention what has been written about the nominal dative and its synonyms in grammatical descriptions of Lithuanian (see Section 1); analyze instances of the more nominal and more postpositional use of labui; and, on that basis, summarize what it denotes in contemporary Lithuanian (written) language (see Section 2, as well as the summary and conclusions). The study uses descriptive-analytical and interpretive methods. Cf.: “Neologisms are prepositions that have retained clear etymological links with the independent words from which they originated” (Vaitulytė in: LKG 1971: 580). 8 Cf.: “Some adverbs can also be used as postpositions, for example, labui, metu, and others. They almost never precede a case form, so they may be considered postpositions, e.g.: I did everything only for your benefit” (Kazlauskienė, Rimkutė, Bielinskienė 2011: 150–151). There is one example in which labui is used as a preposition: That the affairs of the state were deteriorating, and that without his intervention the civil war—which would be a misfortune for all sensible and good people—would never cease. He intervened solely for the benefit of those mild-mannered people who, under any circumstances, long only to work quietly and enjoy simple family happiness (DLKT). This prepositional use of labui is influenced by the subordinate attributive clause. 9 The beneficiary function is characteristic of living beings, especially persons, for whose benefit or detriment something happens or is done. “Sometimes inanimate objects and abstract things are also construed as beneficiaries, e.g.: put teeth on a rake, smoking is harmful to health” (see Sližienė 1994: 21). 10 Vaida Našlėnaitė-Eberhardt (2002: 17–18) kalba apie šešias priežasties subkategorijas: realiosios priežasties (kauzatyvo), hipotetinės priežasties (sąlygos), kaip į ateitį nukreiptos priežasties (tikslo), nerealiosios priežasties (nuolaidos), motyvo (t. y. skatinančios priežasties), padarinio (pasekmės, rezultato). Priežasties semantiniams santykiams ji priskiria realiosios priežasties, motyvo ir padarinio subkategorijas ir teigia, kad hipotetinės priežasties (sąlygos), kaip į ateitį nukreiptos priežasties (tikslo), nerealiosios priežasties (nuolaidos) santykiai yra savarankiški, pasižymintys savita semantika ir turintys tiktai jiems būdingą gramatinę raišką. BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) kalboje | 4 To achieve the aim, the study draws on material collected from the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language (hereafter DLKT), compiled at the Centre of Computational Linguistics of Vytautas Magnus University. Most of the corpus consists of written, often edited, texts in different genres (journalistic, fiction, non-fiction, or administrative literature). Spoken-language examples make up the smallest portion of the DLKT. The article draws on 1,250 examples in which labui is used. These sentences, without classification by genre, were selected in order of occurrence by entering the word labui into the DLKT advanced search field (the search criterion used was exact match). 1. THE DATIVE AND ITS SYNONYMS IN GRAMMATICAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LITHUANIAN To specify the functions of labui in the sentence, it is first important to briefly mention how grammars understand the nominal dative and what its possible synonyms are. 1.1. In discussing the nominal dative in The Grammar of the Lithuanian Language (hereafter LKG) (LKG 1965: 193ff.), Adelė Laigonaitė states that “a dative governed by a verb denotes a person or thing to which something is assigned, in whose interests an action is performed, or which is in some way affected by the action under discussion. Such a nominal dative may be called an object dative. In the sentence, it functions as a complement” (see sentence 13). In cases where a dative governed by a verb indicates the purpose for which something is done or happens, it functions as an adverbial of purpose (see sentence 14). 13) The manufacturers were compelled to raise wages for the workers. (quoted from LKG 1965: 193) 14) That uncle also lent her for the journey a couple of rubles. (quoted from LKG 1965: 194) Elena Valiulytė, gramatikose (LKG 1976: 29tt; DLKG 2006: 513t; plg. Šukys 1998: 147) aptardama veiksmažodinius junginius su naudininku, sako, kad naudininkas dažniausiai žymi objektinius (aukojasi vaikams), rečiau – tikslo (ruošiasi sėjai), kiekybinius (dingo amžiams) bei laiko (išvažiuos žiemai) santykius. Objekto naudininkas su tranzityviniais veiksmažodžiais „turi dvi ryškesnes reikšmes – veiksmo adresato ir veiksmo paskirties. Šios reikšmės ypač aiškiai skiriasi tada, kai abu naudininkai pavartojami greta su tuo pačiu veiksmažodžiu, pvz., nupirko dukteriai (adresatas) siūlų megztiniui (paskirtis). Adresatą paprastai reiškia asmenis (ar kitas gyvas būtybes) žyminčių daiktavardžių (ar jį atstojančių įvardžių) naudininkas. <...> Paskirties reikšmę turi paprastai daiktus žyminčių daiktavardžių naudininkas. Jis žymi, kam skiriamas kitu nuo to paties veiksmažodžio priklausomu linksniu (galininku ar kilmininku) pasakytas daiktas“ (Valiulytė in: LKG 1976: 31t; dar žr. DLKG 2006: 513t) (plg. 15–16 sakinius). Abstrakčios reikšmės (dažnai veiksmažodinės kilmės) daiktavardžių naudininkas 17–18 sakiniuose rodo veiksmažodžiu žymimo BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (raš to) kalboje | 5 veiksmo tikslą (Valiulytė in: LKG 1976: 34). Kitaip kalbant, E. Valiulytės nuomone, 15–16 sakinių naudininkas yra (adresato, paskirties) papildinys, o 17–18 sakiniuose – (tikslo) aplinkybė. Albertas Ruže LKG (1976: 517) teikiamą, pavyzdžiui, sakinio Beržo tošės pasidžiauk prakurai daiktavardžio prakuras naudininką laiko tikslo aplinkybe (plg. 16 sakinį). Panašios nuomonės yra ir Vitas Labutis, kuris 16–18 sakiniuose vartojamą daiktavardžio naudininką supranta kaip tikslo¹¹ – tiksliau, paskirtinio tikslo (paskirties) aplinkybę, kurią „rodome tariniu pasakyto požymio tikslą, kuris dažnai drauge žymi ir veiksniu ar papildiniu pasakyto daikto paskirtį“ (Labutis 1998: 302; panašiai Ruže in: LKG 1976: 517; Šukys 1998: 168t; dar žr. t. p.: 147, 176). Jonas Balkevičius (1963: 226) kalbamųjų sakinių naudininkus taip pat aptaria tikslo aplinkybių skyriuje. Tačiau jis (Balkevičius 1963: 219), skirtingai nei V. Labutis ar A. Ruže, tikslo aplinkybę įtraukia į plačiai suvokiamą priežasties aplinkybių sąvoką. Kaip sako Jonas Šukys (1998: 169), aplinkybių naudininkas 16 sakinyje „kartu rodo ir netiesioginį objektą¹²“, o 17–18 sakiniuose, kur yra „abstraktesnis daiktavardis, jis paprastai turi ryškesnį tikslo atspalvį“ (plg. Ruže in: LKG 1976: 517¹³; plg. t. p.: 34, 87). 15) I for him dug a mountain; he for me dug a pit. (quoted from Šukys, 1998: 148) 16) I made windows for the house myself. (quoted from LKG 1976: 32) 17) Does the rainbow gather seven-flowered blossoms for their beauty? (quoted from LKG 1976: 34) 18) To use one’s power for evil dishonorably. (quoted from LKG 1976: 34) Aldona Paulauskienė (1994: 120, dar žr. t. p.: 123, 173¹⁴) laikosi nuomonės, kad „visais šiais [papildinio, aplinkybių] vartojimo atvejais naudininkas išlaiko bendrą (invariantinę) paskirties ir naudos/nenaudos reikšmę“ (dar žr. Šukys 1998: 147). It becomes clear that the interpretation of the dative of a noun is based on the distinction between sentence constituents (grammatical functions) complement (indirect object) or adverbial and concrete (animate or inanimate) or abstract entity. A complement is a noun in the dative denoting concrete animate or inanimate entities (Valiulytė); an adverbial is a noun in the dative denoting concrete inanimate or abstract entities (Labutis, Balkevičius, Šukys). On the basis of this distinction... 11 “An adverbial of purpose is a secondary sentence constituent indicating an implicit, anticipated reason, for whose sake, or in adaptation to which, the property expressed by the predicate is manifested” (Labutis 1998: 300). Cf.: “An adverbial of purpose denotes the aim and purpose of an action or state, answering the questions what for, for what purpose one goes, travels, strives, or for whom, for what purpose something exists or is done” (Balkevičius 1963: 225). ¹² “Usually such an object is expressed by a fairly concrete noun” (Šukys 1998: 168). ¹³ “The dative of verbal nouns has the clearest meaning of purpose,” e.g., Various furnaces are used for gas carburizing (LKG 1976: 517). ¹⁴ “The adverbial dative retains the same basic meaning of purpose. <...> The adverbial of purpose also overlaps with the meaning of intended use” (Paulauskienė 2001: 173). BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) kalboje | 6 Given the datives of indirect object and adverbial, it should be said that the noun dative is an indirect object in constructions such as sacrifices himself for the children, bought thread for his daughter, I dug a mountain for him, and differs from the adverbial in constructions such as sacrifices himself for the sake of the children (cf. for their well-being), bought thread for his daughter’s sake, I dug a mountain for his sake. The semantic differences expressed by the same form are also important here: in constructions such as sacrifices himself for the children, bought thread for his daughter, I dug a mountain for him the dative denotes a beneficiary, whereas in sacrifices himself for the sake of the children, bought thread for his daughter’s sake, I dug a mountain for his sake it denotes purpose. Are the latter datives different? It can go either way. But, for example, in the sentence Friends, his experience will still serve our interests (DLKT), for our sake is rather close to the beneficiary indirect object marked by the dative (i.e., will serve our interests ≈ serve us; cf.:?will serve us for our sake; also cf.: Bought thread for the daughter’s sake for a sweater; Lent her some money for the trip as well) (see below). Thus, other criteria must be sought to explain the distinctions in for the sake of. Axelis Holvoetas ir Loreta Semėnienė (2004) linksniams priskiria gramatiškumo laipsnius. Remdamiesi Veslavos Čižik (2003) preliminariai nustatyta linksnių hierarchija: vardininkas > galininkas > naudininkas > kilmininkas (arba kilmininkas > naudininkas) > įnagininkas, autoriai (Holvoet, Semėnienė 2004: 33) teigia, kad „linksniai išsidėsto skalėje pagal tai, ar jie koduoja centrines, ar periferines sakinio funkcijas“; linksnių reikšmės „yra labai abstrakčios ir sunkiai suformuluojamos linksnių hierarchijoje aukštai esančių linksnių atveju, bet darosi tuo konkretesnės kuo žemesnė linksnio pozicija hierarchijoje“. Pagal santykinį gramatiškumo (artimumo sakinio branduoliui) ar semantiškumo (periferiškumo) laipsnį skiriama linksnių hierarchija susijusi ir su sintaksinės priklausomybės (valdinys > modifikatorius15) pagrindu skiriama gramatinių funkcijų hierarchija: subjektas > tiesioginis objektas > netiesioginis objektas > tolimesni objektai (angl. oblique) (trumpiau, subjektas > objektai) > aplinkybės (plačiau Holvoet 2009a, 2009b). Kaip rašo A. Holvoetas (2009a: 18), „vardžodžių hierarchija, išrikiuojanti veiksmažodžio palydovus tam tikra žemėjančia tvarka pagal jų periferiškumo, arba atsietumo nuo pagrindinės predikacijos laipsnį, leidžia įsivaizduoti laipsnišką veiksmažodžio komplementų perėjimą į modifikatorių kategoriją, kartu numatydama ir tarpinius šio perėjimo atvejus“. Taigi hierarchizacijos pagrindu naudininkas yra labiau semantinis (mažiau gramatinis) linksnis, žymintis labiau periferines gramatines funkcijas. Hierarchical distinctions can also be used to explain the use of for the sake of: according to syntactic dependency, it marks objects > and adverbials (devotes oneself to the common good > will serve our interests > works for the benefit of people > gathers seven-flowered blossoms for beauty). This is also connected with the nominal character of for the sake of >itself. 15 For a fuller discussion of the notions of syntactic relations—government and modification, governed element or modifier, governing word or modified word—on which this discussion draws, see Holvoet, Judžentis (2003: 11–35; 2005: 11–38). The same works also provide a comparison with the traditional overview of types of syntactic relations. For a fuller discussion of the criteria for distinguishing complements and adverbials used in this article, see Holvoet, Čižik-Prokaševa (2005: 66–70). BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) kalboje | 7 by postposition use (serves our benefit (cf. for our well-being) > for beauty (*for the benefit of beauty) they gather seven-flowered plants). In terms of semantic functions, nominal labui functioning as an indirect object correlates with a benefactive, whereas a postpositional labui construction functioning as an adjunct correlates with a purposive, i.e. the expression of purpose16. As has been seen, alongside such nominal or postpositional uses of labui, there are cases in which labui is (more) nominal, but, in terms of syntactic dependency, is not governed by the predicate (for his benefit (cf. for him, for his well-being) I piled up a mountain), and conversely: labui is more postpositional, but governed by the predicate (he used it for the sake of harmony, not chaos). A. Holvoetas ir V. Čižik-Prokaševa (2005: 81–92) sintaksiškai naudininką, kuris neužima argumento pozicijos, t. y. nėra predikato valdinys, vadina laisvuoju ir skiria keturis jo tipus: dativus commodi (Jonas atnešė Onai vyno), dativus sympatheticus (Jonas paspaudė šeimininkui ranką), dativus ethicus (Jis tau atvažiuos!), dativus iudicantis (Šis paveikslas man visai gražus). Autoriai dativus commodi interpretuoja kaip beneficiento aplinkybę (plg.: jam kalną pyliau), dativus sympatheticus – kaip argumento suskaidymo atvejį, dativus ethicus sieja su diskursu ir laiko sakinio aplinkybėje, o „dativus iudicantis yra semantiškai reikalaujamas ir sintaksiškai valdomas“ (Holvoet, Čižik-Prokaševa 2005: 83, 86, 88, 90). Pastarasis laisvasis naudininkas siejamas „ne su visu sakiniu (kaip sakinio aplinkybė), o tik su konkrečių žodžių sintaksinėmis savybėmis“ (t. p.: 91). Agnieszka Rembiałkowska, aptardama laisvuosius naudininkus, siūlo, „klasifikuojant <...> remtis jų aprėpties (angl. scope) kriterijumi“. Konkrečiai kalbant, „laisvųjų naudininkų tipai skiriami visų pirma pagal tai, su kuria sakinio atkarpa jie santykiauja, t. y. su kurio predikacijos lygmeniu jie sudaro glaudesnį vienetą ir su kurio predikacijos lygmeniu ribojasi jų reiškiamos predikacijos poveikis“ (Rembiałkowska 2009: 149–150). Jos pagrindu „dativus sympatheticus koduojamos posesyvinės reikšmės pasireiškia šerdinės predikacijos lygmeniu (plg. 16 sakinį), dativus commodi / incommodi koduojamos beneficientinės / maleficientinės reikšmės“ (t. p.: 167–168) „turėtų priklausyti išplėstinės predikacijos lygmeniui“ (t. p.: 162) (plg. 15 sakinį), „dativus iudicantis reikšmės [koduojamos] propozicijos lygmeniu, dativus ethicus – šnekos akto (sakinio) lygmeniu“ (t. p.: 168). Taigi A. Rembiałkowska (2009: 161–162, 168) aprėpties kriterijumi grindžia su predikatu tiesiogiai nesusijusių laisvųjų naudininkų hierarchizuotus skirtumus. Kaip (ar) tokią aplinkybėmis einančių laisvųjų naudininkų hierarchiją: dativus sympatheticus > dativus commodi / incommodi > dativus iudicantis > dativus ethicus, atliepia aptariamas labui, bus kalbama toliau (žr. 2 skyrių). Iš to, kas lig šiol sakyta, aišku, kad (gali būti) ribojamas labui vartojimas pagrėčiu dativus sympatheticus (plg.: pasidariau namui langus,?pasidariau namo labui langus, bet: pasidariau namų labui (t. y. namams kaip gyvenamai vietai) langus (žr. toliau). 16 A purposive is “characteristic of things and phenomena that are sought, to which the action denoted by the verb is directed, e.g.: the teams compete for first place, farmers prepare for sowing” (Slizienė 1994: 23). BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) kalboje | 8 Jurgita Kerevičienė (2008: 117tt), taikydama kognityvinės gramatikos teorines prielaidas ir metodus, siūlo naudininko funkcijas skirti ne pagal sintaksinius (valdomas resp. nevaldomas), bet pagal semantinius kriterijus. Kalbininkė naudininką interpretuoja kaip tam tikrą tarpusavyje susijusių skirtingų reikšmių tinklą (angl. network, set of meanings). In this article, the dative of a noun is viewed as a member of the hierarchies proposed by the aforementioned authors (Holvoet, Semėnienė, Čižik-Prokaševa, Rembiałkowska). On this basis, the discussion considers when for the benefit is used in a (more) nominal sense (with lexical meaning), and when it is used as a postposition (as desemanticized). This is discussed with regard to its syntactic dependency: consideration is given to whether or not it is governed by a verb. A noun dative benefit serving as a verb complement, or a postpositional for the benefit construction with the genitive, is an object (complement) (see sentences 2 and 11); when serving as a modifier, it is an adverbial (see sentences 7 and 12) (for more, see Section 2). 1.2. Further, in view of Vytautas Ambrazas’s (2006: 307) observation that “the preposition because of with the genitive encroaches on the domain of use of the dative of purpose and destination, especially when specific things associated with a purpose are involved, e.g.: left potatoes for seed → because of the seed, put milk aside for the children → because of the children, <...> it also displaces the dative of purpose expressed by nominalized verbs, e.g.: There will be enough because of the eating17” (cf. Balkevičius 1963: 226 and sentences 17–18), it is worth briefly mentioning what else, besides the dative, marks an adverbial of purpose and how it is related to the typical expression of cause by means of because of constructions. For example, according to A. Ružė, in addition to the aforementioned dative, an adverbial of purpose may be expressed by an adverb, a noun in the genitive, the instrumental, the genitive with the preposition because of, the accusative with the prepositions into, for, an infinitive, a supine, an idiom, and a word combination (LKG 1976: 514ff.; cf. Balkevičius 1963: 221f.), whereas an adverbial of cause may be expressed by an adverb, a noun in the instrumental, the genitive with because of, out of, from and thanks to, the accusative with the prepositions through, for, the instrumental with the preposition with, an idiom, and a word combination, e.g.: Because of my parents’ insistence, because of the prejudices of ignorant fanatics, I renounced the most beautiful feeling—love (cf. sentence 3) (LKG 1976: 516–517; see also LKG 1965: 194). The genitive with the preposition because of is often synonymous with the accusative with the preposition for when it has a purposive function, or with the dative, cf.: Look, even while you were still at school, you were already fighting for Lithuanian identity (cf. for Lithuanian identity); They are hunted for the roast (cf. for the roast) (Ružė in: LKG 1976: 518).1819 17 Plg. Šukio (1998: 169) nuomonę šiuo klausimu: „Vietoj paskirties [t. y. tikslo] naudininko paprastai nelabai tinka prielinksnio dėl konstrukcijos, pvz.: dėl sėklos pasilikom; dėl duonos užsidirbsiu; pasiskolink dėl kelionės.“ 18 For an account of causal relations in the most important works of Lithuanian linguistics, see Našlėnaitė-Eberhardt (2002: 8–12). 19 Constructions with the purposive preposition už are used “with verbs denoting some kind of striving through their action (to fight, perish, die, raise, etc.)” (Ružė in: LKG 1976: 518). BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) kalboje | 9 E. Valiulytė, DLKG (2006: 543) aptardama priežasties reikšmės veiksmažodinius junginius, teigia, kad „priežastį žymi junginiai su prielinksniai iš, nuo, dėl, už, rečiau – su dėka, per, su įnagininku be prielinksnio, su prieveiksmiais“ (dar žr. Valiulytė 1998: 337–410). Kiek toliau nagrinėdama tikslo raišką, ji (DLKG 2006: 551) laikosi nuomonės, kad „veiksmo tikslą bei paskirtį žymi kilmininkas ir naudininkas (vieni ar su bendratimi), bendratis, prielinksnių [dėl, prie, į su kilmininku] konstrukcijos“; pvz.: kovoja dėl laisvės, paklausė smalsumo dėlei (dar plg. Labutis 1998: 302). Prielinksnis dėl, vartojamas „reiškiant veiksmo tikslą, dažnai susipina su priežasties reikšmės atspalviu“ (LKG 1971: 59020; panašiai Ruzė in: LKG 1976: 51821; dar žr. Valiulytė 2001: 201, 222). Išsamiai aprašiusi dabartinės lietuvių kalbos sintaksinius sinonimus, kalbininkė apibendrina: „pagrindinės priežasties santykių raiškos priemonės yra konstrukcijos išKilм, nuoKilм ir dėlKilм“ (Valiulytė 1998: 406), o „centrinę vietą tikslo [konkrečiau, siekinio] reikšmės priemonių sistemoje užima bendratis – viena ir su kilmininku, o prielinksninės [į, prie, dėl] konstrukcijos sudaro tos sistemos periferiją“ (Valiulytė 2001: 222; panašią nuomonę dar žr. Labutis 1998: 300). J. Šukio (1998: 380; dar žr. 1978: 31) nuomone, „bendroji prielinksnio dėl reikšmė – priežastis su paskirties atspalviu – gana aiški ir be sakinio“. „Kai prielinksnio dėl konstrukcija reiškia gana aiškią paskirtį [t. y. tikslą], jai yra artimas paskirties naudininkas, tačiau juo keisti nebūtina, nei norima išlaikyti priežasties atspalvį. Mama dėl savo vaiko (plg. savo vaikui) duoną paskutinę raiko. Tačiau vietoj tokios paskirtį reiškiančios prielinksnio dėl konstrukcijos, kur negalima įžiūrėti priežasties atspalvio, geriau tinka įprastas paskirties naudininkas. Pirkom bulvių dėl sėklos“ (Šukys 1998: 380t). E. Valiulytė (1998: 376) teigia, kad prielinksnio dėl – priežasties, tikslo, objektinė, nuolaidos – „reikšmės yra labai artimos: jas vienija bendras semantinis požymis, kurį sąlygiškai galima pavadinti „loginiu pagrindu“. <...> Pasitaiko tokių vartojimo atvejų, kad sunku pasakyti, kokiai reikšmei priskirti aptariamą konstrukciją“22. From what has been said, it is clear that, despite the typical causal meaning of the construction with the preposition dėl, it is polysemous: it also expresses other, non-causal meanings (purpose, objective, etc.). 20 “The prepositions dėl and dėlei are used to express the cause of an action (as well as a state or an action-related property)” (Valiulytė in LKG 1971: 590), purpose, concession, the object of thought or speech, and to strengthen the meaning of another word, e.g., Dėl gerumo jis geras (he is good because of his goodness) (Valiulytė in DLKG 2006: 441). In E. Valiulytė’s view (1998: 381), in combinations with verbs denoting active, deliberate actions, the construction with the preposition dėl also has a purposive meaning, e.g.: atjojo dėl mergelės (he came for the maiden) (for more, see LKG 1976: 87). Such combinations can be transformed into compound purpose clauses, cf.: atjojo, kad pamatytų mergelę. (he came so that he could see the maiden). 21 “The prepositional construction [dėl with the genitive] in the meaning of a purpose adjunct is not very characteristic of the literary language. Moreover, the purposive meaning of the genitive with the preposition dėl is not always clearly distinguishable from the causal meaning,” e.g., Dėl drąsumo jis užsikišo už diržo savo tėvo ilgą Damasko durklą, paėmė lazdą ir išėjo; Dėl smagumo vieną gali pasikviesti, bet daugiau nieko (LKG 1976: 518). 22 Balkevičius (1963: 225; dar žr. t. p.: 226; panašią nuomonę žr. Labutis 1998: 293, 300) sako, kad „tikslo aplinkybė nuo veikiančios priežasties aplinkybės skiria kitoks priežastinis ir laiko santykis su sakinio tariniu: veikiančios priežasties aplinkybė realioje tikrovėje kyla anksčiau už tarinį arba eina kartu su tariniu, o tikslo aplinkybė yra tik galimas arba laukiamas tarinio veiksmo arba buvimo rezultatas“, arba, Našlėnaitės-Eberhardt (2002: 17) žodžiais, kalbamasis tikslas – tai į ateitį nukreipta priežastis. BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) kalboje | 10 meanings: in some cases they are distinct, in others syncretic. The dative of a noun usually denotes purpose (dirbame žmonių labui, pasidėjo pieną vaikams). In this adjunct function, the dative is displaced by the construction with the preposition dėl (Ambrazas). Because the preposition dėl with the genitive can potentially mark adjuncts in the same way, it may be difficult to distinguish causal and purposive meanings. Hereafter, causal and purposive meanings are understood as two independent meanings, that is, a narrower view of cause is adopted (see similarly Labutis 1998), and the place occupied by the labui discussed here is considered (for more, see Section 2). In J. Šukys’s view (1998: 552–553; 1978: 134), this labui, which is increasingly used as a postposition, “with the genitive expresses cause and purpose (especially with dirbti, daryti, stengtis...). Tavo labui, ne kieno kito, stengiuosi (I am making an effort for your sake, not anyone else’s)” (cf. sentence 7). Labui can readily be replaced by the archaic preposition dėl, cf. Dirbkime dėl tėvynės; Dėl tavęs stengiuosi“. Based on sentence 11, we can say that when the postpositional labui construction functions as an object (complement), that is, as a governed element, it is synonymous with the purposive dative. Thus, adjuncts with labui can be replaced by causal and purposive constructions with dėl and by free datives. The question arises whether the labui and dėl construction or the dative are used as (free) variants, or whether each has its own meaning. For example, are the meanings of the adjunct constructions labui and dėl synonymous or different (cf.: dirba, taupo vaikų labui / dėl vaikų ir savo ateities labui / dėl ateities23); how (or whether) is the adjunct labui related to a beneficient (cf.: taupo vaikų labui / vaikams, pieną pasidėjo vaikų labui / vaikams); how (or whether) do the indirect-object datives differ in the sentences Nepriklausomybė būtina visuomenei nuo būtina visuomenės labui. (Independence is necessary for society vs. necessary for the benefit of society). 2. NOMINAL AND POSTPOSITIONAL LABUI BASED ON DLKT Next, using examples from DLKT, labui is discussed in the sentence with regard to whether it is used more as a noun or as a postposition. In this connection, we consider whether it is a governed element or a modifier. On this basis, the grammatical function of the labui construction is distinguished (object > adjunct), cf.: 19) A person can choose moderate enjoyment of sensual pleasures or renounce them entirely, aspiring to serve the state and the common good. DLKT 23 Cf.: “A preposition or postposition substantially changes the meaning of a case and, together with the case form of a noun or a word used substantivally (pronoun, numeral, etc.), forms a prepositional construction. <...> A preposition and a case seem to merge, forming a word combination with a qualitatively new meaning; therefore, one usually speaks not of the meanings of prepositions, but of the meanings of prepositional constructions” (Šukys 1978: 5–6). BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) kalboje | 11 20) Tik tas išorinis rūkas sukliudė Lukui pastebėti posūkį. Pažįstamas draudžiantis balsas prašė užmiršti tai ir nebegalvoti mano ir jo paties labui, tačiau Odesos rūkas buvo stipresnis. Mačiau važiuojant Luko automobilį vakarejančiu, tuščiu keliu. DLKT As noted, the verb combines its predicates with dependents, that is, the meaning of the verb requires dependents as complements expressing its arguments. In the sentence, the predicate’s dependents function as objects (see sentence 19). The conception of objects as dependents of a verb (or another predicative word) is related to its valency properties, that is, the verb’s ability to combine with words of a certain form that it requires—valency companions (Sližienė 1994: 5). Modifiers, which generally function as adverbials in a sentence, express additional predication (see sentence 20). Objects could be distinguished from adverbials “by one simple criterion: whatever falls within the scope of the main predication is an object; whatever does not is an adverbial” (Holvoet, Čižik-Prokaševa 2005: 6624) (see also below). 2.1. The nominal labui The dative of the noun labas is used in sentences 19 and 21–28. Examples of this type, in which labui has agreeing modifiers, make up a minority of the available material (30 out of 1250). Syntactically, the dative of the noun labas used in sentences 19 and 21–24 differs from that used in sentences 25–28: it functions as an object (complement) vs. an adverbial. In sentence 21, the noun labui functioning as an object corresponds to a patient as the recipient of the effect of an action (cf. Sližienė 1998: 96); in sentences 19 and 22–24, it corresponds to an atypical benefactive (see footnote 7) (cf. Sližienė 1994: 343; 2004: 299); when functioning as an adverbial in sentences 25–28, it denotes purpose. In sentences 19 and 21–25, a genitive noun denoting persons can be readily inferred (cf.: (19) to serve the common good (well-being) ≈ to serve the good of all people), whereas in sentences 27–28 it is expressed (cf.: (28) acts for the common good of all (people) labui). On the basis of these sentences, the all used in sentences 29–30 can be interpreted syntactically in two ways: all may be regarded as an agreeing modifier of labui’s dependent—the genitive of a noun denoting persons (cf.: to remain for the good of all living beings); or, given its semantic synonymy, the non-agreeing genitive modifier all may be linked to the agreeing modifiers common25universal26 and considered a dependent of labui itself ((28) to remain for all, that is, for the common, labui). 24 Ten pat (Holvoet, Čižik-Prokaševa 2005: 66t) plg. ir tradicinę papildinio ir aplinkybės sampratą. 25 Cf. LKŽe: bendras – belonging to everyone, of everyone; used jointly. 26 Cf. LKŽe: visuotinis – encompassing everything and everyone, common to all. BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) kalboje | 12 21) The Federal Council may provide financial support for specialized research by the cantons’ experimental farms and scientific institutes, if such research serves the common good [P]. DLKT 22) The vain pursuit of precedence brings many to ruin. It harmed the common good [B] then and still does. DLKT 23) The Church esteems and praises the work of those who, in serving people, devote themselves to the common good [B] and take on the burden of public duties. DLKT 24) Marriage “is of the greatest importance (cf. significant) for the continuation of the human race, the personal good of the family members themselves and their eternal destiny.” DLKT 25) The bolder ones went flying down the little street alongside the wires—there they are, stretched across the stream, pole to pole far apart here, so the wires couldn’t bear the strain. In the morning, for the common good (cf. for the sake of the general welfare), Mortūnienė also sprang into action; on her way to the office she stopped by Milašius’s place; the electricians in town had to be called to come and fix it. DLKT 26) Would you perhaps clarify for those gathered here what kind of work you do? I think it would be interesting to know what you, Brother Veleris, do for the common good (cf. for the sake of the general welfare)? “I...” He looked around, but saw many expectant faces. “Hmm... for example, I help in the kitchen...” DLKT 27) They could and should concentrate more, perhaps even unite—for the common good of our people labui. DLKT 28) In the community, she helps others, and others help him; or, again, they act together for the common good of all labui. DLKT 29) These are tantric rituals, during which the disciples ask the Teacher to remain in this world as long as possible for the good of all living beings labui (cf. for the common good of living beings). DLKT 30) In short, they barely manage to save the detector from an attack, the detector room from desecration, and the precious, cherished state property remained for everyone’s benefit (cf. for the benefit of all people; for everyone; for the common benefit of all people; for the common good). DLKT Let us return to the nominal labui. The dative of labas, meaning “well-being, benefit,” is used in sentences 31–40 with bivalent (e.g., (pa-)to sacrifice oneself, (pasi-)to serve, to harm, to contradict, necessary, important, and so on) and trivalent (e.g., to give, (pa-)to sacrifice, to leave, to provide, to assign; to devote, to make use of, and so on) predicates. In sentences 31–37, this labui functioning as an object, as in sentences 22–24, corresponds to an atypical benefactive (cf., e.g., Sližienė 1994: 109; 1998: 111, 122; 2004: 299). More precisely, in these sentences the dative of the noun labas brings into focus BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksn(i)škasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) kalboje | 13 (emphasizes) the benefactive meaning of benefit, while the benefactive itself is expressed by a genitive noun denoting concrete animate or, more rarely, inanimate entities, as well as abstract entities, which functions as the dependent of labui (cf.: (31) to serve the good (well-being) of marriage ≈ to serve marriage; (32) we sold [it] for the benefit (well-being) of all of us ≈ we sold [it] to all of us). As Valerijus Apresianas (1995: 18) says, this use of labui makes explicit the semantic feature “that X should fare well” (cf.: (31) to serve the good of the family ≈ to serve so that the family [B] fares well). 31) Dabar norėtume paskatinimo žodžius tarti mokslo vyrams, kurie galės labai daug pasitarnauti santuokos bei šeimos labui ir sąžinės ramybei, jeigu, drauge su kitais tyrinėdami, imsis geriau ištirti sąlygas gimimams doru būdu reguliuoti. DLKT 32) Mums dargi malonu, kad tu intuityviai, savo moterišku protu vadovaudamasi, taip nepigiai pars idavei mūsų visų labui. DLKT 33) Šeima būtų pripažinta pirmine visuomene ir tam tikra prasme „nepriklausoma“. „Nepriklausomybė“ būtina visuomenės labui. DLKT 34) NATO atstovų vizitai į Lietuvą – kartu ir Lietuvos draugų ir bičiulių būrio išplėtimas. Kaip rodo patirtis, svarbu Lietuvos labui ir asmeniniai kontaktai su užsieniečiais, asmeninės pažintys. DLKT 35) Dear commendatore, please sit down; my friend de Ambrozijas told me about you, about the life you devoted to the good of your state (cf. You gave your life for the benefit of the state). And your secret poetic streak, too, right? DLKT 36) Kelmės rajono Paprūdžio žemę nerealizuoju, prašymo agrarinės reformos tarnybai dėl žemės ar kompensacijos gavimo nepateikiau, palikdamas ją Lietuvos labui. Netiesa ir tai, kad valstybės sąskaita į mano žmonos turimą sklypą nutiestas kelias ir iškirsti medžiai. DLKT 37) Supratau, daktare Ignacai. Ačiū jums už tėvišką rūpestį. Lieku skolinga visą likusį gyvenimą už šią bemiegę naktį, paaukotą mano kūno labui ir sielos išganymui. – V z a i m n o... DLKT The nominal labui in sentence 38 corresponds to a content role (cf. Sližienė 1998: 226), and in sentences 39–40 to a finitive role (cf. Sližienė 1998: 10; 2004: 67). As becomes clear from the context of sentence 41, labui here can be interpreted as having a syncretic meaning—that of benefactive and purpose (finitive) (cf.: to provide meat for the good of Lūšis ≈ to provide meat for Lūšis [B] and/or to provide meat for Lūšis to eat [Fin], i.e. for Lūšis’s benefit or on Lūšis’s behalf). The noun labas functions as the object of the focused benefactive BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351–7204 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniskasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) kalboje | 14 the dative, whereas labui functioning as an expression of purpose can be understood both as a noun in the dative and as a postposition (see below). 38) Opened to false and deceptive decisions, contrary to the truth and to the well-being of individuals and nations. DLKT 39) The results of scientific research may be used for the benefit of many people: to help people adapt better and be happier, learn to overcome cognitive deficiencies, and conquer fear and anxiety. DLKT 40) Of course, as a new convert, I confirmed—as the scars supposedly show—that I wanted to devote all my strength to Jerusalem and for the benefit of its temple. DLKT 41) For lunch I ate potatoes with milk and realized that, for Lūšis’s benefit, I had to get some meat as soon as possible. DLKT The noun labui is also used adverbially. Such a dative of benefit in sentences 42–44, unlike in sentences 31–40, does not occupy a verb argument position, that is, it is a modifier. For example, the nominal labui in sentence 42 can be understood in two ways: he did terrible things to my possessions, that is, damaged or ruined my property; or he did terrible things for my benefit, that is, to me personally. The first dative of benefit is used in the sense ‘property, treasure, resources’, while the second activates the meaning ‘benefit, well-being’ (i.e. to me ≈ for my benefit). This labui, like the form used in sentences 43–45, is close to the aforementioned dativus commodi, which corresponds to a beneficiary. The labui construction used in sentence 46 can be understood both as a dativus commodi (I did all this for your benefit ≈ for you), as a dative of purpose (I did all this for your benefit ≈ for your well-being), or as a related prepositional dėl construction (I did all this for your benefit ≈ for your sake). In sentence 47, the labui construction with the genitive can be interpreted as close to the beneficiary dativus commodi (cf.: (47) he will work for Egypt’s benefit ≈ for Egypt), or as synonymous with the purpose preposition dėl construction. In the latter case, labui ‘loses’ its nominal character, that is, the meaning ‘benefit, well-being’ of labui fades, and it is used as a postposition with the genitive. Sentences 48–49 show that the purpose construction labui with the genitive of a person-denoting pronoun used here is closer to the prepositional dėl construction (cf.: (48) the mob sends me to my own benefit ≈ sends me because of me) than to the dative of the noun well-being, benefit (cf. (48) the mob sends me to my own benefit ≈?sends me for my own well-being). In other words, in those cases where adverbial labui with the genitive of a person-denoting pronoun (noun) is no longer associated with a beneficiary, that is, is understood as marking purpose, the abstract BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351–7204 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniskasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) kalboje | 15 the meaning of the abstract noun benefit becomes less distinct, and it is used more like a postposition labui with the genitive (see below). 42) To Varnas, I was never a girl, or a woman, or even a human being, Ligoni. It does not matter that, to my detriment (cf. to my resources, my property; to me), he did terrible things. DLKT 43) They created them themselves, through their own energy and creative talent, both for themselves and for the benefit of other nations (cf. for other nations). DLKT 44) Jam brangios ne šios vertybės savaime, bet jų nauda. Naudos jis ieško asmeniškai (plg. sau) arba visuomenės labui (plg. visuomenei). DLKT 45) Yra pabrėžęs, kad dalyvavimas šventuosiuose slėpiniuose „yra tikras išpažinimas ir atminimas, kad Viešpats mirė ir grįžo į gyvenimą dėl mūsų ir mūsų labui (plg. mums)“: DLKT 46) Šaukiuosi tavęs, mano tėve Amonai, nes esu vienas, visiškai vienas. Mylinčia širdimi aš dariau visa tai tavo labui (plg. tau, tavo gerovei, dėl tavęs), tad šią sielvarto ir negandos valandą padėk tam, kuris ryžtasi veikti. DLKT 47) Mozė keletą mėnesių liks karališkųjų statybų prižiūrėtoju – kol paruoš sau įpėdinį. O paskui jis kartu su manimi dirbs Egipto labui (plg. Egiptui; dėl Egipto) ir gerovei. DLKT 48) Pažvelkim, kas jie, ta bepročių šutvė, kurią vadinamas Dievas siunčia man [B] mano labui (plg. ?mano gerovei, dėl manęs). DLKT 49) Kitaip dar apšauks vokiečių šnipais. Geriausia jums [B] jūsų pačių labui apsirūpinti vardais. DLKT On the basis of the aforementioned hierarchy of free datives—dativus sympatheticus > dativus commodi / incommodi > dativus iudicantis > dativus ethic(us)—a question arises as to whether the nominal labui is used alongside the member distinguished to the left of dativus commodi / incommodi, that is, in place of the dative denoting an external possessor—dativus sympatheticus. Such substitution is possible, but semantically dativus sympatheticus and the nominal labui differ. In sentence 50, the free dative (keleiviui) denotes the beneficiary possessor, who is involved in the action expressed by the predicates (German involviert) and indirectly affected by it (English affected) (German indirekt) (cf. Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė 2015 and the literature cited therein). In other words, the dative used here, besides dativus sympatheticus, also has a background meaning of dativus commodi. It would seem that in sentence 51 the possessive relation between the possessor (keleiviui) and the possessed entity (kojos) is disrupted. Rather, the dativus sympatheticus interpretation recedes into the background, while the foreground is brought to the fore BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) kalboje | 16 and the benefit conferred on the possessor is foregrounded—the benefactive interpretation. This nominal labui is close to the *dativus commodi*, especially in cases where labui with the genitive is separated from the possessee marked by the accusative and moved to the beginning of the sentence, as in sentence 52 (cf. Vaičiulytė-Semenienė 2006: 171–172). There are no sentences like 50–52 among the available DLKT examples. Nor are there sentences in which labui is used as a malefactive circumstance (cf. Rembia|kowska 2009: 154). In sentence 53, the malefactive (misfortune) dative (mamai ‘for the mother’) is replaced in sentence 54 by the construction mamos labui ‘for the mother’s benefit’, which would imply interpreting her as a dativus commodi: it was good for the mother / she was lucky that the cake failed this time; that was just what she wanted (cf. For the mother’s benefit (cf. benefit), the cake failed). Because of the same interpretation of labui as ‘benefit, well-being’, it is unsuitable in sentences with the dativus iudicantis, which marks subjective evaluation (cf. Rembia|kowska 2009: 156–157; see sentence 55). In other words, the dativus iudicantis is associated with the percipient (see Šličienė 1994: 20–21), whereas labui is associated with the benefactive function. On the other hand, in sentence 56, where “the free dative can be understood as either a dativus iudicantis or a dativus commodi” (Rembia|kowska 2009: 157), one might also expect a genitive construction with labui that foregrounds the benefactive. 50) Washed the passenger’s feet. (quoted from DLKG 2004: 514) 51) Washed the passenger’s labui (cf. for the passenger’s benefit) feet. 52) For the passenger’s labui (cf. for the passenger’s benefit, as the passenger), the host washed the feet. 53) This time the cake for the mother did not turn out well. (quoted from Rembia|kowska 2009: 154) 54) This time the cake, for the mother’s labui, did not turn out well. 55) So for you (cf.?for your benefit), maybe a monitor is still called a display? (quoted from Rembia|kowska 2009: 155) 56) Studies for me (cf. for my benefit) became what making teapots was to the ancient Chinese. (quoted from Rembia|kowska 2009: 156) Finally, the context of sentence 57 allows us to discuss manner or meaning marked by the nominal labui. 57) The decision is adopted by a simple majority of those voting after two deputies have spoken for and two against. We can now resolve (HOW?) this question for your labui (cf. to your advantage; in your favor). DLKT BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) kalboje | 17 From what has been said about labui as a noun form, it is clear that it, together with its dependent constituent—an agreeing adjective (rarely) or a non-agreeing genitive noun (pronoun) (usually)—is used as a complement of the predicate or as a modifier. The nominal labui with an agreeing modifier functions in the sentence as an object or an adjunct. Because of its abstract lexical meaning, the dative of labas functioning as an object denotes an atypical beneficiary (devotes oneself to the common good) or patient (research contributes to the common good). The dative of the noun labas with an agreeing modifier functioning as an adjunct denotes purpose (stirred for the common good). The dative of purpose is close to a construction with the preposition dėl ‘for’ (stirred for the common good (well-being)). The complement of the nominal labui is usually a genitive noun denoting animate beings (persons) or (rarely) abstract things (to serve the interests of marriage and family). Considering the clarity of the lexical meaning of the noun labas itself and its non-agreeing dependent constituent, the following generalization can be made: the dative of the noun labas functioning as an object foregrounds a beneficiary (necessary for the good of society) or denotes a patient, content, or finitive (opposes the interests of the individual), (to use for the benefit of people); when functioning as an adjunct, it generally corresponds to a foregrounded beneficiary (created not for himself, but for the benefit of nations), and sometimes expresses manner (to resolve in your favor). The nominally used labui also has syncretic (beneficiary and purpose) meanings (provide for the benefit of Lūšis; I did all this for your benefit). In cases where the adjunctive construction labui with a genitive noun (pronoun) denoting a person is understood as expressing purpose, the meaning of labui itself becomes less distinct (cf. sends to me for my benefit) (see below). 2.2. The postpositional labui The DLKT contains more examples in which the meaning of the noun labas is less clear, making it evident that labui with a genitive is used more like a postpositional construction. This is related to the abstractness of the genitive-marked complement of labui. For example, on the basis of sentence 58, where the dative of an abstract noun (for health) functions as an object denoting a beneficiary, one might suppose that a beneficiary can be foregrounded by the dative of the abstract noun labas, as in Bad mood harms your interests (you). However, sentence 59 shows that using labui with the genitive of an abstract noun becomes more awkward (?harms the interests of health). It would seem that an abstract noun functioning as an object weakens the nominal character of labui. Yet it is used in sentence 60, where it functions as an object of a finitive. In sentences 61–64, the object of a beneficiary or finitive is expressed by the postpositional construction labui with the genitive of an abstract noun, synonymous with the dative governed by a verb or adjective. BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniskasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) kalboje | 18 58) Bad mood and irritation harm health. (quoted from Sližienė 1994: 343) 59) ?Bloga nuotaika, susierzinimas kenkia sveikatos labui (plg. ?sveikatos gerovei). 60) “On this occasion, in order that the gracious lord of the Utena estate, Balcevičius, might for the benefit of the Polish Revolution (cf. for the well-being of the Polish Revolution; for the Polish Revolution) donated three hundred rubles. God and the free Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth will reward him. Signed, Smilga, envoy of the revolution.” DLKT 61) Valstietis ir amatininkas teikdami materialines gėrybes, dvasininkas – malda ir religinėmis apeigomis, ir kiekviena klasė atlikdama savo darbą. Bendro gėrio labui (plg. bendram geriųi) būtina, kad tokia sistema turėtų valdančiąją dalį, kaip kad siela valdo kūną ar aukštesnė prigimtis valdo žemesnę. DLKT 62) Dauginančios politinio godumo ir nusikaltimų aukas, valdžios galią naudojančios ne bendrosios gerovės (plg. bendrajai gerovei), o kurios nors partijos arba pačių vadovų labui. DLKT 63) Nepaisant to, ko norėtų kai kas, nevalia pamiršti, nes mes, žmonės, galime kaip tik tai daryti, tylėti, bijoti, mąstyti skaičiais, aukoti priemones tikslų labui (plg. tikslams, dėl tikslų), nenoriai sutepame krauju savo rankas, bet jei tai daro kažkas kitas mūsų vardu, nusukame akis į šalį arba skanduojame pritarimo šūksnius. DLKT 64) Brangieji, jūsų kunigystė yra Dievo dovana, skirta savosios tautos šventėjimo labui (plg. ?savosios tautos šventėjimo gerovei / naudai; savosios tautos šventėjimui). DLKT For the sake of the abstractness of the noun functioning as a dependent constituent loses its distinguishing (nominal > postpositional) force in cases where for the sake of with the genitive functions as a purpose adjunct or can be interpreted as such (cf. sentences 47–49). In sentences 63–68, the genitive complement of the postposition for the sake of is lexically unrestricted: it is expressed by a noun denoting concrete (animate or inanimate) and abstract things. According to V. Apresian (1995: 18), constructions with the postposition for the sake of and the genitive, expressing this kind of purpose, are to be interpreted as “so that P may come about.” The purpose is expressed in a condensed form (cf. Valiulytė 1998: 369): in accordance with the principle of economy, the construction with the postposition for the sake of is chosen instead of a subordinate clause (cf.: (67) They sweated least for the sake of a free mobile phone ≈ they sweated least in order to get / buy a free mobile phone). These constructions with the postposition for the sake of are synonymous with purpose constructions using for with the genitive. Besides such clear cases, there are also ambiguous ones: in sentence 71, the adjunct for the sake of may also be interpreted as nominal, i.e. as making the benefactive salient (let us not do it for ourselves BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniskasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) kalboje | 19 [B], for the benefit of people ≈ for people), and as more postpositional, i.e. denoting purpose (let us not do it for reports [Fin], for the benefit of people ≈ because of people) (see also sentences 46–47). 65) Dievas rungtyniauja su žmonėmis: Abraomas mirtingą sūnų paaukojo Dievui, bet jam nereikėjo mirti; gi Dievas nemirtingą Sūnų atidavė mirčiai žmonių labui (plg. *žmonėms;?žmonių gerovei; dėl žmonių). Ką mes į tai pasakysime? DLKT 66) Varge tu, varge, juk galėjo dar pagyventi žmonių ir miesto labui (?žmonių ir miesto gerovei; dėl žmonių ir miesto), bet gi va, nebūna taip, kaip tu nori. Bet galgi Dievas susimils ir jis pasveiks. DLKT 67) Nusiuntė „špargalką“. Tad tie, kurie sekė paskui ausinėmis apsirūpinusį akcijos dalyvį, išliejo mažiausiai prakaito nemokamo mobiliojo telefono labui. Niokotojai tikėjosi sumaišties. DLKT 68) Žmonėms, suvarytiems į narvą, atsiranda tik toks poreikis įsivaizduoti savo gyvenimo rimtumą: eiti į mokslus, išsilavinti, daryti vaikus, dirbti narvo labui, pagal būtinumą kalbėti dviem kalbomis tiesiogine ir perkeltine prasme. DLKT 69) Jie valdo atsižvelgdami į tai, kas geriausia valstybei ir visiems jai priklausantiems, o kai dauguma valdo bendros naudos labui, [tokia santvarka] vadinama bendru visų santvarkų vardu – politeja. DLKT 70) Kodėl jūs mane pakvietėte, Ofirai? Man tai nelabai patinka. – Drįsau pakviesti jus, pone, nes vis darbuojuosi mūsų reikalo labui. Jūs nenusivilsite. – Tikiuosi. DLKT 71) Reformas darykime ne sau [B], ne ataskaitoms [Fin], bet žmonių labui [B/Fin]. DLKT The circumstantial postpositional for the benefit construction with the genitive of concrete and abstract nouns also has syncretic meanings in sentences 72–75: in sentences 72–73, purpose is intertwined with cause, and in sentences 74–75 with cause and condition. 72) Paaiškinti, iš ko jis sudarytas, bet žirgas galų gale pats nuspręs, kada bus laikas atsigerti. Būkite budrūs ir nenaudokite prievartos. Savo vaiko labui (plg. dėl savo vaiko) neskubinkite įvykių. Laikas pats savaime negydo netekties paliktų emocinių žaizdų, todėl privalome leisti vaikams rikiuoti savo emocijas individualiai. DLKT 73) Visokeriopa valstybės parama jaunimo namų statybos bendrijoms. Tautos ir šalies gerovės labui pamirškim ambicijas, pamirškim posakį „du lietuviai – trys partijos“, junkimės į koaliciją. DLKT BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) kalboje | 20 74) Having already lost him, since he himself had driven him away of his own accord, he called himself an idiot in his thoughts and wanted to slap himself. But it was too late; nothing could be changed. For the sake of truth labui (cf. Seeking the truth; If we want the truth) we must say that although the sight of the beautiful body he had lost pained Eduard, he made up for the loss fairly quickly. DLKT 75) What is more, after the horror movie ends, he experiences real horror when he sees an empty refrigerator! Therefore, for the sake of human health and one’s wallet labui (cf. for the sake of human health and one’s wallet; if we want that...) it would be worth showing as many slow-killing films as possible, rather than quick flicks! Incidentally, many creators have grasped this and are fruitfully working in this very direction. DLKT The purpose is also expressed together with a reason in cases where the genitive of the cataphorically used demonstrative pronoun tas ‘that’ serves as the dependent constituent of the postposition labui. As can be seen from sentence 76 or 77, a pronoun with a generalized referential meaning stands in for a broader context. The context of sentence 78 allows us to speak of a causal meaning expressed by the construction with the postposition labui. 76) The Renaissance had a fateful influence on the liturgy, relativizing holiness in favor of what is beautiful in human eyes, labui. Human pride led him astray: he takes himself so seriously that he forgets that life has a playful side. DLKT 77) Asceticism is “reassessed” in relation to what is considered “the most fundamental premises of life”; labui. DLKT 78) Therefore, it is obvious that once this age has been exceeded by four or five years, one must give up having children and continue living together solely for the sake of health labui (cf. for the sake of health) or for some other similar reason. DLKT From what has been said, it is clear that (more) postpositionally labui is used when it functions as an object and its genitive complement is expressed by an abstract noun (necessary for the common good). The typical meaning of a postpositional labui construction functioning as an adverbial is purpose, sometimes intertwined with other meanings. The construction with the postposition labui also expresses a reason. Finally, on the basis of sentences 79–80, we can also speak of labui, which is close to dativus ethicus, which “is used to express the speaker’s vivid emotional relationship to the matters under discussion” (Holvoet, Čižik-Prokaševa 2005: 87). Syntactically, such discourse-related labui, with the dative of second-person pronouns, is an adverbial of the sentence, not of the predicate (cf. Holvoet, Čižik-Prokaševa 2005: 88). It is appropriate BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) kalboje | 21 acknowledge that this for your benefit can also be interpreted as close to dativus commodi (cf.: (79) did not do it for your benefit ≈ for you). 79) Wait, what on earth has Anupras still not done for your benefit (cf. what else has Anupras not yet done for you), colleague? His head wasn’t working. He pulled a bottle of ginseng from his pocket, unscrewed the cap and took a sip... Right to the bottom. DLKT 80) Seimas tuoj į atlapus kibs dėl Ūkininkų įstatymo, Vyriausybė tavo labui (plg. tau) kurą pabrangina ir tuojau atlygina (gražūs šmugelis!) – plok katutes, žmogau, valdantiems ir tiems, kurie gracingai rauko nosis. DLKT GENERALIZATION AND CONCLUSIONS The study showed that in contemporary Lithuanian (written) language, the form labui is used both as a noun and as a postposition. In some cases, the dative meaning of the noun labas is clear (to serve the common good; together they work for the common good of all); in others, it is less distinct (sends me for my benefit). The same applies to constructions with the postposition labui: alongside unequivocal cases (necessary for the common good), there are cases in which labui can be understood both as a form of an abstract noun and as a postposition (I did all this for your benefit). Taking clear cases into account while acknowledging less clear (transitional) ones, the use of nominal and postpositional labui is based on hierarchies, in which the category being distinguished is represented by a clear (prototypical) nominal or postpositional labui. The animacy criterion, i.e. person abstract thing>, is significant for explaining the use of labui. This relates to Michael Silverstein’s (1976) or Robert Dixon’s (1979: 85) (i) animacy hierarchy27, in which animacy features correlate with hierarchies of (ii) semantic28, (iii) grammatical functions and their (iv) morphosyntactic marking (Hentschel 1992; cf. Givón 1984: 239ff.; Dik 1989: 269–270; Holvoet 2009a, 2009b). (i) person > animate being (non-person) > inanimate concrete thing > abstract thing (ii) A > P > Rec29 > Ben > I > L > T 27 In later works, the animacy hierarchy was divided into (i) person (speech-act participants), (ii) animacy (in the narrow sense), and (iii) definiteness hierarchies (cf. Croft 1990: 111; 127; Comrie 1989: 128, 185). Based on animacy (in the narrow sense), definiteness, number, concreteness, and other features, Alan Timberlake (1986) distinguishes a hierarchy of individuation (English individuation). 28 Kritišką nuomonę semantinių funkcijų hierarchijos skyrimo klausimu žr. Croft (2012: 175tt) ir ten aptariamą literatūrą. 29 “The morphosyntactic marking of the semantic role Recipient is the prototypical dative function. <...> A typical recipient is involved in a transfer event. An object changes the BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniskasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašo) kalboje | 22 (iii) subject > object > supplement (adjunct). (iv) Nom > Acc > Dat > prepositional constructions. Grammatical (or structural) cases—the nominative and accusative—are selected syntactically and semantically for the most prominent (English salient) sentence constituents, namely the agent subject and the patient direct object (Jonas [A] builds a house [P]); the other cases mark less prominent (grammatical and semantic) functions. The dative of the abstract noun labas examined in this article correlates with less prominent functions of core sentence constituents or free sentence constituents—supplements (i.e. predicate or sentence adjuncts). On the basis of the uses examined of nominal and postpositional labui, the hierarchy of grammatical functions (iii) can be supplemented with a hierarchy of free datives (Rembiałkowska 2009); thus, one can say that the use of nominal labui and postpositional labui, respectively, correlates with the following hierarchy of grammatical functions: object > supplement (adjunct): dativus sympatheticus > dativus commodi > other adjuncts (purpose, cause) > dativus ethicus. This also reflects the hierarchical distinctions of syntactic dependency (complement > modifier). The hierarchies person > abstract thing and nominal labui > postpositional labui appear to correlate when labui functions as an object: the dative of the noun labas typically governs the genitive of a noun denoting a person (or a pronoun that substitutes for it) (necessary for the good of society), while the postposition labui governs the genitive of abstract nouns (necessary for the common good; the power to use for the common welfare). Although there is greater variation between nominal and postpositional labui, a similar correlation is found when labui is an adjunct: nominal labui is generally used with the genitive of a noun (or pronoun) denoting a person (to devote one’s life to the good of one’s family; created for oneself and for the good of the nation), whereas the genitive complement of the postposition labui is often expressed by an abstract noun (or a pronoun substituting for it) (they are invited for the sake of their own brighter future; they gather seven-flowered plants for beauty), but due to syntactic condensation the genitive can also denote living beings (gave [himself] to death for the sake of the people). The dative of the noun labas functioning as an object corresponds to the beneficiary or purpose function; in some cases it correlates with a patient or a content. The dative of the noun labas functioning as an adjunct usually denotes a beneficiary, and sometimes manner. The postposition labui with possessor, from pre-possessor to post-possessor. The recipient is a post-possessor after a successful transfer of possession. Verbs from the ‘give / take’ field provide the background for this prototypical definition of recipienthood: Klaus gave his brother a book” (Bartels 2005: 105; cf. Hentschel 2001: 181ff., 196–197). Plg.: Valeckienė (1998: 36): „Recipientas [Rec] yra ko nors gavėjo, ėmėjo funkcija. Jis dažniausiai pasakomas vardininku. Kaip recipientas paprastai suvokiamas asmuo, pvz.: Vaikas [Rec] gavo dovanų [Con] (plg.: Vaikui [B] davė dovanų [Con]).“ BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) kalboje | 23 Genitive constructions functioning as objects denote purpose or beneficiary, while those functioning as adjuncts typically denote purpose. Postpositional labui constructions are synonymous with dative and/or prepositional dėl constructions (necessary for the common good (cf. for the common good); sacrifice goals for the sake of the goals (cf. for goals, because of goals); working for the sake of the matter (cf. because of the matter)). Nominal labui with the genitive of a noun or pronoun denoting a person differs from the beneficiary dative: labui highlights the semantic feature of benefit—that of doing good for a person (necessary for the good of society (cf. for society); created for the good of other nations (cf. for other nations)). The construction with the postposition for the sake of and the genitive, being less polysemous, i.e. more transparent (English transparent), is spreading (becoming more likely (English predictable)) into the expression of the object dative (and thus into the predicate’s valency structure—the sentence core), displacing the purpose dative functioning as an adjunct from sentences such as: Thus may the “people who stand up for life” continually grow in number, and may a new culture of love and solidarity develop for the true good of all human society (DLKT), and replacing purpose constructions with the preposition for because of the latter’s multifunctionality. ŠALTINIAI DLKT – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos tekstynas, sud. Kauno Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto Kompiuterinės lingvistikos centras. Prieiga internete: http://donelaitis.vdu.lt. BŽₑ – rengiamas Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Redaktorių kolegija: Danutė Liutkevičienė (vyr. redaktorė), Gertrūda Naktinienė, Rūta Petrokienė, Dovilė Svetikienė, Klementina Vosyl y tė, Jolanta Zabarskaitė. Programuotojas Vikis Satkevičius. D. 1: Įvadas, B, C, H, J, O. – Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2013. D. 3: Č, E, Ę, Ė, F, Z. – Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2014. Prieiga internete: http://bkz.lki.lt. DŽₑ – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Vyriausiasis redaktorius Stasys Keinys. – 7-as patais. ir papild. leid. – Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2012, XXVI, 969 p.; elektroninis variantas, 2015. Prieiga internete: http://lkiis.lki.lt. LKŽₑ – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas (t. I–XX, 1941–2002): elektroninis variantas. Redaktorių kolegija: Gertrūda Naktinienė (vyr. redaktorė), Jonas Paulauskas, Rūta Petrokienė, Vytautas Vitkauskas, Jolanta Zabarskaitė. – Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2005 (atnaujinta versija, 2008). Prieiga internete: www.lkz.lt. BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) kalboje | 24 LITERATŪRA Ambrazas V. 2006: Lietuvių kalbos istorinė sintaksė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Apresian V. J. 1995: Апресян В. Ю. Для и ради: сходства и различия. – Вопросы языкознания 3, 17–27. Balkevičius J. 1963: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos sintaksė, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. Bartels H. 2005: Dativ oder Präposition: Zur Markierungsvariation im Kontext adjektivischer Prädikate im Deutschen, Russischen und Polnischen. Oldenburg (Studia Slavica Oldenburgensia 12). Comrie B. 1989: Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Syntax and Morphology, 2 edition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Basil Blackwell. Croft W. 1990: Typology and Universals. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press. Croft W. 2012: Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Čižik V. 2003: Linksnių atrakcija lyginamosiose konstrukcijose. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 48, 1–17. Dik S. C. 1989: The Theory of Functional Grammar 1. Berlin etc.: Mounton de Gruyter. Dixon R. M. W. 1979: Ergativity. – Language 55 (1), 59–138. DLKG 2006: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, red. V. Ambrazas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Gaivenis K., Keinys St. 1990: Kalbotyros terminų žodynas, Kaunas: Šviesa. Givón T. 1984: Syntax. A functional–typological introduction 1. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hentschel G. 1992: Konstanten der Kasusvariation. Zum Nominativ–Instrumental– und Akkusativ–Genitiv–Wechsel im Russischen. Habilitationsschrift. Göttingen (rankraštis). Hentschel G. 2001: Dative or prepositional marking of noun phrases in the context of Russian adjectival experiencer predicates. – Variierende Markierungen von Nominalgruppen in Sprachen unterschiedlichen Typs, Hrsg. Winfried Boeder, Gerd Hentschel. Oldenburg (Studia Slavica Oldenburgensia 4), 171–200. Holvoet A., Čižik-Prokaševa V. 2005: Papildiniai ir aplinkybės. – Gramatinių funkcijų tyrimai (Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai 3), red. Axel Holvoet, Rolandas Mikulskas. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 65–92. Holvoet A., Judžentis A. 2003: Sintaksinių ryšių tipai. – Sintaksinių ryšių tyrimai (Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai 1), red. Axel Holvoet, Artūras Judžentis. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 11–35. BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) kalboje | 25 Holvoet A., Judžentis A. 2005: Sintaksinės priklausomybės tipai: papildymai ir patikslinimai. – Gramatinių funkcijų tyrimai (Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai 3), red. Axel Holvoet, Rolandas Mikulskas. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 11–38. Holvoet A., Semėnienė L. 2004: Linksnio teorijos pagrindai. – Gramatinių kategorijų tyrimai (Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai 2), red. Axel Holvoet, Loreta Semėnienė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 11–31. Holvoet, A. 2009a: Argumentų hierarchijos ir gramatinės funkcijos. – Gramatinių funkcijų prigimtis ir raiška (Acta Salensia 3), red. Axel Holvoet, Rolandas Mikulskas. Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas, asociacija „Academia Salensis“, 1–36. Holvoet, A. 2009b: Difuziniai subjektai ir objektai. – Gramatinių funkcijų prigimtis ir raiška (Acta Salensia 3), red. Axel Holvoet, Rolandas Mikulskas. Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas, asociacija „Academia Salensis“, 37–67. Kazlauskienė A., Rimkutė E., Bielinskienė A. 2011: Bendroji ir specialybės kalbos kultūra, Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas. Prieiga internete https://eltalpykla.vdu.lt/bitstream/handle/1/219/ISBN978995126553.pdf?sequence=1 & isAllowed=y Kerevičienė J. 2008: The Lithuanian Dative and its English Counterparts (a Case Study in Cognitive Grammar). Doctoral dissertation, Kaunas. Labutis V. 1998: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. LKG 1965: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1. Fonetika ir morfologija. Red. K. Ulvydas, Vilnius: Mintis. LKG 1971: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 2. Morfologija. Red. K. Ulvydas, Vilnius: Mintis. LKG 1976: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 3. Sintaksė. Red. K. Ulvydas, Vilnius: Mintis. Našlėnaitė-Eberhardt V. 2002: Priežasties santykiai įvairiose lietuvių kalbos sintaksės pakopose. Daktaro disertacija, Vilnius. Paulauskienė A. 1994: Lietuvių kalbos morfologija. Paskaitos lituanistams, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Paulauskienė A. 2001: Lietuvių kalbos kultūra, Kaunas: Kauno technologijos universitetas. Rembiałkowska A. 2009: Lietuvių kalbos laisvieji naudininkai ir predikacijos lygmenys. – Gramatinių funkcijų prigimtis ir raiška (Acta Salensia 3), red. Axel Holvoet, Rolandas Mikulskas. Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas, asociacija „Academia Salensis“, Asociacija „Academia Salensis“, 147–168. Silverstein M. 1976: Hierarchie of features and ergativity. – Grammatical categories in Australian languages, ed. Robert M. W Dixon. Canberra, 112–171. Sližienė N. 1994: Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių junglumo žodynas 1, Vilnius: Mokslo ir BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) kalboje | 26 enciklopedijų leidykla. Sližienė N. 1998: Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių junglumo žodynas 2(1), Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Sližienė N. 2004: Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių junglumo žodynas 2(2), Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Šukys J. 1978: Prielinksnių vartojimas, Kaunas: Šviesa. Šukys J. 1998: Lietuvių kalbos linksniai ir prielinksniai: vartosena ir normos, Kaunas: Šviesa. Timberlake A. 1986: Hierarchies in the Genitive of Negation. – Case in Slavic, eds. Richard D. Brecht, James S. Levine. 339–359. Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė L. 2006: Morfosintaksinis posesyvumo žymėjimas: vidinė ir išorinė posesyvumo raiška. – Daiktavardinio junginio tyrimai (Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai 4), red. Axel Holvoet, Rolandas Mikulskas, 151–178. Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė L. 2015: Kiek naudos iš posesyvinio naudininko: bučiuoja Onutei į ranką ir pakšteli Onutei į ranką. – Baltu filologija 24 (2), 95–118. Valeckienė A. 1998: Funkcinė lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Valiulytė E. 1998: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos sintaksiniai sinonimai, Vilnius: mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Valiulytė E. 2001: Lietuvių kalbos tikslo konstrukcijos su slinkties veiksmažodžiais. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 44, 201–222. Įteikta 2017 10 25 Priimta 2017 12 20 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) kalboje | 27 SUBSTANTIVAL AND POSTPOSITIONAL LABUI IN THE MODERN (WRITTEN) LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE S u m m a r y This article deals with the word labui (Lith. ‘for the sake, good, benefit (of)’), which in modern (written) Lithuanian is used as a substantive form and a postposition. Reference is made to the material sampled in the Corpus of the Modern Lithuanian Language compiled by the Centre for Computer-assisted Linguistics of Vytautas Magnus University. The study has revealed that while the meaning dative meaning of the noun labas is transparent (tarnauti visuotinį labui (Lith. ‘to serve the common good’); kartu veikia bendram visų labui (Lith. ‘working together for the good of all’)) in some instances, in others it tends to be somewhat more obscure (siunčia man mano labui (Lith. ‘sending (s.t.) to me, for my benefit’)). A similar situation has been observed with constructions of the postposition labui: in addition to the clear-cut cases (būtinas bendro gėrio labui (Lith. ‘necessary for the common good’)), there are those where labui can be construed both as an abstract substantive form, and a postposition (visa tai dariau tavo labui (Lith. ‘I did it all for your benefit’)). Relying on the transparent and recognising the less obvious (transitional) cases, the usage of the substantive and postpositional labui is grounded on a system of hierarchies, where the appointed member is represented by a clear substantive or postpositional labui. Analysis of the usage of labui (substantive resp. postpositional) has showed that it correlates with a hierarchy of grammatical functions: object > supplement (circumstance): dativus sympatheticus > dativus commodi > other circumstances (purposes, cause) > dativus ethicus. This mirrors the hierarchical differences of syntactic subordination (complement > modifier) as well. The hierarchical correlation of person > abstract thing and the substantive labui > postposition labui shows when labui acts as the object: the dative of the substantive labas typically controls the genitive of a noun that denotes persons (or the substitute pronoun) (būtinas visuomenės labui (Lith. ‘necessary for the good of the public’)), the postposition labui, the genitive of abstract nouns (būtina bendro gėrio labui (Lith. ‘necessary for the sake of the common good’)); galią naudoti bendros gerovės labui (Lith. ‘using power for the sake of common wellbeing’)). Even though there are more variations between the substantive and the postpositional labui, a similar correlation exists when labui is a circumstance: the substantive labui is typically used with the dative of a noun (or pronoun) that denotes persons (gyvenimą pašvęsti šeimos labui (Lith. ‘dedicate BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Daiktavardiškasis ir polinksniškasis labui dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) kalboje | 28 one’s life for the good of the family’); sukūrė savo ir tautos labui (Lith. ‘created (smth.) for the benefit of himself and his nation’)), while the subordinate of the dative of the postposition labui is usually expressed with an abstract noun (or pronoun in its stead) (kviečiami jų pačių šviesesnės ateities labui (Lith. ‘are being invited for the sake of their own bright future’); grožio labui septynžiedžius renka (Lith. ‘collecting seven-leafs for the sake of beauty’)), but thanks to syntactical condensation, the genitive can also stand to signify living things (atidavė mirčiai žmonių labui (Lith. ‘gave up to die for the sake of the people’)) as well. The dative of the substantive labas that acts as an object mirrors the function of the beneficiary or finitivus; there are cases when it correlates with the patient or the contentive. The dative of the substantive labas that acts as a circumstance usually denotes the beneficiary, and sometimes, the method. Genitive constructions involving the postpositional labui that act as the object denote the finitivus or beneficiary, and those that act as a circumstance typically designate the purpose. Constructions of the postposition labui are synonymous with the dative and/or the constructions of the preposition dėl (būtinas bendro gerio labui (plg. bendram gerui) (Lith. ‘necessary for the sake of common good’; cf. ‘for common good’); aukoti tikslų labui (plg. tikslams, dėl tikslų) (Lith. ‘donate for the sake of purposes’; cf. ‘for purposes’); darbuojasi reikalo labui (plg. dėl reikalo) (Lith. ‘working for the sake of the cause’; cf. ‘for the cause’). The substantive labui paired with the genitive of a noun denoting persons or a pronoun differs from the dative of the beneficiary: labui explicates the attribute of benefit, of doing good for a person (būtina visuomenės labui (plg. visuomenei) (Lith. ‘necessary for the good of the public’; cf. ‘for the public’); sukūrė kitų tautų labui (plg. kitoms tautoms) (Lith. ‘created (smth.) for the good of other nations’; cf. ‘for other nations’). The construction of the postposition labui involving a genitive has fewer meanings, is more transparent, and penetrates the expression of the dative of the object (the valence structure of the predicate – the nucleus of the sentence), pushing the dative of purpose acting as a circumstance, and altering constructions of the purpose preposition dėl due to their multifunctional nature. KEYWORDS: the dative of the substantive, desemantisation, postposition. LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius [email protected] BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204