LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ SEMĖNIENĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

THE EXPRESSION OF ARGUMENTS OF POSITIVE ALLELIC ADJECTIVES AND THEIR DERIVATIVES¹

KEYWORDS: subject-oriented allelic predicate, adjective, adjectival derivative, argument, reciprocal construction, morphosyntactic expression.

1. INTRODUCTION

Adjectives analogous, equivalent, equal, parallel, similar, proportional, identical, identical, equivalent, symmetrical, synonymous, perpendicular² and the like are lexical (inherent) reciprocals (English lexical reciprocal), or allelic predicates (English allelic predicate³). Such allelic predicates express a reciprocal (English mutual) relationship between at least two participants in a situation—the mutuants (English mutuant⁴). Inherently, a reciprocal relationship is symmetric, and such predicates are bivalent. For example, in the reciprocal construction (English reciprocal construction) the son is similar to his dad, the participants in the reciprocal relationship (the son, the dad) are expressed by the adjective similar through two valency-bearing actants: a subject in the nominative and a prepositional phrase with the accusative, functioning as an indirect object, using the preposition to. Martin Haspelmath (2007: 2091) says that there is a general tendency to express the mutuants of a reciprocal situation (English mutual situation) as a single actant, that is, typically all the mutuants participating in the situation—their totality, rather than any one of them individually—are chosen as the reference point (English reference point). Then both of the allelic predicates

¹ I am sincerely grateful to Aistė Pangonytė, Chief Specialist at the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language (hereafter VLKK), for the question that drew my attention to the issues discussed in this article. I also thank the esteemed anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments, which helped improve the article.

² The article discusses the masculine and feminine forms of these adjectives. The so-called neuter gender is left aside.

³ „Lexical reciprocals (also called allelic predicates) can be defined as predicates that express a mutual configuration by themselves, without necessary grammatical marking. They consist of a semantically restricted set of predicates whose meanings generally fall into the class of social actions and relations ('marry', 'quarrel', 'friend'), spatial relations ('adjoin', 'next to'), and relations of (non-)identity ('same as', 'different from', 'resemble')“ (Haspelmath 2007: 2090).

⁴ For more on the concepts of mutuant or reciprocal participant (English mutuant or reciprocant), reciprocal or symmetric or mutual (reciprocal or symmetric or mutual), and their scope, see Haspelmath 2007.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Teigiamų alelinių būdvardžių ir jų vedinių aktantų raiška | 2

The arguments are expressed in the sentence by a plural noun or pronoun functioning as the subject, or by two nouns or pronouns joined by the coordinating conjunction and. As can be seen in sentences 1–2, a human being and an ant, a woman and a man—are equally prominent morphosyntactically (English salience)—and function as the subject corresponding to the patient [P]⁵; more precisely, this patient coincides (merges) with the comparative [Comp]⁶ and can also be understood as a comparative [P_Comp] (cf. sentences 1a–2a, where both adjective arguments are expressed by a single plural form). Here we see the reduction of syntactic arguments (English valence-reduction: lygūs, panašūs ‘equal, similar’ are used as monovalent predicates. Such uses are called reciprocal simple, or monadic, constructions (English simple construction; monadic construction⁷).

(1) Besides, harmony between people and the environment matters to him. He says: “A human being and an ant are equal.” DLKT

(1a) They are equal⁸.

(2) Woman and man: so different and similar... It is said that, already at birth, we bring with us the fate and meaning of our existence on this earth. DLKT

(2a) They are similar⁹.

One of the participants in the reciprocal relation can be understood as a comitative (companion) subject (see sentences 3–4). This comitative subject in monadic constructions, marked by the preposition with and the instrumental case, is demoted (English lower) morphosyntactically and pragmatically. In sentence 3, the human being is more prominent morphosyntactically and more important pragmatically; in sentence 4, it is the woman. Agreement in case and number in sentences 3–4 shows that the subject is expressed by the construction with the preposition with (as in sentences 1–2).

(3) A human being with an ant are equal.

(4) A woman with a man are similar.

⁵ Patient [P] is the function of the recipient of an action’s effect or the bearer of a state, characteristic of both animate and inanimate entities, as well as abstract things (the horrors [P] of war are hostile to human nature) (Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė 2001: 30).

⁶ Comparative [Comp] is the function of the standard of comparison, occurring alongside the patient of a state and characteristic of an entity with which something is compared or aligned (the son resembles his father, the translation is close to the original) (Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė 2001: 30).

⁷ “Simple constructions are those in which both reciprocants are expressed by the subject” (Nedjalkov, Geniušienė 2007: 396). “A monadic construction which groups the participants in the relation in the subject NP while losing an object NP” (Hurst 2010: 290).

⁸ Cf. a monadic construction with an adjectival verb: Although the contemporary Mexican generation is becoming “Europeanized”—women’s and men’s rights are becoming equal—“machismo” is still “machismo” today. DLKT

⁹ Cf. a monadic construction with an adjectival verb: The father’s and son’s voices grew similar, until they became entirely alike (quoted in Slėžienė 1998: 115).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Teigiamų alelinių būdvardžių ir jų vedinių aktantų raiška | 3

From sentences 1–4 it can be seen that the position of one of the two arguments of the discussed bivalent adjectives remains “free.” It may be filled by a non-valent reciprocal marker (English reciprocal markers) functioning as a free element: the monosemantic reciprocal anaphor one with another, the inessive among themselves¹⁰ or between themselves (cf. sentences 5–7). As sentences 8–9 show, reciprocal markers coreferential with the subject in the nominative, such as these, may be obligatory, that is, the second argument position must be filled. In other words, in some cases reciprocal markers that express, actualize, and specify a reciprocal relation are used as modifiers (the so-called reduplication, or double expression of the reciprocal relation¹¹ (English reduplication, double reciprocals)), and in others as complements (further cf.: They kissed (one with another) vs. They kissed one another.)

(5) – But we are rich too, – Hans insisted. – If two rich people meet, then they are equal to one another (cf. among themselves, between themselves¹²). Do you agree with that? DLKT

(6) The lane is so narrow, so narrow, so gloomy and neglected, like nearly all the little wooden, dilapidated houses lined up low along it, similar to one another (cf. among themselves, between themselves) little houses. As if no one had lived in them for a long time... DLKT

(7) More similar to one another (cf. one to another), were undoubtedly the bilinguals’ common answers in Russian and Lithuanian. DLKT

(8) Are the vectors {1; -3; 0} and {4; 1; 2} perpendicular to each other (cf. among themselves, between themselves? Why? DLKT

(9) *Are the vectors {1; -3; 0} and {4; 1; 2} perpendicular?

¹⁰“The present inessive, especially with more abstract nouns, occasionally expresses the manner in which an action is performed. Such an inessive functions as an adverbial of manner in the sentence. <...> More pronounced, more acceptable in standard language, and also found in dialects and belles-lettres are the lexicalized manner inessives of abstract nouns among themselves... But they too have substitutes, some of which are even more conventional in the language. Women <...> took to whispering among themselves (cf. among themselves, with one another)” (Šukys 1998: 300). Cf. further: “Constructions with the preposition between sometimes denote an object, more precisely, objects, between which there is some discrepancy, conflict, or communication. <...> Conflict or communication can also be expressed by the phrase among themselves. <...> A lexicalized inessive, among themselves, is synonymous with this among themselves; cf. They conferred among themselves – They conferred among themselves” (Šukys 1998: 515).

¹¹ Dalija Tekorienė proposes calling such an expression of an actant, in which the other form provides no new information that supplements the meaning of the predicative word, a doubled expression of the same semantic actant (e.g., the two of them are hostile to each other; the pairs are similar to one another) (Tekorienė 1985: 74).

¹² “Explicit expressions of the reciprocal meaning are the phrases among themselves/between themselves <...> containing the reflexive pronoun save, and in their midst <...>, but they can be used exclusively with reciprocal verbs (formally reflexive and lexical), to intensify or specify the reciprocal meaning; e. g: We quarrel among ourselves. They are friends with one another” (Geniūšienė 2007: 636t).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Teigiamų alelinių būdvardžių ir jų vedinių aktantų raiška | 4

As mentioned, reciprocal situations expressed by mutuant adjectives are also represented by two separate predicate arguments. In such cases, one of them is expressed, for example, as the subject nominative corresponding to the patient in sentences 10–15, while the other is expressed as an indirect object corresponding to the comparative, which in the discontinuous, or dyadic, constructions in question (English discontinuous construction, dyadic construction¹³) is marked in different ways: by the dative, or by constructions with the prepositions į or su; cf.:

(10) The son [P] is already with¹⁴ his father [Comp] equal. (quoted from LKG3 1976: 475)

(11) The father is equal to the son.

(12) Sūnus [P] panašus į¹⁵ tėvą [Comp]. (cituojama pagal Šukys 1998: 393)

(13) ?The father resembles the son.

(14) Line AB [P] is perpendicular to the straight line CD [Comp]. (quoted from Šukys 1998: 149)

(15) *The straight line CD is perpendicular to line AB.

A comparison of sentences 1–15 shows that the predicates in question also differ in their inherent symmetry. lygus, used in sentences 10–11, is symmetric: it expresses an inverse (English reversible) symmetric relation between the two predicate P arguments x (the subject) and y (the object): if x is equal to y, then y is equal to x. Besides such typically symmetric predicates, there are predicates less amenable to inversion: less symmetric¹⁶ (English semi-symmetric, quasi-symmetrical, sometimes-symmetrical) or asymmetric,¹⁷ see

¹³ “Discontinuous constructions are those in which the second reciprocant is a non-subject” (Nedjalkov, Geniušienė 2007: 396). “A dyadic construction which creates a symmetric situation by placing one participant in a subject NP and another in a comitative phrase” (Hurst 2010: 290).

¹⁴ “The prepositions sulig, su with the instrumental are used when comparing things that correspond to one another in some respect. <...> The preposition su is also used with a comparative meaning and a nuance of identity in combinations with the adjectives lygus, tapatus, as well as with verbs and nouns of the same root. The son is already equal to his father. The frog wants to compare itself with the ox. The horseman matched the pedestrian. The joker: compared the elephant with the fly. The matching of day with night” (Valiulytė 1967: 91f; cf. LKG2 1971: 641f). “The preposition į, and in part su, expresses the similarity of things in combinations whose head is the adjective panašus <...>: similar to the father, similar to one another, (children) similar to their parents” (Valiulytė 1967: 94).

¹⁵ “The preposition į is used with the accusative to express the comparison of similar things” (Valiulytė 1967: 90). “The preposition į is used to express comparative relations when it is necessary to say that one thing is similar to another, i.e. has properties of the other thing, expressed by the dependent member of the phrase” (Valiulytė 1964: 107). “The preposition į is also used in fossilized phrases formed from the nominative and accusative forms of the same word. In such cases, the uniformity of similar things in some respect is expressed. How beautiful, how large the peas are—grain to grain (all alike)” (Valiulytė 1964: 108). For a similar view by Elena Valiulytė, see also LKG2 1971: 621f.

¹⁶ Cf. “A non-symmetrical relation becomes ‘a relation that has at least one asymmetrical instance’” (Partee 2008: 4). For example, The two greeted each other implies that he greeted her or she greeted him, but not necessarily the reverse; that is, if she greeted him, it does not necessarily follow that he greeted her.

¹⁷ Plg. „An asymmetrical relation becomes „a relation that has no symmetrical instances“ (Partee 2008: 4).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Teigiamų alelinių būdvardžių ir jų vedinių aktantų raiška | 5

sentences 12–15¹⁸. Less symmetric reciprocal predicates can be used as symmetric ones; cf. sentences 16–17, where the mutual relationship is established by one shared feature (criterion of comparison)—appearance. In other words, symmetry is gradable (gradual)¹⁹. The use of reciprocal constructions is related to inherent symmetry: typical symmetric predicates (equal, identical) are used in monadic and dyadic constructions, while less symmetric or asymmetric ones are used in monadic or dyadic constructions (perpendicular; cf. also similar, ‘almost equal, corresponding to something’, e.g.: The translation is similar to the original (LKŽe), but *The original is similar to the translation; cf. also: The translation and the original are similar,?The original and the translation are similar, *The original with the translation are similar).

(16) The son resembles his dad in appearance.

(17) Dad resembles his son in appearance.

In sentences 16–17 (as in sentences 10–11), the same mutual situation is interpreted differently. In sentence 16, the point of reference is the similar subject, the son, expressed by the patientive nominative of the bivalent predicate; the prepositional to construction expresses the indirect object corresponding to the comparative (to dad). The same situation is interpreted differently in sentence 17: the dad, which functions as the subject in the sentence, is chosen as the point of reference, while the son is the indirect object corresponding to the comparative.

Tokie į subjektą orientuoti (angl. subject-oriented Knjazev 2007: 119; Nedjalkov, Geniušie­nė 2007: 415²⁰) aleliniai predikatai 1–17 intranzityviniuose sakiniuose skiriasi nuo į objektą orientuotų (angl. object-oriented Knjazev 2007: 119; Nedjalkov, Geniušie­nė 2007: 415) 18–20 sakiniuose. Tranzityviniuose sakiniuose tarpusavio santykis yra tarp dviejų objektų: kai vienas iš jų eina tiesioginiu, o kitas – netiesioginiu objektu, žymimu 18 sakinyje su konstrukcija, arba jie abu sakinyje

¹⁸ “We may conclude that the degree of familiarity of the actants of a symmetric predicate is inversely correlated with the degree of the interchangeability” (Knjazev 2007: 141). As Leonard Talmy puts it, from a pragmatic point of view, the compared object (the entity being compared) is less stable and smaller than the standard of comparison (the entity it is compared with): “the entity chosen as ground, is, usually, more stable, bigger in size, more complex geometrically than the figure” (Talmy 1983: 231, quoted in Knjazev 2007: 142).

¹⁹ “Mutual situations are rarely fully symmetric” (Haspelmath 2007: 2088; for a similar view, see also Knjazev 2007: 116ff.). For a fuller discussion of the gradable symmetry of reciprocal predicates, see Partee (2008).

²⁰ „In subject-oriented constructions, the reciprocants [i.e. two obligatory symmetrically related semantic arguments] are denoted either by the plural subject in simple reciprocal constructions or by the subject and non-subject, mostly a non-direct object in discontinuous reciprocal constructions“ (Nedjalkov, Geniušie­nė 2007: 415).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Teigiamų alelinių būdvardžių ir jų vedinių aktantų raiška | 6

is the direct object, expressed by a homogeneous plural form in sentence 19 or heterogeneously, with the coordinating conjunction and, in sentence 20.

(18) At first, people identified gods [P] with nature [Comp]. (quoted in Sližienė 2004: 297)

(19) You equate things that are in fact completely unlike things [P]. (quoted in Sližienė 2004: 297)

(20) People equated gods and nature²¹.

The remainder of the article discusses positive subject-oriented reciprocal predicates (adjectives) that are inherently bivalent, that is, they open two slots for their arguments; the semantic definition of such a predicate’s actants depends on how the participants in the mutual situation are interpreted, that is, on which participant or participants are chosen as the point of reference. In a sentence, the mutual relationship between two or more participants is expressed by reciprocal constructions—monadic and/or dyadic. These typically express a complex event (English complex event; a join action or plurality of events, two sub-events), that is, two (or more) simultaneous (English simultaneous) propositions (if we say Jonas is equal to Petras, while also acknowledging pragmatic, morphosyntactic, or other differences, we assert as well that Petras is equal to Jonas²².

Attention will be paid to the expression and usage tendencies of the second actant—the indirect object—in dyadic subject-oriented constructions²³. To discuss this, it is important to consider what Lithuanian grammar researchers say about the marking of the indirect object of the adjectives in question (see Section 2). Then, based on data from the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language (hereafter DLKT), compiled at the Centre of Computational Linguistics of Vytautas Magnus University, the tendencies in the expression of the object actant of reciprocal adjectives are described (see Section 3), the features of adjectival derivatives are discussed (see Section 4), and all this is summarized (see Section 5).

²¹ Also cf. the examples given in LKŽ_e with the verb lyginti ‘to regard something as the same, equal, similar; to liken something to something’: Such a wicked man to a wild beast is how A. Baran likens him. It is improper to liken a drunk man to an animal is how Sz. puts it. Do you dare me to compare with him? NdŽ.

²² The article does not cover examples of attributive or predicative use in which the object actant is implicit and recoverable from context, e.g.: The confectionery company “Vilniaus Pergalė” has been cooperating for a year with the Tallinn company “Kalev,” which is analogous (cf. analogous to it) DLKT; At the end of the century, national aspirations arose, and the “Polish Renaissance” movement and Neo-Baroque took shape; at the beginning of the 20th century, a distinctive “manor style” emerged. Analogous development is also characteristic of manor houses built in Lithuania. Levandauskas discussed the mid- to late-19th-century period DLKT.

²³ “The are reasons for considering the simple construction to be basic for grammatical reciprocals and the discontinuous for a lexical reciprocals” (Nedjalkov, Geniušienė 2007: 383).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Teigiamų alelinių būdvardžių ir jų vedinių aktantų raiška | 7

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE EXPRESSION OF THE INDIRECT OBJECT OF ALLELIC ADJECTIVES IN LITHUANIAN GRAMMATICAL WORKS

A review of works on Lithuanian grammar shows that opinions differ on how the object of the adjectives under discussion is expressed. For example, Adelė Valeckienė writes in the academic Grammar of the Lithuanian Language (hereafter LKG) (LKG3 1976: 240) that the dative in phrases with the adjectives lygus, tolygus, tapatus and others denotes a person or thing that someone or something matches or fails to match. She holds that with the adjectives lygus, panašus, tapatus and others, the thing that someone or something matches or fails to match is also marked by the instrumental and the preposition su, for example, Meanwhile, his brother, who was as similar to him as two drops of water, entered the same manor (LKG3 1976: 254; see also 15, 475; for a similar view, see Jakaitienė, Laigonaitė, Paulauskienė 1976: 49, 227). With the adjective panašus, a construction with the preposition į expresses the object to which the compared thing is similar (LKG3 1976: 250).

Elena Valiulytė Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje (toliau – DLKG) (2006: 514) teigia, kad būdvardžiai lygus, tolygus, tapatus, sinonimiškas vartojami su naudininku. Su būdvardžiais lygus, panašus eina ir su konstrukcija: „„sūnus lygus su tėvu, mes su broliu panašūs (bet: jis panašus į brolį)“ (DLKG 2006: 523). Nijolė Sližienė, aprašydama DLKG (2006: 615) sakinio modelius, taip pat laikosi nuomonės, kad, pavyzdžiui, būdvardžio lygus komplementas gali būti pasakytas ir naudininku, ir prielinksnio su konstrukcija.

Jonas Šukys (1998: 148t), aptardamas lietuvių kalbos linksnių ir prielinksnių vartoseną, rašo, kad „yra būdvardžių, valdančių objekto naudininką²⁴. Tai dažniausiai būdvardžiai artimas, <...> priešingas, statmenas... <...>“. Dėl glaustumo (ekonomiškumo), trumpumo ar sinonimiškumo su panašus (į ką) kalbininkas (Šukys 1998: 34t) siūlo objekto naudininką rinktis ir vartojant tarptautinius adekvatus²⁵, analogiškas, sinonimiškas. J. Šukys sako, kad „su būdvardžiais panašus, tapatus, analogiškas, proporcingas, statmenas <...> prielinksnio su konstrukcijos neįprastos“ (t. p.: 504; plg. Šukys 1978: 101²⁶). Būdvardžiai lygus, lygiagretaus valdą objektą reiškiančias prielinksnio su

²⁴ “The dative most often denotes an object, that is, a thing or person toward which an action is directed, or for whom something is done” (Šukys 1998: 147). “A dative attached to an adjective denotes an object <...> toward which the property is directed” (LKG3 1976: 239).

²⁵ Cf. the VLKK consultation on the question: “Which case does the international adjective ‘adekvatus’ require? The dative. Adekvatūs kam, just like tapatus kam, for example: His salary is adekvatus einamoms pareigoms.” (quoted from: http://konsultacijos.vlkk.lt/lit/292)

²⁶ Cf.: “With the adjectives panašus, analogiškas, it is better to avoid constructions with the preposition su” (Šukys 1978: 101).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Teigiamų alelinių būdvardžių ir jų vedinių aktantų raiška | 8

konstrukcijas (Šukys 1998: 504; 1978: 101). Pagal lygiagretus J. Šukys siūlo vartoti ir paralelus (Šukys 1998: 34).

J. Šukys and Aldonas Pupkis state in Language Advice (hereafter KP) (KP S2 2003: 98; cf. Šukys 1998: 154) that “panašus, -i (panašumas) su kuo is to be avoided (vngt.²⁷): Į panašį su broliu (– į brolį). Vaiko panašumas su tėvu (– į tėvą) akivaizdus.” In their view, the object dative with lygiagretus is also to be avoided; here one should choose a construction with the preposition su, for example, Ta linija lygiagreti trikampio pagrindui (– su trikampio pagrindu) (KP S1 2003: 43; similarly Šukys 1998: 154, 504). With the adjectives analogiškas, artimas, identiškas, proporcingas, simetriškas, tapatus, however, a construction with the preposition su must be avoided; the object should be expressed by the dative, for example, Prancūzijos užsienio politika pasirodė netapati su Amerikos politika (– Amerikos politikai) (KP S2 2003: 98f.). J. Šukys and A. Pupkis regard the use of the adjective tolygus with the preposition su as a secondary (but acceptable) alternative to the dative, e.g.: Nė vienas vaikas nėra tolygus su savo tėvais (|| savo tėvams), statmenas; together with the preposition su, it is said to be a language error and unacceptable in standard language (ntk.).

From what has been said briefly, the question arises as to which expression of the indirect object language users tend to choose. The answer to this and other questions is sought after examining the material provided by DLKT (Section 3). For now, it is clear that in sentences of types 10–17, the indirect object may be expected to be expressed by a construction with the preposition su, which, for example, with lygus would be an (optional) alternative to the dative, with panašus it would be to be avoided, and with statmenas it would be unacceptable. In other words, the following marking of the indirect object of the alelic predicates in question is possible: įAcc (panašus), Dat/suInstr (lygus), Dat (statmenas) or suInstr (lygiagretus).

3. EXPRESSION OF THE INDIRECT OBJECT OF ALELIC ADJECTIVES IN DLKT

Most of DLKT consists of written texts, often edited, from different genres (journalistic, fictional, non-fictional, or administrative literature). Some are translated. There are clearly far fewer examples of spoken language. This article draws on 2,464 examples from different genres in which masculine or feminine forms of adjectives are used in dyadic constructions with different cases: adekvatus, -i; analogiškas, -a; ekvivalentiškas, -a; identiškas, -a; lygiagretus, -i; lygus, -i; panašus, -i; proporcingas, -a; simetriškas, -a; sinonimiškas, -a; statmenas, -a; tapatus, -i; tolygus, -i.

²⁷ “vngt. – indicates that the phenomenon being evaluated has not been established as a standard-language norm: it is to be avoided as already non-standard and without prospects, or as not yet standard, insufficiently researched, and so on.” (KP S1 2003: 9).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Teigiamų alelinių būdvardžių ir jų vedinių aktantų raiška | 9

Such sentences, in which these adjectives are used in dyadic constructions, were selected in order of frequency from DLKT by entering the adjective without its ending in the search field, for example, adekvat (the search criterion used is begins). Of the sentences under discussion, 82.5% (2,034 sentences) contain a dative indirect object, 14.4% (354 sentences) use the prepositional construction with į, and 3.1% (76 sentences) use the prepositional construction with su. The data are distributed as shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1. Expression of the indirect object of relational adjectives in dyadic constructions

Adjective Expression of indirect object Number of sentences į+Acc DAT su+Instr adequate, - 1 (0.4%) 221 (98.7%) 2 (0.9%) 224 (100%) analogous, -a – 225 (98.7%) 3 (1.3%) 228 (100%) equivalent, -a – 68 (100%) – 68 (100%) identical, –a – 127 (96.95%) 4 (3.05%) 131 (100%) parallel, -i – 100 (76.9%) 30 (23.1%) 130 (100%) equal, -i – 178 (91.3%) 17 (8.7%) 195 (100%) similar, -i 350 (98.3%) – 6 (1.7%) 356 (100%) parallel, -i – 10 (100%) – 10 (100%) proportional, -a – 201 (99.5%) 1 (0.5%) 202 (100%) symmetrical, -a – 39 (97.5%) 1 (2.5%) 40 (100%) synonymous, -a – 41 (100%) – 41 (100%) perpendicular, –a 3 (1.9%) 157 (98.1%) – 160 (100%) identical, –i – 416 (97.4%) 11 (2.6%) 427 (100%) equivalent, –i – 251 (99.6%) 1 (0.4%) 252 (100%) TOTAL: 354 (14.4%) 2,034 (82.5%) 76 (3.1%) 2,464 (100%)

Table 1 shows that, with the exception of the adjective similar, -i, in accordance with the principle of linguistic economy, a tendency (has) prevailed for the indirect object of the adjectives under discussion to be expressed uniformly—as a dative. Also worth mentioning here is vienodas ‘having nearly or exactly the same properties, the same’, whose indirect object is expressed with the preposition su and the instrumental, for example:

(21) Have some food here. – Mom, we’ve eaten so much, we don’t want any more. – Try some here. – We don’t want any, we’ve eaten very much of everything. – Look, Eglutė and Linas are alike. DLKT

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Teigiamų alelinių būdvardžių ir jų vedinių aktantų raiška | 10

(22) Such EU residents will be better protected against expulsion from the country; in many economic and social matters their status will be the same as that of EU citizens [status]. DLKT

Thus, apart from isolated cases of “mixing” the expression of the indirect object, we find three predominant patterns: the dative ((equivalent, adequate, etc.), the preposition į with the accusative (similar), and the construction with the preposition su and the instrumental (vienodas). Having established the characteristic marking of the indirect object of the adjectives under discussion in dyadic constructions, it is relevant to examine adjectival derivatives whose meaning implies the same two valency complements as the meaning of their base word. Next, it is appropriate to discuss how the morphosyntactic expression of the actants of adjectival derivatives corresponds to the marking of the base word’s valency actants. Semantic differences are also important.

4. DERIVATIVES OF RELATIONAL ADJECTIVES

Discussing syntactic word combinations in LKG (LKG3 1976: 16f.), A. Valeckienė argues that verb and noun combinations involve different semantic relations: verb combinations express objective relations, whereas corresponding noun combinations express attributive (modifying) objective relations; cf. builds a house and construction of a house. Vitas Labutis (1998: 91f.) states that combinations of deverbal and deadjectival nouns with a genitive, with other cases and prepositional constructions, and sometimes with an infinitive or a half-participle, have “a distinctive attributive descriptive meaning, with a more deeply felt subjective, objective, or some circumstantial nuance.” Thus, in the case of nominalizations of the adjectives under discussion, we are concerned below with governed, i.e. required by the meaning of the adjectival noun, attributes whose expression, as will be seen, is related to the base (monadic or dyadic) construction.

Axelis Holvoetas ir Artūras Judžentis (2003: 34), nagrinėdami veiksmažodinius daiktavardžius, atkreipia dėmesį į tai, kad „[d]aiktavardžio semantiškai reikalaujamų (reikšmes implikuojamų) papildymų sintaksinis būtinumas paprastai būna mažesnis nei atitinkamų veiksmažodžių“. Jurgis Pakerys (2006: 134t; dar žr. t. p.: 146) parodo, kad veiksmo pavadinimo konstrukcijose būtinųjų „dėmenų praleidimas būdingas“ ir „gali būti aiškinamas tam tikromis sąlygomis (apibendrin­tąja ir anaforine arba numanomąja vartosena)“.

Drawing on E. Valiulytė’s description of noun combinations in LKG and DLKG (LKG3 1976: 206, 224; DLKG 2006: 514f., 522; for a similar view, see also Šukys 1998: 149, 393), we can say that from

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Teigiamų alelinių būdvardžių ir jų vedinių aktantų raiška | 11

Nouns derived from adjectives that govern an indirect-object dative or prepositional į or su constructions likewise require the dative or the aforementioned prepositional constructions, respectively: aptitudes for music (cf. aptitude for music); resemblance to one’s mother (cf. resembling one’s mother), and so on. In the case under discussion, names of abstracted properties with the suffix -umas open two free slots for dependent constituents: one is usually in pre-head position, the other in post-head position. For example, comparing the predicatively used dyadic construction the son resembles his mother with the nominal property-name construction the son’s resemblance to his mother (was obvious), we see that both dependent constituents of resemblance are governed by the base word; the prepositional dependent constituent marked by the genitive (the son’s) replaces the nominative subject of resembling, while the typically postpositional to his mother is automatically associated with the base word’s indirect object. The links between the morphosyntactic realization of complements of relational adjectives in dyadic constructions and the marking of adjectival noun attributes are illustrated in sentences 23–34.

(23) He was evidently treated as the adequacy of the earthly order to the celestial (Plato’s Republic), or of the order of empirical things (including, undoubtedly, people) order to the mathematical-symbolic order. DLKT

(24) Šalutinių sakinių funkcijų analogiškumą su atitinkamomis sakinio dalimis patvirtina ir dažnai galimas jų sinonimiškumas bei konkurencija. DLKT

(25) However, according to an employee of “Polygon,” what matters is not the number of exhibits in the collection, but the identity of their appearance to the actual equipment sample and the quality of the work performed. DLKT

(26) In May of this year, LLRI also wrote to the Ministry of Finance, identifying specific fees whose proportionality of amount to costs is highly questionable, and proposed preparing a methodology setting out the criteria and procedure for determining the amount of state fees. DLKT

(27) Ragų atitikimas lietuvių lėkių žirgams gali turėti gilų mitologinį pagrindą, būdingą ne tik indoeuropiečių kultūriniam arealui. Neatsitiktinį ragų tapatumą žirgams simbolinėje mąstysenoje patvirtina ir daugelis kitų pavyzdžių. DLKT

(28) Heideggerian conception: language becomes the subject, yet the subject itself removes it. Traditional Western philosophy, or logocentrism, established the identity of the subject with itself, the ideal closeness of thought and language, of subject and language. DLKT

(29) Savo atsiminimų knygoje panašaus idiliško vaizdelio sukeltą įspūdį taip aprašo: „Lyg staiga būtų atsivėrusi tuštuma, į kurią srūva viskas, ką myliu. Tapatumo su saule ir akmeniu pojūtis. DLKT

(30) The historical state of localities is also reflected in narratives about people’s identities with one institution or another, with a particular place. They also contain information about recreational conditions and people’s forms of recreational activity. DLKT

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Teigiamų alelinių būdvardžių ir jų vedinių aktantų raiška | 12

(31) An English-language book by Jean Shinoda Bolen, *Goddesses in Everywoman*, has been published; it discusses female archetypes. Every woman can discover similarities to a goddess – Artemis, Persephone, or Demeter.

DLKT

(32) A wine tree. We are not talking about grapes at all. And this tree bears no resemblance to grapes.

DLKT

(33) This is J. Barilaitė’s video work, in which she captures through a barn window both a typical Lithuanian field landscape (its resemblance to the landscape in P. Kalpokas’s painting hanging nearby is unmistakable), and she cannot let it go. DLKT

(34) The line evokes both A. Vaičiulaitis’s parallel between woman and animal (“Moteris vėlyvą meta”) and N. Mazalaitė’s type of the independent woman (“Svetimieji”). The resemblance to the work of the Neo-Romantics should be²⁸ regarded as a positive feature of the collection, since it is not some deliberate generation of ideas, but a natural return. DLKT

The DLKT data presented in Table 2 show that, by analogy with the expression of the indirect object of the base word in dyadic constructions, such property nouns also govern the dative and constructions with the prepositions į, su. The few examples provided by the DLKT do not allow us to make a general statement about whether, quantitatively, property-noun constructions correspond to the expression of the indirect object with adjectives. On the other hand, comparing the marking of the indirect object of the base forms panašus, tapatus (cf. Table 1) with the postpositional complement of the derivatives panašumas, tapatumas, the more frequent use of the preposition su and the instrumental case stands out. In the case of Tapatumas, the use of the su construction can be explained in two ways: the use of su in a property-noun construction may have been carried over from base dyadic constructions (cf. sentence 30, people identical with one or another institution, a particular place) or from monadic constructions (people identical with one or another institution, a particular place). The latter interpretation of the su construction also becomes relevant, for example, in sentence 33.

²⁸ Cf. the expression of the indirect object in Latvian with the dative and the adjective līdzīgs “similar”: bērns līdzīgs tēvam; nekā tam līdzīga.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Teigiamų alelinių būdvardžių ir jų vedinių aktantų raiška | 13

TABLE 2. Expression of the postpositional dependent constituent of adjectival nouns in DLKT

Adjectival noun

Expression of the actant corresponding to the indirect object

Number of sentences

ĮACC

DAT

SUINSTR

adequacy

28 (100%)

28 (100%)

similarity

–

–

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

equivalence

–

–

–

–²⁹

identity

–

2 (66,7%)

1 (33,3%)

3 (100%)

parallelism

–

–

–

–

equality

–

–

–

–

resemblance

98 (57,3%)

2 (1,2%)

71 (41,5%)

171 (100%)

parallelism

–

–

–

–

proportionality

–

3 (100%)

–

3 (100%)

symmetry

–

–

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

synonymy

–

1 (100%)

–

1 (100%)

perpendicularity

–

–

–

–

identity

–

26 (57,8%)

19 (42,2%)

45 (100%)

uniformity

–

1 (100%)

–

1 (100%)

TOTAL:

98 (38.6%)

63 (24.8%)

93 (36.6%)

254 (100%)

A clearer basis for grounding the use of the preposition with in property-name constructions in monadic constructions can be seen in sentences 35–37, where the complement of the noun similarity, expressed with with and the instrumental case, can be understood as pragmatically less important than a complement that can be or is expressed in the genitive. In cases where the participants in the reciprocal situation are equally important (as in sentences 1–2), the complements of similarity are expressed in the plural form or by two nouns or pronouns joined by the coordinating conjunction and (see sentences 38–41). Sentences 42–43 show that the reciprocal relationship can be foregrounded

²⁹ “–” means that DLKT provides only examples that are derivationally associated with monadic constructions. For example: According to Jonas Laužikas, “the general influence of the environment is based on experience and lived experience” [10, p. 40]. In other words, “the adequacy (identity of the same kind) of mental structures and environmental structures is the basis for action.” To assess the semantic equivalence of objective and relational structures, a cluster of objects is identified—the common terminal objects of both schemas. Then third-party translators compare the equivalence of the two versions.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Teigiamų alelinių būdvardžių ir jų vedinių aktantų raiška | 14

doubling its expression by using the modifier mutual; similarly to sentences 6–8 (see also below). The use of the preposition with and the instrumental case with the noun similarity may perhaps be influenced by to become similar (see below).

(35) I’ll beat you. He quickly eats it and says: “I won, but you didn’t.” We’re eating chocolate. Linas says: “I’ll divide it; I’m a divider.” Because of similarity to Dad I repeat (cf. he is similar to Dad): “Both are very much alike.” A few minutes later, Linas says: “We are very much like that bear.” DLKT

(36) Earlier, he had managed to secure the support of one of the five voters. Mr Forteinas denied any similarities to J.-M. Le Pen (cf. Mr Forteinas denied that he was similar to Le Pen), but his statements heightened tensions in the small country, where immigrants of non-Western origin make up almost 10 percent of the population. DLKT

(37) I also wrote about Lithuania’s political system in my master’s thesis. Lithuania has many similarities to Norway (cf. Lithuania and Norway are similar³⁰)—it is a small country with a large agricultural sector; this nation has a long history...—What would you identify as the main problems? DLKT

(38) The writers of the series in which Lilija acted were very impressed by the resemblance between mother and daughter. DLKT

(39) These properties are characteristic of many things (even a person, an apple, or a trolleybus). Therefore, they tell us nothing about a table or a chair. The similarity between a table and a chair is described by quite different properties—both are pieces of furniture, usually wooden and four-legged. DLKT

(40) Markas arranged the dishes with sweeping gestures, while Hela calmly watched her daughter with Harius. Karina looked wonderful, so if Markas saw a resemblance between the two, it was only a compliment. DLKT

(41) Visais šiais pavyzdžiais pateikiamas panašumas žodžių, susijusių ir su vienu, ir su kitu žmogumi, tačiau kiekvienam dalykui išsaugoma atskirta prasmė, ir netvariam duodama tai, kas netvaru. DLKT

(42) It is impossible to prove that the Kubilėliai settlement is typologically and culturally unrelated to the Late Neolithic sites of the lower Nemunas, or that they are mutually similar, and, strange as it may seem, that it is close to the Late Mesolithic Lampėdžiai complex (does this not show that the Kubilėliai complex is not pure?). DLKT

(43) Svarbiausia – „jausti“ ir „suprasti“ raidą. Taigi vaikų psichikos raidų tarpusavio panašumą lemia ne vien amžius. Tapatinti amžių ir raidą yra žalinga, – sako K. Otto. DLKT

³⁰ Also cf. the DLKT sentence: Finland’s economy is highly dependent on exports. Our exports to both the East and the West have also faced great difficulties. In this respect, we are similar to Lithuania—when joining the EU, we had a very difficult economic situation. We did not want to tell people, “If we join the EU, everything will get better.”

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Teigiamų alelinių būdvardžių ir jų vedinių aktantų raiška | 15

With adjectival -umas derivatives, the relationship between two or more arguments is also expressed by a construction with the preposition tarp and the genitive case³¹. J. Šukys (1998: 512ff.) says that, for example, in the sentences A dispute arose between father and son, Negotiations will begin between the two countries, the object—or, more precisely, the objects—between which there is some discrepancy, conflict, or communication is expressed by the preposition tarp with the genitive, which is usually plural, or, if singular, must have at least two genitives³². Thus, when identifying the sentence element, we should ask here arose or will begin BETWEEN WHOM? But one might also ask arose WHERE? (cf. the dispute arose here, in the classroom³³). J. Šukys writes that when constructions with the preposition tarp expressing an object relation modify a noun, they become attributive, for example, Cooperation is expanding (WHAT KIND?) between the Baltic states. Here, he says (Šukys 1998: 517), genitive constructions are also possible, for example, cooperation among the Baltic states; “choosing the genitive makes the expression shorter and more usual”³⁴. Semantically, the tarp construction is related to the word ginčas functioning as the subject in the sentence A dispute arose between father and son (BETWEEN WHOM? WHOSE?), as in sentences 45–46. E. Valiulytė (LKG3 1976: 216), discussing noun phrases with the preposition tarp, writes that they express attributive object relations, for example, Funny, it seems—what kind of friendship can there be between a cat, a dog, and a shepherd; Peace between them and us is impossible. And “[o]bject-relation constructions are formed by verbs expressing reciprocal action with the preposition tarp and the reflexive pronoun savęs, e.g.: they looked at one another, they disagree with one another. <...> [The horses] get along very well with one another” (LKG3 1976: 105).

(44) SOCRATES. So it is clear that the cause of the misfortune of those whose opinion about what exists is mistaken and who allow themselves to be deceived is some kind of resemblance between things. PHAEDRUS. Yes, that is how it happens. DLKT

(45) In an old town whose name had long since been forgotten, two sisters lived. They were both nineteen years old. That was where the resemblance between the sisters ended. DLKT

31 I am sincerely grateful to Dr. Rolandas Mikulskas for the insights and ideas that helped me investigate the reasons for the use of tarp constructions.

32 For a similar view by J. Šukys and A. Pupkis, see also KP S2 2003: 107. Cf. also footnote 10.

33 The connection with a locative meaning is also apparent in the DLKT sentence: Clearly, my bottom Moloy was not genuine, since its hour of drying up had not yet come. But I was confident about the main features; there was a resemblance in them. And if that discrepancy had been much greater, I would not have had to regret it.

34 Plg. dar J. Šukio (1978: 108) mintį: „kai išblukusios vietos reikšmės konstrukcija apibūdina ne veiksmažodį, o daiktavardį, geriau pabrėžti požymį ir prielinksnio tarp konstrukciją keisti kilmininku. Pvz.: Mokslininkams rūpi priežastiniai ryšiai tarp reiškinių (geriau priežastiniai reiškinių ryšiai)“.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Teigiamų alelinių būdvardžių ir jų vedinių aptankų raiška | 16

(46) The turner’s work is clean, in no way connected with the discharge of wastewater. Nevertheless, one resemblance between the turner and the wastewater discharger nevertheless remains. The result of both their work is components. DLKT

Taking into account J. Šukys’s observation that A dispute arose between father and son, the object-related between construction is associated with the predicate (verb) arose, we should say that the same is true, for example, in sentence 47, where the predicate is find (BETWEEN WHAT?). Syntactically, it seems possible here to discern a connection with locative adpositional between constructions in sentences where a third object is located between two (or more) specific objects (or their entirety), e.g., The ship got stuck (WHERE?) between the ice floes (quoted in Šukys 1998: 513). In sentences 47–49, between constructions are formed on the basis of locative between constructions; they express the space in which a property is manifested, whereas in sentences 44–46 they are used attributively. Semantically, such a between construction is associated with the word similarity, which implies a reciprocal relationship and, by semantic transfer, can be understood as some abstract object (thing) (cf. What (similar) thing did you find (WHERE?) between me and your chosen one). How is such a locative between construction related to the inherently reciprocal among themselves construction? Among themselves is a subject-oriented modifier, i.e., one that has a semantic connection with the subject (They are similar to one another). The typically circumstantial between construction also has a semantic connection with a predicate argument, i.e., orientation³⁵, and can be promoted from a modifier to an argument (promoted) (There is similarity between them (WHERE? BETWEEN WHOM?); The similarity (WHAT? BETWEEN WHOM?) between the sisters ended here).

(47) Tačiau daugiausia panašumų randame tarp Helmodo pasakojimo ir Lebuino gyvenimo šeštojo skyriaus, kur su ypač gausiomis detalėmis aprašoma metinė saksų genčių sąjungos sueiga. DLKT

(48) I tried to forget. In vain. No one else can take your place for me. Perhaps I deserve at least a glass of champagne? P. S. Audrius, I sincerely feel sorry for you. What resemblance did you find between me and your chosen one? Did you perhaps call? All that effort for nothing, because I’m not the one. DLKT

(49) The scientist’s attitude toward the sensory world is entirely different. Its invisibility is wholly unlike its visibility. There is no resemblance between them or symmetry. Crushing the phenomenon in the vice of method, the scientist strives to grasp and bend to his will “being itself,” the transcendent. DLKT

J. Pakerys (2006: 125) atkreipia dėmesį, kad darybos požiūriu daiktavardinis junginys bendradarbiavimas tarp rašytojo ir vertėjo yra susijęs su veiksmažodiniu rašytojas ir vertėjas bendradarbiauja (t. y. monadinėmis konstrukcijomis). Vadinasi, daiktavardinis panašumas tarp tekintojo

³⁵ Orientacijos terminas vartojamas pagal A. Holvoet (2009: 99).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Teigiamų alelinių būdvardžių ir jų vedinių aktantų raiška | 17

and the leak’s in sentence 46 expresses similar attributive relations to mother and daughter (cf. their) similarity in sentence 38. When prepositional between constructions are compared with the monadic constructions in sentences 1–2 and 5–7, the grammatical and semantic reasons for using between must be sought by comparing them with those used in sentences 38–43.

Iš DLKT teikiamų pavyzdžių matyti, kad prielinksnio tarp konstrukcijų pasirinkimui įtaką daro daiktavardinio junginio sintaksinis išplėtimas: tarp renk amasi, kai daiktavardinio junginio pagrindinis dėmuo ir (arba) jo priklausomieji turi savo modifikatorių (atributų) (žr. 50–54 sakinius; dar plg. 41 sakinį). Tarp vartojimą lemia ir kategorinė priklausomųjų dėmenų raiška (žr. 55–57 sakinius; dar plg. 48 sakinį). Žiūrint į 58 sakinį į akis krinta dvejopos interpretacijos galimybė: tarpusavio santykis reiškiamas tarp vaikų ir jiems svarbių žmonių (panašiai kaip, pvz., 57 sakinyje) arba tarp pačių vaikų kaip uždaros grupės (angl. bounded set) ir kartu jiems svarbių žmonių. Tai, kad visų mutu antų kaip uždaros grupės suvokimas ir aktualizavimas daro įtaką tarpusavio santykio raiškai, matyti ir 59–61 sakiniuose. Vadinasi, tais atvejais, kai norima aktualizuoti arba yra aktualizuojamas ir specifikuojamas tarpusavio santykis uždaroje mutuantų grupėje, renkamasi tarpusavyje, tarp savęs, kai kiekvienas mutuantas atskirai – vienas į kitą ar pan. (žr. 62–63 sakinius; dar plg. 5–7 sakinius)³⁶. Tai, kad tarpusavio santykio aktualizavimo ir specifikavimo raiška gali riboti semantiniai tarpusavio situacijos parametrai, konkrečiau kalbant, konfiguracijos (angl. configuration) parametras³⁷, matyti ir 64 sakinyje, kur vienas į kitą lemia vadinamoji grandinės (angl. chain) konfiguracija³⁸ (taip kaip 61 sakinyje – poros (angl. pair)³⁹). Bet tai dar reikėtų nagrinėti išsamiau atskirai.

(50) Jo tapyba plati ir galinga. Cezanne'as išvyko gyventi ir tapyti į Provansą, retai iš čia teišvažiuodamas. Pissarro: „Kaip keista matyti panašumą tarp jo Overo ir mano Pontuazo peizažų (plg. keista matyti jo ir mano peizažų panašumą;?keista matyti jo Overo ir mano Pontuazo peizažų panašumą)! Iš tikro, juk mes visada buvome kartu! DLKT

³⁶ Cf. “The phrase among themselves should not be overused, especially when it duplicates a reflexive verb form and when the sentence makes clear which participants are involved and how the action relates them. Instead of saying The two of them, when they meet, constantly argue among themselves, it is enough to say the two of them constantly argue when they meet” (Šukys 1998: 515).

³⁷“The <...> parameter configuration comes into operation once multiple participants are involved, since then the possible permutations of who acts on whom can also vary” (Majid, Evans, Gaby, Levinson 2011: 31).

³⁸ „A could act on B who could act on C who could act on D, resulting in a linear series of events (A → B → C → D)“ (Majid, Evans, Gaby, Levinson 2011: 32t).

³⁹ „A and B, and likewise C and D, could be in strong symmetrical interaction, but with no interaction between the pairs (A ↔ B; C ↔ D)“ (Majid, Evans, Gaby, Levinson 2011: 32t).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Teigiamų alelinių būdvardžių ir jų vedinių aktantų raiška | 18

(51) O. Spengler and his followers were not the only ones to see similarities between contemporary “declining” Europe and the dying ancient world (cf. having seen the similarity between Europe and the ancient world;?having seen the similarity between “declining” Europe and the dying ancient world). DLKT

(52) The police officially reported such crimes, and Florida journalists often noticed similarities between crimes committed in places far apart from one another, and wrote about them (cf.?noticed similarities among crimes committed in places far apart from one another and wrote about them). DLKT

(53) He gives himself over to the impression of a symphony; it seems to him that all the events of life and the world pass before his eyes. But once he comes to, he cannot point to any similarity between the playing and what he saw (cf.?cannot point to any similarity between the playing and what he saw). DLKT

(54) The arguments for attribution are not compelling that this is merely an introduction to more substantial work. Incidentally, several researchers held the view that there was some kind of even portrait-like similarity between the Munich miniature and the Telšiai painting (cf.?there is some kind of similarity, even portrait-like, between the Munich miniature and the Telšiai painting). Those denying this similarity cited the portrait of Austrian Emperor Franz II (1768–1835) as an example. DLKT

(55) I’ll be honest: I see no similarities between us and you (cf. *I see no similarities between us and you). Perhaps it is precisely for this reason that we are interesting and attractive to one another. An Estonian is an Italian; a Lithuanian is not. DLKT

(56) [He] drew attention to Vico in 1777, but did not mention him in any of his publications before 1797; later, he neither discusses Vico’s ideas in detail nor perceives similarities between himself and Vico (cf.?nor does he perceive similarities between himself and Vico). DLKT

(57) Are you looking for parallels between yourself and the characters you portray (cf. *are you looking for parallels between yourself and the characters you portray)? When creating characters, you see that some of them have many traits that you yourself also have. That is the extent of the parallel. DLKT

(58) Children who find similarities among themselves and the people who matter to them develop a stronger sense of self-worth. DLKT

(59) And Euclid’s axioms of geometry—“Things equal to one and the same are equal to one another,” or “The whole is greater than the part”—raise no doubts. DLKT

(60) I only note that those children of exile are like a separate segment of young people: they do not make themselves very visible anywhere; they mostly socialize not with others, but among themselves. And their communication is much quieter, unlike that of all these others. DLKT

(61) Forty-four participants competed using the Swiss system (10 rounds). Each pair played against each other (cf. against one another) two games—one with the white pieces and one with the black pieces. DLKT

(62) The two were alike like twins; you could tell them apart only by the tarnished stars on their shoulder straps: the superior had four, while the driver had two. DLKT

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Teigiamų alelinių būdvardžių ir jų vedinių aktantų raiška | 19

(63) Beside the figures of the villagers from Konya: mother, father, daughter, grandfather, uncle, all alike like two drops of water—this is the result of many mutual relations. DLKT⁴⁰

(64) Following the steps of the Vedantists, Taoists, Stoics, Sufis, and pantheists, people gradually approached an objective conception of the absolute. The steps are alike (*among themselves*), because the same person was treading the same ground, yet they are also different, because they led forward—to the maturity of human consciousness. DLKT

For names of bearers of nominal properties with the suffix –muo, we have forms derived from statmenas, lygus – statmuo “a perpendicular line”⁴¹, lygmuo “a counterpart, a completely equal substitute”; with the ending -ė, forms derived from lygiagretus, paralelus – lygiagretė “a line lying in the same plane as another line and not intersecting it, a parallel,” paralelė “a line or plane parallel to another line or plane,” in which “a thing <...> is named according to an external property (color, shape, size, etc.)” (LKG1 1965: 357, 366; DLKG 2006: 122). Let us compare sentences 65–73. They show that such names of property bearers have only one dependent constituent: the dative or the preposition su plus an instrumental construction, copied from an adjectival phrase (perpendicular to what, parallel to what) into constructions naming property bearers; this constituent may remain implicit, as in sentences 71–72. These sentences illustrate the reduction of the valency actants of names of property bearers. In sentence 73, the genitive construction with the preposition tarp remains ambiguous: it can be understood as expressing the predicate’s (brėžti) locative argument (draw WHERE? – draw a circle between the lines (cf. on the board)), or as one of the arguments of brėžti—the lygiagretė⁴² is an attributively specified location (draw WHAT KIND OF PARALLEL?), bounded by two things (an adult and a child); the lygiagretė lies in the same plane as them, more specifically, between them (cf. the parallelism between them was debatable).

(65) From the experimental results, we can draw the following conclusions, known as the law of reflection of light: • the incident ray, the reflected ray, and the perpendicular to the mirror’s surface at the point of incidence lie in the same plane. DLKT

⁴⁰ See also usage in DLKT, where a separate participant in a mutual situation is brought into focus: All these grand dukes, Koko would recall, were similar to one another: a beautiful face that meant nothing, green eyes, slender hands... Aristocracy can, to some extent, be compared to people who, having been in the kingdom of truth, where, according to Meister Eckhart, “the archangel, the fly, and the spirit are similar to one another”, suddenly lost the gift of speech. ⁴¹ Dalija Tekorienė, discussing the properties denoted by the neuter forms of relational [in other words, alelic] adjectives, states that “they may be based on <...> spatial relations: parallel, perpendicular, distant, near, e.g.: Pay no attention to what is perpendicular to the plane” (Tekorienė 1990: 74). ⁴² Cf. the definition of the noun parallel given in LKŽe: “a line that lies in the same plane as another line with another line (emphasis mine – L. V.-S) and does not intersect it, a parallel.”

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Teigiamų alelinių būdvardžių ir jų vedinių aktantų raiška | 20

(66) Matome, kad tas pluoštas, pasiekęs veidrodėlį, nuo jo atsispindi. Iš veidrodėlio taško, į kurį krinta šviesos spindulys, iškelkime statmenį to veidrodėlio paviršiui. DLKT

(67) Through the point where the light enters the water, let us imagine drawing a perpendicular to the water’s surface. We will see that, as it passes from air into water, the light ray moves closer to that perpendicular. DLKT

(68) A perpendicular is drawn OM from the intersection point O of the diagonals of rhombus ABCD, to the plane of the rhombus. Prove that point M is equidistant from all sides of the rhombus. DLKT

(69) One person is not an equal to another⁴³. LKŽ

(70) So we are left to rely on approximate thinking and approximate analogies. It seems entirely possible to me, for instance, to draw a parallel (cf. a parallel) with erotic pleasure (cf. for erotic pleasure). Barthes also does not reject this comparison. DLKT

(71) Only the one who responds to their conscience is straight. For if you want to find a straight angle, you must know how to draw⁴⁴ a perpendicular from heaven to earth. Love, hope, and dreams—all of this is beautiful, but even those who are up above must descend below, into the inner hell. DLKT

(72) From the intersection point of the lines, a perpendicular is dropped⁴⁵ to the x-axis, indicating the x-coordinate at which the mode lies. DLKT

(73) The woman suggests drawing⁴⁶ a parallel between an adult and a child: if the child is afraid of a dark room, we find a solution—we suggest turning on the light. DLKT

The following event-denoting derivatives are also possible from the adjectives under discussion—intransitive verbs with the suffix -ėti⁴⁷: (su-)panašėti⁴⁸ “to become (more) similar,” (su-)tapatėti “to become (more) identical”

⁴³ Cf.: [Christ] is the likeness (equal) of God. LKŽₑ

⁴⁴ Cf. the valency description of the verb vesti ‘to lay, prepare, or build something long’ in N. Sližienė’s Dictionary of Lithuanian Verb Government (2004: 439).

⁴⁵ Cf. the valency description of the verb nuleisti ‘to draw from top to bottom (of a perpendicular)’ in N. Sližienė’s Dictionary of Lithuanian Verb Government (1998: 44).

Apparently, statmenas į is incorrectly used in the sentence Norint gauti tiesę a, statmeną į tiesę b, reikia popieriaus lapą perlenkti taip, kad tiesės b abi dalys sutaptų. Perlenkimo linija vadinama tiese, statmena į tiesę b. in accordance with the government pattern of nuleisti. DLKT

⁴⁶ Cf. the valency description of the verb brėžti ‘to draw, trace (a line)’ in N. Sližienė’s Dictionary of Lithuanian Verb Government (1994: 155).

⁴⁷ Evalda Jakaitienė DLKG (2006: 390) tokius būdvardinius veiksmažodžius vadina būvio kaitos (mutatyviniais).

⁴⁸ Cf. the marking of dependent constituents in a nominalized action construction: Thus, Christian perfection is becoming like Christ and a person’s transformation and renewal, grounded in continual conversion and passage into eschatological reality. Holiness is a continual becoming like Christ, the aligning of one’s life with the Father’s will and the plans of Providence. Holy is the priest who zealously carries out God’s will. DLKT

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Teigiamų alelinių būdvardžių ir jų vedinių aktantų raiška |21

“oneself”⁴⁹, (su-)vienodėti ‘to become (more) alike, uniform’. Such verbs of event or process aspect are telic and, “depending on the text in which they are used, may mean 1) the gradual emergence of a property and 2) the gradual increase of a property”⁵⁰ (DLKG 2006: 390). The prepositional construction with į is also governed by the derivative panėšėti of the verb nešti in sentence 74⁵¹.

It is evident from sentences 74–81 that the marking of the indirect object of adjectival verbs sometimes coincides with the marking of the indirect object of the base adjective and sometimes differs from it. Drawing on the material provided by DLKT, we can speak more specifically about the expression of the indirect object with finite forms of all persons and numbers of resemble, resemble, become similar. In sentences with finite forms of resemble and resemble, the indirect object is expressed by the preposition to and the accusative (in all 200 and 450 available sentences, respectively), whereas in sentences with finite forms of become similar, the indirect object tends to be expressed by the preposition with and the instrumental (used in 93.3 percent of the available examples, or 70 out of 75 sentences)⁵². It becomes clear that the marking of the indirect object of adjectival verbs is related to the verbs’ inherent aspectual properties. With the stative imperfective resemble or the processual resemble, the indirect object is expressed by the preposition to and the accusative, that is, by analogy with similar; with the eventive-processual become similar, it is more often expressed using another reciprocal marking—the prepositional with construction (cf. also: Astronomers count spring from March 23, when the day becomes equal to the night (DLKT)⁵³; When grown, it moves on to other grasses and with trees resembles sorrel (LKŽė); The feminine Skity resembles men in anger] S. Dauk. (LKŽė); Your teaching is like torture (LKŽė)).

⁴⁹ Cf.: The narrowing of the sphere of use and the very language’s growing identical to German ultimately undermined the prestige of Lithuanian and diminished its value in the minds of Lithuanians (quoted according to http://mokslolietuva.lt/2014/07/prisilietus-prie-atgrasios-problemos/). Here, the actor’s becoming identical with the character art (quoted: http://www.zodynas.lt/terminu-zodynas/t/tapatejimas). But only in this way does he unite with Heaven and transcend the human realm—not by transcending it, but rather through it, becoming identical with Heaven, that is, “breaking through” the anthropocosmic space within it DLKT.

⁵⁰ Panašios nuomonės laikosi ir Klementina Vosylýtė (1995: 70): „lietuvių kalboje priesagos -ėti veiksmažodžių vediniai iš kokybinių būdvardžių paprastai reiškia procesą – laipsnišką pagrindiniu žodžiu pasakytos ypatybės įgijimą arba stiprėjimą“.

⁵¹ Apie tai, kad panėšėti yra veiksmažodinis nešti vedinys plačiau žr. Vosylýtė (1995: 70tt). Skirtingos nuomonės laikosi J. Šukys (1998: 393) ir teigia, kad „iš būdvardžių prielinksnio į konstrukcijos reikalauja būdvardis panašus ir jo vediniai – daiktavardis panašumas, veiksmažodis panėšėti“.

⁵² The same morphosyntactic marking tendencies are also evident in the examples of the deverbal noun supanašėjimas provided by DLKT (the preposition su and the instrumental are used in the 32 sentences found); cf.: Through likeness to that of which they partake, the partakers attain true identity with that reality. The identity of the partakers, truly attained through likeness to the object of participation, is the deification of the righteous.

⁵³ For more on the reciprocal meaning expressed in Lithuanian by the prefixes su and su-si, see Geniušienė (2007: 653ff.).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Teigiamų alelinių būdvardžių ir jų vedinių aktantų raiška |22

(74) Eyes wide open, he stared at the overturned car, which [car] from afar resembled a barn felled by a storm.

(quoted from Šukys 1998: 393)

(75) The son [P] increasingly came to resemble his father [Comp]. (quoted from Sližienė 1998: 115)

(76) Saint Augustine says: “The soul grows like that which it loves.” DLKT

(77) Nieko tikroviškesnio ir nepamatysi – net balkšvi debesėliai ir tie supanašėjo su žeme⁵⁴. DLKT

(78) Your black eyebrows grew like wings, arching over green stars. DLKT

(79) In late classical Roman law, the procurator’s position gradually became generally identical to the position of the cognitor. Google

(80) It seems that the prices of most goods are becoming equal to those that previously [prices]were in litas. Google

(81) Who will be interested in us if we give in to globalism and lose our distinctiveness? — Without distinctiveness, a person becomes indistinguishable from others. Google

5. CONCLUSIONS

The semantic definition of the arguments of subject-oriented alelic predicates (adjectives) depends on how the participants in a reciprocal situation are interpreted, that is, on which participant(s) in the situation are selected as the point of reference. This corresponds to the choice of reciprocal constructions (monadic or dyadic, respectively). When all participants in the reciprocal situation are selected as the point of reference and expressed as the subject in monadic constructions, the reciprocal relation can also be foregrounded and specified by reciprocal markers coreferential with the subject nominative. The semantic parameters of the reciprocal relation and the perception of the participants as a closed group influence the choice of reciprocal constructions. Reciprocal anaphora foregrounds each participant individually (Jonas and Marytė are similar to each other; Both are similar to each other), with one another or among themselves – a closed group of participants (They are similar to one another; among themselves).

In monadic constructions, the dependents of a bivalent adjective are expressed by a plural nominative noun or pronoun functioning as the subject (The two of them are similar), by two nouns or pronouns in the nominative joined by and (Jonukas and Marytė are similar), or by a noun or pronoun in the nominative with the preposition with and an instrumental construction (Jonukas with Marytė are similar).

⁵⁴ Further, cf. the DLKT example: You are not like them, and you didn’t try to become like them. – Become like them? Like whom? I still distinguish between the concepts of nation and people. – But do you agree that every nation has the government it deserves? Shah!

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Teigiamų alelinių būdvardžių ir jų vedinių aktantų raiška |23

An adjective’s dependent that functions as an indirect object in dyadic constructions is marked according to three predominant strategies: by the dative (equal, parallel, perpendicular, identical, etc.), by the preposition to with the accusative (similar), or by the preposition with and the instrumental (identical). The dative is chosen in accordance with the principle of linguistic economy.

Derivatives of adjectives retain the inherent reciprocal meaning and valency of the base word. In constructions denoting a property or its bearer, dependents may remain implicit. In constructions denoting a property’s bearer, the syntactic necessity of the dependent constituent is lower.

In property-denoting constructions derived from monadic constructions, the subject is marked by the genitive (their similarity (they are similar); Jonukas and Marytė’s similarity (Jonukas and Marytė are similar)) or by the genitive together with the preposition with and an instrumental construction Jonukas with Marytė’s similarity (Jonukas with Marytė are similar)). A dependent constituent in a property-denoting expression that is derivationally related to the subject of monadic constructions is also expressed by a construction with the preposition among and the genitive (the similarity among them, Jonukas and Marytė, was obvious (they, Jonukas and Marytė, are similar)). This construction with the preposition among is borrowed from locative constructions (cf. The letter is (lies) here, among the scattered things, between the pen and the book; Among them, Jonukas and Marytė, there is similarity (in them there is similarity)). The use of the locative preposition among in nominalizations is influenced by grammatical and semantic factors: syntactic expansion of the phrase, the categorical expression of dependent constituents, and the way the participants are foregrounded.

Because the DLKT data are quantitatively sparse, it is difficult to generalize about the marking tendencies of the dependent constituent of adjectival nouns that corresponds to the indirect object of the base adjective. The expression of the indirect object of adjectival verbs sometimes coincides with the marking of the base adjective’s dependent functioning as an indirect object (similar to what – become similar to what; identical with what – become identical (with) what), while elsewhere it may differ or does differ from it (similar to what – become similar with what; equal to whom (with what) – become equal with whom; identical to whom (with what) – become identical with whom). The aspect of the adjectival verb influences the difference in marking.

ŠALTINIAI

DLKT – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos tekstynas, sud. Kauno Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto Kompiuterinės lingvistikos centras. Prieiga internete: http://donelaitis.vdu.lt.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Teigiamų alelinių būdvardžių ir jų vedinių aktantų raiška | 24

LKŽ_e – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas, elektroninis variantas. Red. kolegija: Gertrūda Naktinienė (vyr. red.), Jonas Paulauskas, Rimutė Petrokienė, Vytautas Vitkauskas, Jolanta Zabarskaitė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2005. – Atnaujinta versija, 2008. Prieiga internete: www.lkz.lt.

LITERATŪRA

DLKG 2006: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Redagavo Vytautas Ambrazas. 4-as patais. leidimas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

G e n i u š i e n ė E. 2007: Reciprocal and reflexive constructions in Lithuanian (with references to Latvian). – Reciprocal Construction 2, Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. (ed.). John Benjamins Publishing Company: Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 633–672.

Haspelmath M. 2007: Further remarks on reciprocal constructions. – Reciprocal Construction 4, Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. (ed.) John Benjamins Publishing Company: Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 2087–2116.

Holvoet A. 2009: Bendrosios sintaksės pagrindai, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas.

Holvoet A., Judžentis A. 2003. Sintaksinių ryšių tipai. – Sintaksinių ryšių tyrimai [= Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai 1], Holvoet, Axel, Artūras Judžentis (red.). Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 11–35.

Hurst P. 2010: The syntax of lexical reciprocal constructions. – Proceedings of the LFG10 Conference, Butt, Miriam, King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), 290–310. Prieiga internete: http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/290 (žiūrėta 2016-02-10).

Jakaitienė E., Laigonaitė A., Paulauskienė A. 1976: Lietuvių kalbos morfologija, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Knjazev J. P. 2007: Lexical reciprocals as a means of expressing reciprocal situations. – Reciprocal Construction 1, Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. (ed.). John Benjamins Publishing Company: Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 115–146.

KP S1 2003: Kalbos patarimai, kn. 2: Sintaksė: linksnių vartojimas (S1). Sudarė Rita Miliūnaitė. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

KP S2 2003: Kalbos patarimai, kn. 2: Sintaksė: prielinksnių ir polinksnių vartojimas (S2). Sudarė Rita Miliūnaitė. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Labutis V. 1998: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Teigiamų alelinių būdvardžių ir jų vedinių aktantų raiška | 25

LKG 1 1965: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1. Fonetika ir morfologija. Redagavo Kazys Ulvydas, Vilnius: Mintis.

LKG 2 1971: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 2. Morfologija (veiksmažodis ir kt.). Redagavo Kazys Ulvydas, Vilnius: Mintis.

LKG 3 1976: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 3. Sintaksė. Redagavo Kazys Ulvydas, Vilnius: Mintis.

Majid A., Evans N., Gaby A., Levinson S. C. 2011: The semantics of reciprocal constructions across languages. An extensional approach. – Reciprocals and Semantic Typology, Evans Nicholas, Gaby Alice, Levinson Stephen, Majid Asifa (eds.). John Benjamins Publishing Company: Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 29–59.

Nedjalkov V. P., Geniušienė E. 2007: Questionaire on reciprocals. – Reciprocal Construction 1, Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. (ed.). John Benjamins Publishing Company: Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 379–434.

Pakerys J. 2006: Veiksmo pavadinimo konstrukcija lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje. – Daiktavardinio junginio tyrimai [= Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai 4], Axel Holvoet, Rolandas Mikulskas (red.). Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 121–149.

Partee B. H. 2008. Symmetry and symmetrical predicates. – Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies: Papers from the International Conference „DIALOGUE“, Kibrik A. E. et. al (ed.). Moscow: Institut Problem Informatiki, 606–611. Prieiga internete: https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Semantics_Readings/SymmetryHandoutPentusSeminarCorrectedPlusNotes.pdf (žiūrėta 2016-02-10).

Sližienė N. 1994: Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių junglumo žodynas 1, Vilnius: Mokslo ir 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: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla.

Šukys J. 1978: Prielinksnių vartojimas, Kaunas: Šviesa.

Šukys J. 1998: Lietuvių kalbos linksniai ir prielinksniai: vartosena ir normos, Kaunas: Šviesa.

Tekorienė D. 1985: Lietuvių kalbos būdvardžių būtinio semantinio valentingumo raiška. – Kalbotyra 36 (1), 72–83.

Tekorienė D. 1990: Bevardės giminės būdvardžiai, Vilnius: Mokslas.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ. Teigiamų alelinių būdvardžių ir jų vedinių aktantų raiška |26

Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė, L. 2001: Lietuvių kalbos būdvardžių valentingumas. Daktaro disertacija. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Valiulytė E. 1964: Prielinksnio į reikšmės ir vartojimas dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 7, 97–117.

Valiulytė E. 1967: Prielinksnių vartojimas lyginimo santykiams reikšti. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 9, 85–95.

VLKK KKB: Valstybinės lietuvių kalbos komisijos Kalbos konsultacijų bankas. Prieiga internete: http://konsultacijos.vlkk.lt/lit/292.

Vosyl y tė K. 1995: Pavėdėti, panašėti ir panešėti. – Kalbos kultūra 67, 67–73.

Įteikta 2016 07 05

Priimta 2016 10 17

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius

[email protected]

BENDRINĖ KALBA 89 (2016)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204