Sudėtinių prijungiamųjų sakinių norminimo ypatumai ir pažymimųjų sakinių vartosena

R. VladaRskienė. peculiarities of normalization of compound connective sentences and use of indicative sentences 61 RASUOLĖ VLADARSKIENĖ Lithuanian language institute SPECIFICITIES OF NORMALIZATION OF CONJUNCTIVE SENTENTS AND THE USE OF CONDITIONAL SENTENTS KEY WORDS: syntax, connective sentences, indicative sentences, norming. syntax phenomena change very slowly. In Vytautas Ambrazo (1986: 66)’s opinion, “[t]he consistency of the syntactic structure is a characteristic and very important feature of language. If the relationships between words and the ways of expressing them changed as quickly as the words themselves, the language’s distinctiveness would fade away within a few hundred years.” Therefore, in understanding the significance of the syntactic system for the permanence of language, since “[t]he disintegration of syntax norms already shows the decline of the language itself, it can be said that the language ceases to exist together with syntax” (Pupkis 2005: 297), the suitability of syntax phenomena for the Lithuanian common language is constantly discussed. syntax object is very broad. Linguists mainly investigate and evaluate the laws of word connections, the attention of normers is especially drawn to the peculiarities of the use of conjugations and prepositions, the so-called microsyntax – the determination of the syntactic potency (conjugation valence) of words – is the main problem in norming (labutis 1985: 10). relationships of larger syntactic units, such as elements of a compound sentence, are less often evaluated from a normative point of view. This is clearly shown by the volume of the Syntax booklets in the Language Tips section: the first booklet is dedicated to the use of conjugations, the second to the use of prepositions and conjugations, and the third, much thinner than the first ones, to all other variant syntax phenomena. The aim of this article* is to examine in more detail one relevant case of the use of the indicative sentence after reviewing the basis and criteria of syntax standardization, as well as the most important problems of standardization of compound connective sentences. * the article was prepared in the framework of the project “Study of the language of European Union documents”, funded by the State Lithuanian Language Commission under the “Programme for Research on the Functioning and Change of Lithuanian Common Language, Dialects and Other Language Variants 2011–2020”. Vytautas būda (1987: 8) believes that “the Lithuanian sentence science originated in the soil of Latin, German or Latin-German grammar of other languages of the 15th to 19th centuries, simply because the first Lithuanian grammar was written in these languages”. However, the beginning of the standardization of Lithuanian compound connective sentences should be regarded as the works of Jon Jablonskis, especially his Syntax of Lithuanian Language (1911). In it, the linguist presented the first systematic description of the syntax of the Lithuanian language, based on dialects, folklore, some old writings and works of fiction. He acknowledged that he had used examples of written language "to bring the laws of syntax to the fore" with caution. Thus, J. Jablonski outlined the further direction of syntax codification, putting the criterion of purity, closely linked to systematic, in the first place. This book can be regarded as the first work on the codification of Lithuanian syntax. as the common language becomes stronger, the criteria for its codification change. The new conditions raised the criterion of purposefulness, but Vytautas ambrazas (1986: 69), a researcher of the historical syntax of the Lithuanian language, is reluctant to emphasize it. He argues that syntax forms the core of the language system, its phenomena and should be evaluated primarily according to the extent to which they correspond to that system and do not violate the laws, considers systematicity as the main principle of syntax norming, and other criteria as auxiliary. Aldonas Pupkis (2005: 304) also agrees with this, considering systematicity as the primary condition (i.e., the principle of codification) to regulate only those phenomena that agree with the laws of the Lithuanian language (i.e., the system). However, in his opinion, the importance of distinctiveness is increasing now, because it is required by the functional spread of language phenomena. Thus, when evaluating the normativity of syntactic phenomena, it is first attempted to determine whether the phenomenon is systematic, and then other criteria are taken into account. as already mentioned, the first to describe and classify compound sentences was Jan Jablonski. A very detailed description of compound sentences is presented in the third volume of Lithuanian grammar (1976), characteristic types of compound connective sentences and their meanings are described in Contemporary Lithuanian Grammar (2006). The syntax descriptions in these works are used to establish the norms of syntax. The structure of compound sentences is relatively constant and changes very slowly, so there are no major problems of standardization. Axel Holvoet and Arturas Judžentis (2003: 99–172) looked at the basics of the description of the compound connective sentence with an innovative view. The structure of the sentence itself changes very slowly, and therefore there is not much advice on the norms of the compound sentence. Rita Miliūnaitė (2003: 192) states that in R. VladaRskienė. sudėtinių prijungiamųjų sakinių norminimo ypatumai ir pažymimųjų sakinių vartosena 63 sudėtinio sakinio normiškumą daugiausia yra pateikta rekomendacijų dėl prijungiamųjų sakinių su šalutiniais tikslo, sąlygos, laiko ir nuolaidos dėmenimis vartojimo. order to find out what problems arise in the standardization of compound connective sentences, the Language Advice Booklet Syntax: Various Things was reviewed. It contains only over 10 recommendations for the use of compound connective sentences. most of the recommendations are based on the fact that conjunctives are used with meanings that are not typical of them. Usually these are translational phenomena, for example, how not strange to indicate concession, or this to indicate reason (you have to go, and this (because) it is already late) or dialects when, as the time to connect secondary sentences. Incorrectly chosen word forms (general, divisor or negative form of the verb) in sentences of a certain structure are also criticized, as well as the wrong word order in indicative sentences, when the indicative sub-sentence is not connected to the indicative word. All these cases are considered non-normative because they do not conform to the Lithuanian language system, i.e. their non-conformity to the common language is supported by the criterion of systematicity. In the following, we will examine one case of the use of adjective sentences, i.e. the inappropriate use of affirmative sentences. In the third part of the Syntax section of the Language Advices, Various things, it is recommended not to use the conjunction which denotes a characteristic resulting from an action that takes place after the main (consonant) action, when the subject or object of the action must be said, not the characteristic: There was an idea to organize a general charity action, which (=and it) began in spring. The car was accidentally discovered by a mushroom hunter, who reported it to the police (kP s3 2003: 33–34). Interpretations of this recommendation sometimes give rise to considerable debate, so it is worth considering it in more detail. Such a recommendation was made in the last decades of the last century. According to aldonas Pupkis (1980: 163), it is not appropriate to use such adjective sentences, “where the secondary point only indicates the second action of the sentence, but does not perform the explanatory function”. It is true that this recommendation was not included in the Language Practice Advices (1985), but it is already given in later sources, which discuss regular usage. in the Lithuanian Language Institute’s language recommendations file, only 8 cases were found, in which the specific uses of the 64 kUlTūRa | 85 tosena cases – authors of the recommendations aldonas Pupkis, Jonas Šukys, albinos drukteinis, Rita Šepetytė, Ramunė Vaskelaitė and loreta laužikaitė. In the language advice bulletin, there are also few instances of such incorrect use, not because such use is rare, far from it, it is quite common, but probably also because this recommendation is not very clear. Most often inappropriate denoting sentences are criticized in language reviews of various publications, they indicate that in one connecting sentence are not joined homogeneous parts of the sentence, denoting two successive actions: I read J. Biliūno short stories, which (=and they...) I liked very much (Masaitienė 1999); It is emphasized that the pronoun that connects the secondary sentence to the main one, rather than the independently meaningful sentences showing the sequence of actions: Vyras nubėgo prie pumpos ir nuėmė rankeną, kurią parsinešė namo (= took it home) (Vaskelaitė 2002); it is stated that the description in the secondary sentence cannot be logically subsequent to the action of the main sentence. Other premises were allocated to the [...] Education and Youth Education Department, which (=also) will announce a competition (printed 1994). of the few recommendations, the submissions of Jon Šukis and kanckP should be distinguished. The most important criterion for not presenting such sentences is the meaning of the indicative sentences, and the sequence of actions is mentioned only as one of the auxiliary characteristics. Jonas Šukys (2003: 235) tries to popularly explain the essence of the recommendation: “[k]as does not raise the question what, -ia, but it is appropriate to emphasize the course of events, their causality or something else, the secondary sentences of the recommendation are not to be used”. He gives specific examples of incorrect sentences and how to correct them: A child ran across the street and fell under a car (=and fell under a car – here it is not necessary to describe the child, but to show the course of events). There were several revolts, which were quickly suppressed (= but they were quickly suppressed – here we emphasize the opposite of events). This encourages the little ones, who stop being afraid (=and they stop being afraid – emphasis on effect). Still the whole life before you, which you must have enough of (= and it must be enough for you – the thought is developed, supported). People refuse heat they cannot afford (=because they cannot afford it – here it is more important to indicate the reason). Such cases are particularly common in administrative language, where it is necessary to regulate certain procedures or describe events that have already taken place. This is also discussed in kanckP, where both regular and irregular sentences with the pronoun which are presented, trying to draw a line between correct and incorrect usage. which is used to connect secondary sentences to the main ones, when the secondary sentence specifies the word with which the noun is combined. R. VladaRskienė. 65 dis: The members of the commission who prepared the draft resolution are invited to the meeting. kanckP’s recommendation does not refer to the sequence of actions, i.e. the preceding and the following time. The characteristic meaning of the secondary sentence element (explanatory) – to explain the word of the main sentence – is indicated as the most important characteristic, according to which it is decided about the incorrectness of the indicative sentence. as an additional sign that the secondary point of the compound sentence does not explain the main point, but only tells another action. Elements of such significance are linked by conjunction and begin with pronouns: This group of documents does not include statements on personnel matters, which must be registered separately, cf. Documents which are classified as statements on personnel matters shall be registered separately. A contact list is written, which (=and it) is added to the instance that remains in the institution (not the one that is written, which is added, but the one that is written is added). From the recommendations on the use of non-presenting indicative sentences, two main criteria emerge, which are used to correct such sentences: 1) semantic – there is no characteristic denoting value, 2) logical – the subsequent action cannot describe the previous one. the logical criterion is clear, but the meanings of the connective indicative sentences should be examined in more detail. The grammar of the contemporary Lithuanian language (2006: 675–676) indicates three meanings of the interrelationships of the denoting sentence elements: 1) distinguishing, when the secondary element describes the object or person represented by the denoting word, distinguishing it from other similar objects or persons; 2) qualitative, when the secondary accent qualitatively describes the object represented by the designative word; 3) narrative – a subordinate point tells a new statement about a thing, expressed by a pronoun: In ancient times there lived a man whose wife died (Lithuanian folk tales); He walked steeply toward the sunset, in whose thick red he and the trees were sinking; From Pamūšis came a song, which has now long appeared new (Paukštelis). These same meanings are also presented in Lithuanian grammar (1976: 827), but here, when speaking about the narrative meaning, it is further specified that this point does not distinguish and qualitatively characterize the concept of the indicative word, but tells a new statement related to it (narrative, or narrative, meaning): About the eleventh hour came a handsome gentleman, who says: “Let’s go, girl, dance” (Lithuanian folk tales). The narrative (narrative) indicative sentences are very similar to the unpresentable case of use in question, because the secondary accent tells a new statement about the thing expressed by the indicative word. The boundary between nor- 66 Languages of the World | 85 mo and anomalies become very unclear. Therefore, it would be difficult to consider the unpresentable conjunctive demonstrative sentence as completely not corresponding to the Lithuanian language system of demonstrative sentences. Of course, it should be taken into account that remarkable sentences of narrative meaning are more typical of a specific genre – narrative folklore and that such cases are not very typical of general usage. in the present common language, the influence of other languages is probably also responsible for the spread of such structures of denoting sentences. This was also noted by Ramunė Vaskelaitė (2003) when reviewing the translation from Italian. She writes that in Italian the pronoun which is usually used to join sentences in which the verb denotes a time of action that is later than the time of action expressed by the verb of the main sentence; In Lithuanian, this conjunction is not needed in such cases: […] from there jumped out a wet chicken, which (=he) gracefully bent down and spoke; he had a thick whip, made of snakes and fox tails, with which he was constantly slapping. This influence of other languages is also evident in the administrative language when translating European Union documents into Lithuanian. adMinisTRaCinės kalbOs PaŽYMiMieJi sentences The most characteristic meanings of connective sentences should also be retained in administrative language. most often the subordinate elements of the denoting sentences here denote, describe the nouns in the main element or their substitutes. indicates what distinguishes the noun (or the pronouns substituting it) in the main sentence, what characteristic it has, for example, the content of the document: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 858/2012 of 2 September 2012 fixing the export refunds on eggs. Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 on European statistics. However, the apostrophe is not appropriate when the document is not described but the action taken with it is indicated: The notifying parties reiterated their request, which (=but it) was ultimately rejected (Final report of the Hearing Officer, Official Journal C 195, 03.07.2012); On the basis of this consultation, the EU prepared a revised draft which was presented at the meeting in Vienna on 5 June 2012 (=on the basis of this consultation, the EU prepared a revised draft. It was introduced in June 2012. The more complex time-frame for action, when it comes to generalised action, lays down certain procedures: a Member State R. VladaRskienė. 67 at the meeting held in Vienna on 5 June 2012) (Semi-annual progress report – Official Journal C 237 of 7 August 2012). When evaluating the normativity of the indicative sentences, attention should be paid to the fact that the administrative language can describe general or specific (occurred or still to occur) actions. The latter cases are clearer and easier to trace, particularly when specific dates are given: on 6 December 2001, the Hellenic Republic referred the matter to the Conciliation Body, which delivered its opinion on 25 April 2002 (judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 July 2012. was Tc86/08); The remainder of the year was spent preparing for the accession of the sixteenth member, Slovakia, which officially took place on 1 January 2009 (Commission report, 23 February 2009). Such sentences are definitely incorrect. In fact, the sequence of actions can be a good guide for determining the normativity of the adjective, the successive actions must be linked by a connecting link: The appointment of the first EU representative in the country, who focused on Somalia and the uncontrolled piracy in the region during his first meeting (Commission report to the Council and the European Parliament COM/ 2012/0444); In particular, the applicant claims that the Commission’s power to impose fines on the undertaking […] expired with the adoption of Decision of 29 November 2006 [C(2006) 5700 final], which was annulled and replaced by the General Court of the European Union in its judgment of 13 July 2011 in Case T-59/07, which is currently under appeal before the Court of Justice (Case T-241/12, Official Journal C 227 of 28 July 2012). wishing to introduce measures derogating from the provisions of the directive must obtain the authorisation of the Council, which is granted by a Council Decision (see the proposal for a Council Decision amending Implementing Decision 2009/1008/EB 30/11, 30 November 2012). One of the most common cases of inappropriate use of indicative sentences is the description of the duties of persons (of officials) or the functions of institutions. where it is not necessary to describe a person, but only to specify the action that he or she is to perform, a connecting rather than a connecting link should be used: the Council, in accordance with the principle of diversity in the representation of cultural and artistic fields and territories, selects experts by means of a public tender, who (=o they; they) provide the conclusions necessary for the adoption of Council decisions (Valstybės žinios, 2012 09 26, No. 111a5631); The President of the Chamber shall immediately inform the President of the Court, who shall appoint another Judge so that the Chamber is fully constituted. 68 The President of the Chamber shall immediately inform the President of the Court, who shall appoint another Judge so that the Chamber is fully constituted (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Official Journal L 265, 29.9.2012). Another case where the indicative sentences are not appropriate is when it is necessary to describe the sequence of actions constituting the procedure, rather than the bodies carrying out those actions: If a party to a complaint procedure disagrees with a decision taken by the Quaestors, it may request that the matter be referred to the Bureau, which shall take a final decision (Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament, Official Journal C 283, 20.10.2010). The information is also provided to the Committee of European Securities Supervisors, which transmits this information to the competent authorities of the other Member States (Directive, 30 April 2009). it is more difficult to assess cases where actions take place at the same time: the following spoke, on behalf of the EFD Group: F. E. S., who (=and; he ) justified the request; The Member spoke who said that...; The following speakers (=members who spoke) proposed...; V. B. spoke, who (=she) answered the blue card question from A. L. … Here we want to list actions, not to describe the speakers or to indicate what characteristics they have, how they differ from other members – the point is to list actions, not to specify a characteristic. Therefore, the indicative sentences are not suitable according to meaning, although the sequence of actions is not seen here, the actions take place at the same time, the principal and secondary elements are the same actor, so it is possible to use uniform adverbs or it is possible to connect the element of the sentence with a personal pronoun in a non-conjunctive connection. The stable syntax of iŠVadoO allows the language to maintain its specificity, so phenomena that endanger the syntax system must be carefully assessed. The main criterion for norming syntactic phenomena is considered systematic, other criteria are auxiliary. When evaluating the normativity of a compound sentence, recommendations are mainly given on the use of connective sentences with secondary elements of purpose, condition, time and reduction. Although there are not many recommendations for the correct use of compound conjunctive sentences, some of their formulations are often controversial and subject to different interpretations. ambiguous cases need to be examined more thoroughly, commented so that the syntax norms provided are clear and do not cause doubt to language users. R. VladaRskienė. 69 The recommendations for the use of affirmative sentences are not easy to define, because they are based on the relationship between the main and secondary elements, which can be interpreted differently. the descriptive value is the most important criterion for evaluating normativity, the sequence of actions is an auxiliary criterion, although both of these characteristics are most often characteristic of incorrect use. The recommendation on such sentences would be clearer if the cases of incorrect use were more precisely defined (e.g. description of duties, functions). liTeRaTūRa ambrazas V. 1986: Development and standardization of syntactic structure. – Language Culture 51, 66–77. būda V. 1987: Connective sentences in Lithuanian language, Vilnius: Mokslas. dlkG 2006: Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian Language. Red. Vytautas ambrazas. Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing. drukteinis a. 1994: is the language of klaipeda city newspapers correct? – Language 4-5, 4-12. H o l vo e t a. 2003: Studies of syntactic relationships. Red. axel Holvoet, artūras Judūd žen tis. Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute, 2003. Jablonskis J. (Rygiškių Jonas) 1911: Lithuanian language syntax. seines: laukaičio, dviranausko, narjausko and bvavės sp. Access via Internet: <http://www. Retrieved 2012-09-20. epaveldas.lt/vbspi/biDetails.do?biRecordId=28082>. kanckP 2007: Office Language Tips. South. Pranas screams. Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute, 2006. Accessed via Internet: <http:// lkz.mch.mii.lt/Kanceliarinis> (accessed 2012 09 20). Language practice tips. composed by aldonas Pupkis. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1985. kP s1: Language advice. kn. 2. Syntax: 1. The Use of Funnies. South. Rita Miliūnaitė, author of the text. Vitas labutis, Aldonas Pupkis and Jonas Šukys, ed. by Aldonas Pupkis. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2003. kP s2: Language advice. kn. 2. Syntax: 2. Use of prepositions and adjectives. South. Rita Miliūnaitė, authors of the text: Aldonas Pupkis and Jonas Šukys, chief editor: Aldonas Pupkis. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2003. kP s3: Language advice. kn. 2. Syntax: 3. Various things. South. Rita Miliūnaitė, author of the text. Vitas labutis and aldonas Pupkis, ed. aldonas Pupkis. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2003. labutis V. 1985: Syntax phenomena and the specificity of their codification. – Our Language 3, 9-14. lkG 1976: Lithuanian Grammar 3: Syntax. Dr. Ulrich Katz. Vilnius: Mokslas. Masaitienė J. 1999: New challenges for Lithuanian language. – Dialogas, October 29.