Sudėtinių prijungiamųjų sakinių norminimo ypatumai ir pažymimųjų sakinių vartosena

RASUOLĖ VLADARSKIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language FEATURES OF THE STANDARDIZATION OF COMPLEX SUBORDINATE SENTENCES AND THE USE OF RELATIVE CLAUSES KEYWORDS: syntax, subordinate clauses, relative clauses, standardization. Sintaksės reiškiniai kinta labai pamažu. Vytauto Ambrazo (1986: 66) nuomone, „[s]intaksinės sandaros pastovumas – būdinga ir labai svarbi kalbos ypatybė. Jeigu žodžių santykiai ir jų raiškos būdai kistų taip greitai, kaip patys žodžiai, kalbos savitumas per kelis šimtus metų išblanktų.“ Todėl suvokiant sintaksinės sistemos reikšmę kalbos pastovumui, nes „[s]intaksės normų irimas jau rodo pačios kalbos nykimą, galima sakyti, kalba baigia egzistuoti kartu su sintakse“ (Pupkis 2005: 297), sintaksės reiškinių tinkamumas lietuvių bendrinei kalbai yra nuolat svarstomas. The subject matter of syntax is very broad. Linguists mainly investigate and assess regularities in word relations, while the attention of language norm-setters is particularly drawn to the peculiarities of case and preposition use; in the process of standardization, the greatest difficulties concern what is known as microsyntax—the determination of the syntactic potential (valency of combinability) of words (Labutis 1985: 10). The relations between larger syntactic units, for example, the constituents of a compound sentence, are less often assessed from a normative perspective. This is clearly demonstrated by the size of the booklets in the Language Advice section Syntax: the first booklet is devoted to the use of cases, the second to the use of prepositions and postpositions, while the third, much thinner than the first two, addresses all the other variable syntactic phenomena. The aim of this article* is, after reviewing the basis and criteria for syntactic standardization, as well as the main issues in standardizing complex subordinate sentences, to examine in greater detail one topical case of the use of a relative clause. * This article was prepared as part of the project “A Study of the Language of European Union Documents,” funded by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language under the “2011–2020 Programme for Research into the Functioning and Change of Standard Lithuanian, Dialects and Other Language Varieties.” R. VLADARSKIENĖ. Sudėtinių prijungiamųjų sakinių norminimo ypatumai ir pažymimųjų sakinių vartosena 61 BASIS FOR THE STANDARDIZATION OF SYNTACTIC PHENOMENA Vytautas Būda (1987: 8) mano, kad „lietuvių kalbos sakinių mokslas yra kilęs XVII–XIX a. lotynų, vokiečių kalbų arba lotyniškai, vokiškai rašytų kitų kalbų gramatikų dirvoje jau vien dėl to, kad šiomis kalbomis buvo rašomos pirmosios lietuvių k. gramatikos“. Tačiau lietuvių kalbos sudėtinių prijungiamųjų sakinių norminimo pradžia reikėtų laikyti Jono Jablonskio darbus, ypač jo Lietuvių kalbos sintaksę (1911). Joje kalbininkas pateikė pirmąjį sisteminį lietuvių kalbos sintaksės aprašą, remdamasis tarmių, tautosakos, šiek tiek senųjų raštų duomenimis ir grožinės literatūros kūriniais. Pripažino, kad rašomosios kalbos pavyzdžiais „sintaksės dėsniams kelti aikšten“ naudojosi atsargiai. Taip J. Jablonskis nubrėžė tolesnę sintaksės kodifikacijos kryptį, į pirmą vietą iškeldamas grynumo kriterijų, glaudžiai siejamą su sistemiškumu. Šią knygą galima laikyti pirmuoju lietuvių kalbos sintaksės kodifikacijos darbu. As the standard language grows stronger, the criteria for its codification also change. New conditions have brought the criterion of expediency to the fore, but Vytautas Ambrazas, a researcher of the historical syntax of the Lithuanian language (1986: 69), is reluctant to assign it undue importance. He argues that syntax forms the core of the language system, and that its phenomena should primarily be assessed according to how well they conform to that system and avoid violating its rules. He considers systematicity to be the main principle of syntactic standardization, and other criteria auxiliary. Aldonas Pupkis (2005: 304) agrees, regarding systematicity as the primary condition (i.e. the principle of codification) for standardizing only those phenomena that accord with the rules (i.e. the system) of the Lithuanian language. In his view, however, distinctiveness is becoming increasingly important, as required by the functional differentiation of linguistic phenomena. Thus, in assessing whether syntactic phenomena are standard, the first step is to determine whether a phenomenon is systematic, after which other criteria are also taken into account. As already mentioned, Jonas Jablonskis was the first to describe complex sentences and classify them into types. A very detailed description of complex sentences is presented in the third volume (1976) of Grammar of the Lithuanian Language; characteristic types of complex subordinate sentences and their meanings are also described in Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian (2006). Syntactic norms are established on the basis of the syntactic descriptions presented in these works. The structure of complex sentences has become fairly stable and changes very slowly, so no major standardization problems arise. Axel Holvoet and Artūras Judžentis (2003: 99–172) took a fresh look at the foundations for describing complex subordinate sentences. Sentence structure itself changes very slowly, and therefore there is little advice on the norms for complex sentences. Rita Miliūnaitė (2003: 192) argues that, when assessing 62 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 85 Recommendations concerning the use of complex sentences chiefly address subordinate clauses with purpose, condition, time, and concessive subordinate clauses. To determine what problems arise in standardizing complex sentences, the booklet Kalbos patarimų, Sintaksė: įvairūs dalykai., was reviewed. It contains only just over 10 recommendations concerning the use of complex sentences. Most recommendations are based on the use of connecting words (conjunctions) in meanings atypical of them. These are usually calques, for example, kaip ne keista to express concession, o tai to express cause (reikia važiuoti, o tai (nes) jau vėlu), or the function word kuomet, kaip for joining temporal subordinate clauses. Inappropriate word forms (an infinitive, a half-participle, or a negative verb form) in sentences of certain structures are also criticized, as is poor word order in relative clauses when the relative clause is joined not to the word it modifies. All these cases are considered nonstandard because they do not conform to the Lithuanian language system; that is, their unsuitability for standard language is supported by the criterion of systematicity. Next, we will examine one case of the condemned use of subordinate clauses, namely, the inappropriate use of a relative clause. RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE USE OF RELATIVE CLAUSES In the third part of Kalbos patarimų, Sintaksės, Įvairūs dalykai, it is recommended not to use the conjunction kuris to express a characteristic arising from an action that occurs after the main (predicate) action, when what should be expressed is not a characteristic but the subject or object of an action: An idea arose to organize a nationwide charity event, which (=and it) began in the spring. A mushroom picker accidentally discovered the car, which (=and) reported it to the authorities (KP S3 2003: 33–34). Interpretations of this recommendation sometimes prompt considerable discussion, so it is useful to examine it in greater detail. This recommendation began to be issued in the final decades of the last century. In Aldonas Pupkis’s view (1980: 163), it is unsuitable to use relative clauses “where the subordinate clause merely indicates a second action in the sentence but does not perform an explanatory function.” This recommendation did not, however, appear in Kalbos praktikos patarimus (1985), but it is included in later sources discussing correct usage. Only 8 cases were found in the Lithuanian Language Institute’s Database of Language Recommendations in which specific instances of incorrect use of the attributive clause are discussed— R. VLADARSKIENĖ. Sudėtinių prijungiamųjų sakinių norminimo ypatumai ir pažymimųjų sakinių vartosena 63 cases of usage—the authors of the recommendations Aldonas Pupkis, Jonas Šukys, Albinas Drukteinis, Rita Šepetytė, Ramunė Vaskelaitė, and Loreta Laužikaitė. In the language advice newsletter, too, few cases of such incorrect usage are presented, not because this usage is rare—quite the contrary, it is fairly common—but apparently also because this recommendation is not very clear. Most often, inappropriate relative clauses are criticized in language reviews of various publications, where it is noted that homogeneous sentence elements expressing two successive actions should not be joined in a single subordinate clause: I read J. Biliūnas’s short stories, which (=and they...) I liked very much (Masaitienė 1999); it is emphasized that the pronoun which connects a subordinate clause to a main clause, rather than linking independent clauses that express a sequence of actions: The man ran to the pump and removed the handle, which he took home (=he took it home) (Vaskelaitė 2002); it is stated that, logically (in terms of the sequence of actions), a description in a subordinate clause cannot come later than the action in the main clause. The other premises went [...] to the Education and Youth Development Department, which (=and it) will announce a competition (Drukteinis 1994). Among the few recommendations, those offered by Jonas Šukys and KancKP should be singled out. In them, the meaning of relative clauses is highlighted as the principal criterion for why such sentences are inadvisable, while the sequence of actions is mentioned only as one of the auxiliary features. Jonas Šukys (2003: 235) mėgina populiariai paaiškinti rekomendacijos esmę: „[k]ai nekyla klausimas koks, -ia, o tikslinga pabrėžti įvykių kaitą, jų priežastingumą ar ką kita, šalutiniai pažyminio sakiniai nevartotini“. Jis pateikia konkrečių netaisyklingų sakinių bei jų taisymo būdų: Per gatvę bėgo vaikas, kuris pakliuvo po automobiliu (=ir pakliuvo po automobiliu – čia ne vaiką reikia apibūdinti, o rodyti įvykių kaitą). Kilo keli maištai, kurie buvo greitai numalšinti (= bet jie buvo greitai numalšinti – čia akcentuojame įvykių priešingumą). Tai padrąsina mažuosius, kurie nustoja bijoti (=ir jie nustoja bijoti – pabrėžiame padarinį). Dar visas gyvenimas prieš akis, kurio tau turi užtekti (= ir jo tau turi užtekti – mintis plėtojama, paremiama). Žmonės atsisako šilumos, už kurią nepajėgia susimokėti (=nes už ją nepajėgia susimokėti – čia svarbiau nurodyti priežastį). Such cases are especially numerous in administrative language, where certain procedures need to be regulated or events that have already taken place described. This has also been discussed in KancKP, which provides both correct and incorrect sentences with the pronoun kuris and attempts to draw a line between correct and erroneous usage. It states that kuris is used to join subordinate clauses to main clauses when the subordinate clause specifies the word with which the pronoun agrees— 64 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 85 dis: The committee members who drafted the resolution are invited to the meeting. The KancKP recommendation on the sequence of actions, that is, on earlier and later time, is no longer discussed. The defining feature used as the main criterion for deciding that a relative clause is unsuitable is given as the characteristic (explanatory) meaning of the subordinate clause—to explain a word in the main clause. An additional criterion is that the subordinate clause in a complex sentence does not explain the main clause but merely states another action. Clauses with this meaning are linked by coordination and begin with pronouns: Applications concerning personnel matters are not included in this group of documents, which (=they) must be registered separately; cf. Applications thatare assigned to the category of applications concerning personnel matters are registered separately. A list of addressees is drawn up, which (=and it) is attached to the copy retained by the institution (it is not the list that is attached, but the list that has been drawn up). A review of recommendations on the non-recommended use of relative clauses reveals two main criteria used when correcting such sentences: 1) semantic—the characteristic relative meaning is absent, 2) logical—a later action cannot describe an earlier one. The logical criterion is clear, but the meanings of subordinating relative clauses should be examined in greater detail. In the Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian (2006: 675–676), three types of meaning are identified in the relations between the clauses of relative sentences: 1) restrictive, when the subordinate clause characterizes the object or person denoted by the antecedent, distinguishing it from other similar objects or persons; 2) qualitative, when the subordinate clause qualitatively characterizes the object denoted by the antecedent; 3) narrative—the subordinate clause makes a new assertion about the entity denoted by the antecedent: Long, long ago there lived a man whose wife had died (Lithuanian Folk Tales); He walked straight toward the sunset, in whose dense crimson glow he himself and the trees were submerged (Katiliškis); A song came from Pamūšis, which now seemed new to the old man (Paukštelis). Tokios pačios reikšmės pateikiamos ir Lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje (1976: 827), tik čia kalbant apie pasakojamąją reikšmę dar patikslinama, kad šalutinis dėmuo pažymimojo žodžio sąvokos neišskiria ir kokybiškai neapibūdina, bet pasako su ja susijusį naują teigimą (naratyvinė, arba pasakojamoji, reikšmė): Apie vienuoliktą valandą atėjo gražus ponas, kuris sako: „Einam, merga, šokt“ (Lietuvių liaudies sakmės). Narrative relative clauses are very similar to the case under discussion, which is considered nonstandard, because the subordinate clause makes a new assertion about the entity denoted by the antecedent. The boundary between stan- R. VLADARSKIENĖ. Sudėtinių prijungiamųjų sakinių norminimo ypatumai ir pažymimųjų sakinių vartosena 65 dard and nonstandard usage becomes very unclear. Consequently, it would be difficult to regard the subordinating relative clause whose use is discouraged as wholly incompatible with the system of relative clauses in Lithuanian. Of course, it should be borne in mind that narrative relative clauses are more characteristic of a specific genre—narrative folklore—and that such cases are not very common in general usage. The spread of relative clauses with this structure in contemporary standard language is apparently also due to the influence of other languages. Ramunė Vaskelaitė (2003) noted this while reviewing a translation from Italian. She writes that in Italian, sentences are usually linked by the pronoun which when the verb denotes an action time later than the time of the action expressed by the verb in the main clause; in Lithuanian, this conjunction is not needed in such cases: […] from there sprang a nimble chick, which (=it) bowed gracefully and began to speak; he held a thick whip, plaited from snakes’ and foxes’ tails, with which (=and with it) he kept cracking it without pause. Such influence from other languages is also evident in administrative language when European Union documents are translated into Lithuanian. RELATIVE CLAUSES IN ADMINISTRATIVE LANGUAGE Administrative language should also preserve the most characteristic meanings of subordinate clauses. Most often, the subordinate clauses of relative sentences here qualify or describe the nouns or their substitutes in the main clause. They indicate what distinguishes the noun in the main clause (or the pronouns replacing it), and what characteristic is typical of it; for example, they describe the content of a document: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council, which establishes the Union Customs Code; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 858/2012 of 2 September 2012, which establishes export refunds for eggs; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council, which partially amends Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 on European statistics. However, a subordinate clause is unsuitable when the document is not being described, but rather the actions performed in relation to it are being specified: The notifying parties reiterated their request, which (=but it) was ultimately rejected (Hearing Officer’s Final Report. Official Journal C 195, 2012 07 03); On the basis of these consultations, the EU prepared a revised draft, which (=and this; it) was presented at a meeting held in Vienna on 5 June 2012 (=On the basis of these consultations, the EU prepared a revised draft. It was presented at a meeting held in Vienna on 5 June 66 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 85 2012, held in Vienna) (Half-yearly Progress Report. Official Journal C 237, 2012 08 07). When assessing whether relative clauses are normatively correct, it is also worth noting that administrative language may describe generalized or specific actions (that have occurred or are yet to occur). The latter cases are clearer: it is easier here to establish the sequence of actions, especially when specific dates are given: On 6 December 2001, the Hellenic Republic applied to the conciliation body, which (=and it; it) delivered its opinion on 25 April 2002 (Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 July 2012. Case T-86/08); The remainder of the year was spent preparing for the accession of the sixteenth member, Slovakia, which (=and it) formally took place on 1 January 2009 (Commission notice, 2009 02 23). Such sentences are undoubtedly incorrect. Indeed, the sequence of actions can be a useful guide when determining whether a relative clause is normatively correct: successive actions should be linked by coordination: The first EU representative in this country was appointed, who (=and he) focused on Somalia and uncontrolled piracy in the region during his first consultation (Commission report to the Council and the European Parliament COM/2012/0444); The applicant submits, first of all, that the Commission’s power to impose a fine on an undertaking [...] expired when Decision of 29 November 2006 (C (2006) 5700 final) was adopted, which (=and this) 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 (=the latter) is currently under appeal before the Court of Justice (Case T-241/12. Official Journal C 227, 2012 07 28). More complex temporal relations between actions arise when generalized actions are discussed and certain procedures are laid down: A Member State wishing to introduce measures derogating from the provisions of the aforementioned directive must obtain authorization from the Council, which (=and it; it) is granted by a Council decision (Commission proposal for a Council Decision amending Implementing Decision 2009/1008/EC of 30/11, 2012 11 30). One of the more frequent cases of incorrect use of relative clauses is the description of people’s (officials’) duties or institutions’ functions. When there is no need to describe a person, but only to specify the action that person is required to perform, coordination rather than subordination should be used: Guided by the principle of diversity in the representation of cultural and artistic fields and regions, the Council selects experts through a public competition, who (=and they; they) provide the findings needed for the adoption of Council decisions (Valstybės žinios, 2012 09 26, No. 111-5631); The President of the Chamber shall immediately inform the President of the Court, who (=and the latter) appoints another judge so that the Chamber may sit in full composition R. VLADARSKIENĖ. Sudėtinių prijungiamųjų sakinių norminimo ypatumai ir pažymimųjų sakinių vartosena 67 composition (=The President of the Chamber shall immediately inform the President of the Court. The latter shall appoint another judge so that the Chamber may sit in full composition (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice. Official Journal L 265, 2012 09 29). Another case in which relative clauses are unsuitable is when a consecutive sequence of the actions making up a procedure needs to be presented, rather than describing the institutions carrying them out: If a party to the complaints procedure disagrees with a decision adopted by the Quaestors, it may request that the matter be referred to the Bureau for consideration, which (=and the latter) takes a final decision (Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament. Official Journal C 283, 2010 10 20); Information is also provided to the Committee of European Securities Regulators, which (=and it; it) forwards this information to the competent authorities of the other Member States (Directive, 2009 04 30). It is more difficult to assess cases in which actions occur simultaneously: E. E. S. spoke on behalf of the EFD Group, who (=and; he) explained the request; A Member spoke, who (=and; he) said that …; Members then spoke, who (=the members who spoke) made a proposal …; V. B. spoke, who (=she) answered A. L.’s question, asked after a blue card was raised… Here the intention is to list actions, not to describe the members who spoke or indicate what characteristics they have or how they differ from other members—the point is to enumerate actions, not to describe a characteristic. Therefore, relative clauses are semantically inappropriate, even though no sequence of actions is apparent here: the actions occur simultaneously, and the subject of the main and subordinate clauses is the same. Thus, coordinated predicates are possible, or the clause can be attached without a conjunction by means of a personal pronoun used as a substitute. CONCLUSIONS A stable language syntax creates the conditions for preserving the distinctiveness of a language; therefore, phenomena that pose a threat to the syntactic system must be assessed carefully. Systematicity is considered the principal criterion for standardizing syntactic phenomena; the other criteria are auxiliary. In assessing the normativity of complex sentences, most of the recommendations provided concern the use of subordinate clauses with purpose, condition, time, and concession clauses. Although there are not many recommendations on the correct use of complex sentences with subordinate clauses, some of their formulations often provoke discussion and are interpreted in various ways. Unclear cases must be examined and commented on more thoroughly so that the syntactic norms presented are clear and do not raise doubts among language users. 68 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 85 Recommendations on the use of attributive clauses are not easily defined, because they are based on the relationship between the meanings of the main and subordinate clauses, and this relationship may be interpreted differently. The most important criterion in assessing normativity is descriptive meaning; the sequence-of-actions criterion is auxiliary, although both of these features are usually characteristic of incorrect usage. A recommendation concerning such sentences would be clearer if cases of incorrect usage (e.g., descriptions of duties and functions) were defined more precisely. LITERATŪRA Ambrazas V. 1986: Sintaksinės sandaros raida ir norminimas. – Kalbos kultūra 51, 66–77. Būda V. 1987: Lietuvių kalbos prijungiamieji sakiniai, Vilnius: Mokslas. DLKG 2006: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Red. Vytautas Ambrazas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Drukteinis A. 1994: Ar taisyklinga Klaipėdos miesto laikraščių kalba? – Gimtoji kalba 4–5, 4–12. Holvoet A. 2003: Sintaksinių ryšių tyrimai. Red. Axel Holvoet, Artūras Judžentis. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2003. Jablonskis J. (Rygiškių Jonas) 1911: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė. Seinai: Laukaičio, Dvaranausko, Narjausko ir b-vės sp. Prieiga per internetą: <http://www.epaveldas.lt/vbspi/biDetails.do?biRecordId=28082> (žiūrėta 2012 09 20). KancKP 2007: Kanceliarinės kalbos patarimai. Sud. Pranas Kniūkšta. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, internetinis leidimas. Prieiga per internetą: <http://lkz.mch.mii.lt/Kanceliarinis> (žiūrėta 2012 09 20). Kalbos praktikos patarimai. Sudarė Aldonas Pupkis. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1985. KP S1: Kalbos patarimai. Kn. 2. Sintaksė: 1. Linksnių vartojimas. Sud. Rita Miliūnaitė, teksto aut. Vitas Labutis, Aldonas Pupkis ir Jonas Šukys, vyr. red. Aldonas Pupkis. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2003. KP S2: Kalbos patarimai. Kn. 2. Sintaksė: 2. Prielinksnių ir polinksnių vartojimas. Sud. Rita Miliūnaitė, teksto aut. Aldonas Pupkis ir Jonas Šukys, vyr. red. Aldonas Pupkis. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2003. KP S3: Kalbos patarimai. Kn. 2. Sintaksė: 3. Įvairūs dalykai. Sud. Rita Miliūnaitė, teksto aut. Vitas Labutis ir Aldonas Pupkis, vyr. red. Aldonas Pupkis. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2003. Labutis V. 1985: Sintaksės reiškiniai ir jų kodifikacijos specifika. – Mūsų kalba 3, 9–14. LKG 1976: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 3: Sintaksė. Vyr. red. Kazys Ulvydas. Vilnius: Mokslas. Masaitienė J. 1999: Nauji išbandymai lietuvių kalbai. – Dialogas, spalio 29. R. VLADARSKIENĖ. Sudėtinių prijungiamųjų sakinių norminimo ypatumai ir pažymimųjų sakinių vartosena 69 Miliūnaitė R. 2003: Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos norminimo pagrindai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Pupkis A. 1980: Kalbos kultūros pagrindai, Vilnius: Mokslas. Pupkis A. 2005: Kalbos kultūros studijos, Vilnius: Gimtasis žodis. Šukys J. 2003: Kalbos kultūra visiems, Kaunas: Šviesa. Vaskelaitė R. 2002: L. Frank Baum. Amerikiečių pasakos. Recenzija. – Gimtoji kalba 7–8, 17–20. Vaskelaitė R. 2003: Recenzija. – Gimtoji kalba 6, 23. Gauta 2012 12 10 PECULIARITIES OF CODIFICATION OF SUBORDINATE CLAUSES AND THE USAGE OF ATTRIBUTIVE CLAUSES Summary The article provides an overview of the basis and the criteria of syntax codification as well as the main issues of codification of complex sentences and raises the problem of evaluation of some topical cases of attributive clause usage. In evaluating the conformity of complex sentences with the norm, recommendations about usage of the attributive clauses of purpose, condition, time and concession are given. There are not so many correct usage recommendations regarding subordinate clauses, but some formulations in these recommendations quite often cause discussion and are differently interpreted. Unsettled cases ought to be discussed more thoroughly and commented on so that the proposed norms of syntax would be clear and would not raise doubts for language users. Usage recommendations for attributive clauses are not so easy to define, because they are based on the relation of meaning of the main and the subordinate clauses and such relation can be interpreted differently. The definable meaning is the main criterion of evaluation of conformity with the norm, the criterion of the sequence of actions is subsidiary, though most often both of these features are common in incorrect usage. Recommendations about such sentences would be clearer if the cases of incorrect usage were more precisely defined (for instance description of duties or functions). KEYWORDS: syntax, subordinate clauses, attributive clauses, codification. RASUOLĖ VLADARSKIENĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius [email protected] 70 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 85