Prieraišus, prieraišumas valentingumas dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) kalboje

LORETA VALČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language ORCID id: orcid.org/0000-0003-2196-8937 Research fields: morphosyntax, valency, semantics, typology. DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all88-09 ADJECTIVE VALENCY OF PRIERAIŠUS, PRIERAIŠUMAS IN CONTEMPORARY LITHUANIAN (WRITTEN) LANGUAGE Valency of the Adjective prieraišus and the Noun prieraišumas in Contemporary Lithuanian (Written) Language ABSTRACT The subject of this article is the adjective prieraišus and its nominal derivative (prieraišumas). The aim is to clarify the valency-related combinability of these predicates on the basis of material from the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language (DLKT). The study showed that, in a sentence, the semantics and grammar of predicates from the minimal lexical semantic field influence the expression of the indirect object of prieraišus and prieraišumas. It became clear that the norm is disregarded and there is a tendency to mark the indirect object of prieraišumas with the dative, especially with words denoting an inanimate thing. KEYWORDS: valency, adjective prieraišus, adjectival noun, lexical semantic field. ANNOTATION The object of the article is the adjective prieraišus and its noun derivative (prieraišumas). The aim is to find out the combinability of these predicates from the perspective of valency based on the material from the Corpus of Contemporary Lithuanian Language. The research revealed that the expression of the indirect object of prieraišus and prieraišumas is influenced by the semantics and grammar of the predicates from the minimal lexical semantic field. It appeared that the norm is disregarded, and there is a tendency to express Straipsniai / Articles 181 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ the indirect object of priera išumas in the dative case, especially when it is used with the words denoting an inanimate thing. KEYWORDS: valency, adjective attached, adjectival noun, lexical semantic field. 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS The aim of this article is, drawing on the concept of the verbocentric sentence model and the principles of valency theory, to examine the valency of the adjective prieraišus and its nominal derivative prieraišumas and to establish what influences it. To achieve this aim, the following tasks are set: on the basis of examples from the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language (DLKT), briefly discuss the valency, from semantic, syntactic, and lexical perspectives, of the words belonging to the minimal lexical semantic field of the adjective prieraišus and its nominal derivative (see Sections 2–5); examine the valency of prieraišus, prieraišumas and consider whether, and what, influence the valencies of predicates from the lexical semantic field exert on it (see Section 6); and summarize everything (see Section 7). As far as is known, the valency of prieraišus, prieraišumas has not been examined from this perspective. The research methods applied are interpretation, descriptive analysis, grammatical analysis, and semantic analysis. Examples with different forms of the words examined in the article were collected¹ from the DLKT by entering a word stem, e.g. prieraiš, prisiriš, lipšn and so on, in the extended-search field and selecting the “begins with” criterion. The examples were not classified according to functional styles. The exact number of examples examined is given below when the valency of the particular predicate is discussed. Having selected prieraišus, prieraišumas for examination from the perspective of valency, it should be said that valency is a property determined by a word’s meaning to open a certain number of free positions, which in a sentence or word combination are occupied by words and their forms, or their equivalents, with certain meanings (see Sližienė 1994: 16; Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė 2001: 19, 46 and the literature cited there). Valency is associated with three levels: the abstract level of logical semantics and two concrete levels of language—syntax and lexical semantics. At the level of logical semantics, the number of a word’s free positions and the semantic functions of their possible actants are established; at the syntactic level, the grammatical form and the obligatory or optional status of valency-bearing actants are established; at the level of lexical semantics, the semantics of valency-bearing actants is established. In addition to valency-bearing syntactic actants, whose obligatory or optional status is determined in the sentence, the following are distinguished ¹ The DLKT examples for the study were collected in February 2023. 182 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Valency of prieraišus, prieraišumas in contemporary Lithuanian (written) language free members—sentence words that are not conditioned by a word’s meaning and do not belong to its valency. Free members do not fill the free positions opened by a predicate; their connection with the predicate is determined by its purely grammatical capacity, characteristic of the relevant part of speech, to attach other words and their forms (Sližienė 1994: 35). Obligatory syntactic actants cannot be omitted from a sentence, since omitting them makes the sentence ungrammatical. Obligatory syntactic actants describe the part of the situation that is most important and relevant to the word’s meaning (ibid., 31). Optional syntactic actants are those that can be omitted from a sentence while the sentence remains grammatical and comprehensible. Sentences without optional actants mean approximately the same as those with them, since optional actants are implied in the word’s meaning itself (ibid., 35). The Description of the Valency of Lithuanian Adjectives makes it clear that, on the basis of the empirical material available, the adjective prераišus, –i² ‘quickly and easily attaching oneself’ has two syntactic valency structures: in one case, the actant corresponding to the subject is marked by the nominative, while the indirect object is marked by the dative; in the other case, the indirect object is expressed by a construction with the preposition prie and the genitive, with the subject in the aforementioned nominative (Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė 2001: 65, 79, 84). In a sentence, the syntactic actant functioning as the indirect object, which is marked variably, is optional. In both cases, the semantic valency of prераišus is the same: the subject corresponds to the percipient³, while the indirect object corresponds to the content⁴ (see 1, 2). In brief, the syntactic valency of the bivalent prераišus is Nom, Dat / prie Gen, and the semantic valency is [Pcp, Con]. Semantically, this adjective (see 1), like prieplai­kus (see 3, cf. 4) or others (abejingas, jautrus, ištikimas, etc.) (see 5, 6), belongs to the group of adjectives denoting a person’s attitude toward something, their mental disposition toward it (Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė 2001: 79). 1) He is strong-willed and would be very prераišus to his family. (cited from Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė 2001: 79) 2) This mare was not as prераiši to one place as Bėris. (cited from Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė 2001: 84) 3) Martynienė is slow and quiet, prieplai­ki to her acquaintances, and most of all to her husband. (cited from Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė 2001: 79) ² In the rest of the article, when different genders of this or another adjective are discussed in general terms, only the masculine form—the unmarked gender of the adjective—is given. ³ Percipient [Pcp]—the function of an experiencer of a mental state, characteristic of living beings that perceive things in reality, have a certain disposition toward them, and react to them psychologically (Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė 2001: 32; Sližienė 1994: 21). ⁴ Content [Con]—the function of the content of a state or property, characteristic of various things and phenomena (Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė 2001: 32, cf. Sližienė 1994: 22). Straipsniai / Articles 183 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ 4) The man is rarely truly prieplaukus to the patient. (cited from Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė 2001: 84) 5) The man looked quietly from afar, seeming completely abejingas tam to what was happening around him. (cited from Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė 2001: 79) 6) But poets, like hanged men, are ištikimi to their nature. (cited from Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė 2001: 79) In cases where the adjective prieplaukus, abejingas, ištikimas or the like describes one person’s sympathy, favor, or antipathy toward another person, a different valency is assigned to the adjective: the subject corresponding to the percipient is expressed by the nominative or by another case determined by the agreement controller⁵, while the indirect object corresponding to the beneficiary⁶ is marked by the dative (see 7, 8). Admittedly, this semantic valency of the adjective prieplaukus ([Pcp, B]) is illustrated by the same example 3 (Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė 2001: 80). Comparing examples 1–4 with examples 5–8 shows that the predicate’s semantic valency structures—[Pcp, Con] and [Pcp, B]—are distinguished with regard to the lexical semantics of the word functioning as the indirect object (a living being (person) resp. a thing). Accordingly, the indirect object in examples 1, 3, and 4 is to be interpreted as a beneficiary, whereas in example 2 it is a content. 7) Kristina is still not entirely abejinga to Mr Petras. (cited according to Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė 2001: 80) 8) Why do you terrorize and arrest people loyal to us? (cited according to Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė 2001: 80) According to the principal Lithuanian dictionaries, the adjective discussed in the article, prieraišus, is related to the verbs prisirišti, atsid uoti. More specifically, in the Dictionary of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language (DLKŽe), the adjective prieraišus is defined as ‘quickly and easily attaching oneself’, whereas in the academic Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (LKŽe) it is defined as ‘1. one who attaches oneself strongly, devotes oneself’. The illustrative examples provided in the dictionaries describe an attached living being (a person or animal) (see 1). The valency of the adjective prieraišus is first of all related to the meanings and valency of the key words mentioned in its meaning—the verbs pri(si)rišti, atsid uoti—and their ⁵ For more on agreement, the concepts of the agreement controller and agreement target relied on here, see Semėnienė (2003: 38–42). ⁶ Beneficiary [B]—the function of an addressee or possessor, characteristic mainly of living beings, especially persons, for whose benefit or detriment something is or becomes (Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė 2001: 32, cf. Sližienė 1994: 21). 184 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII Valency of prieraišus, prieraišumas in contemporary Lithuanian (written) language in terms of valency⁷. Nijolė Sližienė’s Dictionary of Lithuanian Verb Government (LKVJŽ) (Sližienė 1998: 309) makes it clear that the transitive (pririšti ‘to fasten to something’ has two different valencies: the tetravalent (pri)rišti requires, for example, an agentive⁸ subject marked by the nominative, a patient⁹ direct object expressed by the accusative, an instrument expressed by the instrumental, and an indirect object fulfilling the function of an endpoint¹⁰, expressed by a construction with the preposition prie (see 9). The trivalent (pri)rišti opens a place in the sentence for the actants of an agentive subject, a patient, and an endpoint object (see 10). In her notes, the author of LKVJŽ (Sližienė 1998: 309) writes: “Sometimes, with this meaning, the verb rišti (pririšti) is also used according to the model Nom Acc Dat [A₁ P B], e.g.: And how many times has he already told Kalpokas to tie the shaft to her (the sow) Krv. Sometimes, instead of prieGen, the construction antGen may be used, e.g.: They tied a piece of meat to my back”. 9) The robbers [...] tied Greitutė with spider threads to a sturdy stalk of grass. (cited from Sližienė 1998: 309) 10) One boy tied a white handkerchief to a stick. (cited from Sližienė 1998: 309) Rita Miliūnaitė (2022: 408) draws attention to the fact that, from the perspective of language culture, the indirect object with prisirišti, prisirišimas must be expressed by a construction with the preposition prie, whereas the non-normative dative is an obsolete (psn.) phenomenon. It is clear from LKŽe that prisirišti means ‘12. to approach something, to cling to it with claims’ (All he does is look for something to cling to Alks.) or is related to the meaning of the transitive pririšti ‘10. to accustom, attract’ (Terribly attached to his mother [child] Ėr.). In DLKŽe, prisirišti is distinguished as ‘2. to become closely attached¹¹, devote oneself’ (That child is more attached to his father). In the meaning of the adjective prieraišus, the atsiduo­ti made explicit in LKŽe is defined in DLKŽe as ‘1. to devote oneself, dedicate oneself’ (He devoted himself to science). In LKŽe, the semantics of the verb atsiduo­ti is associated with the meaning of the transitive atiduoti ‘5. to entrust, assign’ (cf. The son died; he will have to entrust life to his daughter (the farm); Into your hands ⁷ For discussion of how the valency of an individual lexeme may be related to the semantic and syntactic valency and semantic network of the essential words expressed in its meaning, see Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė (2020). ⁸ Agent [A₁]—the function of an initiator or performer of an action, characteristic of living beings (Sližienė 1994: 19). ⁹ Patient [P]—the function of the recipient of an action’s effect or the holder of a state (Sližienė 1994: 20). ¹⁰ Endpoint [Ad]—a function “characteristic of a thing perceived as an endpoint toward which or to which an agent or affected object moves and upon reaching which the action no longer takes place” (Sližienė 1994: 24). ¹¹ Cf. the valency of the verb pritapti ‘to adjust, adapt’ (Sližienė 1998: 265) in the sentences: He [P] quickly adapted to people [Con]; The villager [P] could not adapt to our way of life [Con]. Straipsniai / Articles 185 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ gave up our souls and bodies PK32.) and by its shades of meaning: ‘to rely on, entrust oneself to, trust (Are we to entrust ourselves to the mercy of some son-in-law in our old age? V. Krėv.), ‘to devote, dedicate oneself (He is very devoted to science Sb.). LKVJŽ contains no entry for the verb atsiduoti. Worth mentioning is the synonymous atsidėti ‘to devote oneself, to dedicate all one’s efforts’ provided in LKVJŽ (Sližienė 1994: 128), whose semantic function of the indirect object marked by the dative depends on the lexical valency of the valency-bearing actant. When the indirect object is a word denoting an abstract matter, the dative corresponds to a goal (He [Pcp] devoted himself to science [Fin] (cf. to study)), whereas when the indirect object denotes a living being (±Anim), the dative corresponds to a beneficiary (She [Pcp] devoted herself to her family and home [B]). It should also be mentioned that, according to Antanas Lyberis’s Dictionary of Synonyms (SŽe), the adjective atsidavęs is synonymous with the adjective ištikimas. The latter requires the dative. The SŽe also makes clear that the adjectives prieraišus and prieplaikus are synonyms. Thus, the valency of prieraišus (prieraišumas) may likewise be influenced by the semantics and grammar of the adjective prieplaikus (prieplaikumas). According to DLKŽe, the adjective prieplaikus means ‘amiable, friendly’, while in LKŽe it is described as ‘amiable, attached, friendly’. The connection between the adjective draugiškas and the prieraišus under examination is also evident in J. Paulauskas’s Systematic Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (SisŽe): prielai­pus, prieraišus, prieplaikus are listed in the semantic field of friendliness, which also contains the aforementioned prisirišti. In SisŽe, the verb atsiduoti belongs to the semantic field of obedience. It is likely that the valency of the adjectives lipšnus (to whom / to what¹²) and draugiškas (to whom / with whom¹³) may also be relevant to the valency of prieraišus discussed in the article (see below). The valency of the abstract prieraišumas could be similar to that of the base prieraišus. On the other hand, Jonas Šukys (1998: 155) states that “[a]bstract derivatives of adjectives with the suffix -umas, formed from adjectives that do not take the dative, generally do not require a case (except for the genitive of a weakly governed attribute or agent), so their combinations with the dative are impossible and must be strictly corrected—by omitting the case or the adjectival noun, or in some other way. […] All this attests to people’s attachment to their land (= attachment to their land; more vividly, as people are attached to their land. Thus, the indirect object of the noun ¹² The bivalent lipšnus syntactic valency Nᴅ, Dat corresponds to the semantic valency [Pcp, B], e.g. Ksaveras was rarely very amiable, kissing hands and cuddling like a kitten Vaižg. (Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė 2001: 80). The bivalent lipšnus, which requires a prie construction, alongside lipnus ‘amiable’, prieplaikus ‘amiable, friendly’, etc., is not mentioned because of a lack of illustrative examples (ibid., 84). Cf. the valency of the verb (pri)lipti ‘to be attracted, become attached, draw close’ in LKVJŽ (Sližienė 1994: 399). ¹³ In the Description of the Valency of Lithuanian Adjectives (Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė 2001), the valency of the adjective draugiškas is not discussed. 186 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Valency of preraišus, prieraišumas in contemporary Lithuanian (written) language the object of prieraišumas should be marked only by a construction with the preposition prie. Discussing prepositional prie constructions expressing an object with verbs of habituation, attachment, joining, belonging, and so on, J. Šukys (1998: 477) writes: “There is a tendency to use priklausyti, priskirti prie when prie is followed by more abstract nouns. When belonging to a person or persons, or to a state, is meant, only the dative is chosen, cf. That land belonged to my father,” but “If [he/she] does not belong to any organization (cf. any organization).” From what has been briefly said, it is clear that the expression of the indirect object of prieraišus (prieraišumas), as an optional valency-bearing actant, may be influenced not only by the base word (prisirišti prie ko), but also by the valencies of other words belonging to the minimal lexical semantic field of prieraišus (atsiduoti, atsidavęs, draugiškas, lipšnus, prieplaikus). Several assumptions are proposed: the expression of the indirect object of the divalent prieraišus, prieraišumas is influenced by (i) the valency of the base word; (ii) the lexical valency of the actant (living being resp. thing); (iii) the semantics and grammar of predicates from the lexical semantic field of prieraišus. Since there are no DLKT examples with different forms of the synonymous prieplaikus, prieplaikumas, they are not discussed further. 2. VALENCY OF DIFFERENT FORMS OF PRISIRIŠTI AND PRISIRIŠIMAS Of the 1,200 DLKT examples in which different finite and non-finite forms of the verb prisirišti are used and the indirect object is expressed in the sentence, leaving aside examples such as 11–16 (cf. 9, 10) and examining 500 examples of the type of 17–21, it can be seen that in the latter the indirect object is expressed by a construction with the preposition prie. Examples 17 and 18, which describe a close relationship between living beings, show that the obligatory actants of divalent prisirišti are expressed in the sentence by a percipient subject and a beneficiary indirect object. By analogy with examples 5 and 6, in sentences 19–21 the subject corresponds to the percipient, while the indirect object marked by the prie construction corresponds to the content. 11) [Mykolas tied those alder brooms to his forearms, crossed himself, and shouted: I’m flying! 12) The professor, so as not to press the accelerator instead of the brake, tied one leg to the seat. 13) Then she helps the young queen tie a baby to her chest [...]. 14) They [the women] [...] tried to tie you (cf. to themselves) for life. 15) I must tie myself (cf. myself) to the post, because I may fall on all fours. Straipsniai / Articles 187 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ 16) The butterfly girl still [the girl Peteliškė] is attached (cf. to herself / to her own self) to the butterfly’s wings—similar to those with which primary-school children playing angels in school performances adorn themselves. 17) Around the eighth month of life, the child attaches to its mother. 18) He [the ferret] is extremely playful, attached to his family, and gentle. 19) We Lithuanians, are very attached to our native land. 20) People are industrious and settled, attached to eternal traditional values. 21) Most of all, apparently, I am not attached to love, but rather to thoughts and divided time. In examples 22–23, a different kind of attachment is actualized in the situation described: the divalent prisirišti is semantically associated with attraction as dependence (cf. Sližienė 1998: 240). This influences the semantic valency of prisirišti: the subject marked by the nominative is characterized not so much by the semantic function of a percipient as by that of a patient, while the indirect object expressed by the prie construction corresponds to the content. At the very least, a two-layered¹⁴—percipient–patient—semantic function of the subject must be recognized here. The subject corresponding to the patient is illustrated by examples 24 and 25, in which the prisirišti actant is expressed not by a living being but by a word denoting an abstract thing. 22) But alcohol may or may not be there for me; I [am not attached to it]. — And what are you attached to? — Attachment is a very bad thing. It means that you are not free. In this life one should not be attached to anything. 23) The Aztecs tended to consume chocolate far more diversely than we, being so strongly attached to sweet drinks. 24) Realizing that the innate disposition was too attached to the harmful rules of the present, she first decided to remain silent for a week. 25) It [traditional philosophy] is attached to being and does not raise the question of the condition of the possibility of being—to be. An examination of 500 DLKT examples with different forms of the verbal noun prisirišimas shows that, in cases where the noun’s prisirišimas indirect object is expressed in the sentence, it is usually marked by a construction with the preposition prie (see 26–28). In four examples, the culturally inappropriate dative of the indirect object was used (Šukys 1998: 155–156) (see 29–30). The subject corresponds to the percipient, while the indirect object corresponds to the beneficiary (26, cf. 27) or the content (27–30). 26) The child’s attachment to the mother is a characteristic type of attachment. It is the establishment of close ties between mother and newborn during childbirth. ¹⁴ For more on two-layered semantic functions, see Drukteinis (2009). 188 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Valency of prieraišus, prіeraіšumas in contemporary Lithuanian (written) language 27) But it also does not lose sight of the essence of Lithuania: people’s attachment to the land, animals, peacefulness, and calm. 28) Its [Moscow’s] inactivity and attachment to the old did not satisfy it. 29) Values are revalued, and whoever does not wish to revalue their own because of attachment to the old should not avert their eyes from those already revalued. 30) In their [the villagers’] hearts, love, respect, and attachment to the elders’ land, to their way of life, traditions grew stronger. In a sentence, an indirect object marked by the dative may be interpreted as valentially related to two different predicates. For example, in sentence 31, savo vyrui may be associated both with the noun prisirišimas and with the indirect object of the verb išreikšti (kam). Tolesnis kontekstas rodo, kad šiame pavyzdyje yra klaidingai žymimas prisirišimo kaip artimo ryšio15. 31) But she did not correct herself: well, let it be, because she uttered it this way absentmindedly, wishing the person no harm, merely expressing her attachment to her husband. After that she called the guest Kostas several more times in this way. On the basis of examples 22 and 23, it can be claimed that in examples 32–33 the implicit subject of the bivalent attachment has the role of patient, whereas the indirect object marked by the prepositional prie construction has the function of content. The fact that the subject of attachment can semantically be associated with a benefactive is shown by the context of example 34. 32) Attachment to alcohol or drugs: * consumes all your desires, * you become a complete slave to these temptations, * pushes you into poverty. 33) However, bran contains all these necessary substances, while white sifted wheat flour does not. Therefore, excessive attachment to buns and loaves is harmful to health. 34) He was particularly successful in construction—the R. Steinkros company prided itself on being among the ten largest construction organizations in New York. The prosperous entrepreneur’s attachment to the “State” university was determined more by personal interests than by great love for Alma Mater institutions. From what has been said about the valency of prisirišti and prisirišimas, it is clear that when attachment as a feeling is predicated of a living being, the subject corresponds to a percipient (She relates that when creating the logo she relied most on emotions: she tried to connect such feelings as longing, attachment to her home and loved ones, love of the homeland, and... (DLKT)); when attachment as dependence or habit on the part of a living being is meant, a patient subject is actualized (Who “attaches themselves” to the screen, 15 Cf. the DLKT example: Closeness to the native land for A. Miškinas means attachment to folk culture and customs. Straipsniai / Articles 189 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ it lacks movement and active interaction with things and people (DLKT)). Sometimes a benefactive subject can also be discerned by extension. Usually, the indirect object marked by the prepositional prie construction corresponds to a benefactive or content. 3. VALENCY OF DIFFERENT FORMS OF LIPŠNUS AND LIPŠNUMAS Based on the examples provided by LKŽ, the indirect object of the adjective lipšnus, used in the meaning ‘affectionate, pleasant, polite’, is marked by the dative or by a prepositional prie construction (see 35, 36). The latter expression is determined by the syntactic valency of the base word (lipti prie ko), whereas the dative is apparently selected according to the valency of the words meilus, malonus (‘affectionate, pleasant’) stated in the definition of lipšnus (kam / su kuo) (cf. DLKŽe). 35) Ksaveras was affectionate toward his aunt, kissed her hands, and cuddled up like a kitten Vaižg. 36) He was a terrible contrarian and affectionate toward no one BsMtII98. A review of the 200 DLKT examples containing different forms of lipš-nus showed that the indirect object is stated in the sentence rarely—only in 10 examples. The indirect object expressed by the dative (see 37, 38) or by a prepositional su construction (see 39, 40) corresponds to a benefactive, while the subject marked by the nominative corresponds to a percipient. 37) Lūšius was extraordinarily friendly, in need of love, and affectionate toward people. 38) When drunk, she would often beat up Ženka Čiuptuvas, sometimes very badly, but after sobering up she would be to her friend sweet and affectionate again. Where else could she find a better place? No one wanted to buy her love anymore, while Ženka Čiuptuvas was not stingy when he managed to steal a thick wallet. 39) This is how much he accomplished during the war, and in peacetime he was just in court, noble in friendship, accommodating with his neighbors, affectionate with his family, indifferent to his own property, caring about the state’s welfare, forgiving toward the guilty, and generous toward the poor. 40) Vytautas did not like that Jonas had suddenly become terribly affectionate with that truly excellently built, apparently much younger than her husband, dark-haired, brown-eyed woman who, to tell the truth, did not look oppressed by household concerns. The 50 DLKT examples with different forms of lipšnumas likewise show that the indirect object is stated in the sentence rarely. In three examples it is expressed by the dative (see 41–43), and in one by a prepositional su construction (see 44). 190 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Valency of prie raišus, prie raišumas in contemporary Lithuanian (written) language As in sentences with lipšnus, the semantic valency is [Pcp, B], with the indirect object being a lexeme denoting a living being (person). 41) The girls would sacrifice themselves—sweetness to the point of nausea to the Russian sometimes even saved the lives of a dozen people. 42) She would give her mother some money, and the latter would spend it together with Verutė. Akinuotė, having acquired a new sponsor, became uppish; all her former affection toward us evaporated, and when drunk she would confront us over every trivial matter that arose in everyday life. 43) Unexpectedly and without prior arrangement, Eva Lota’s uncle Einar arrived as a guest and, through his excessive familiarity, affection not only raised suspicion among the heroes, but also among the reader. 44) Or perhaps, as Algirdas Patackas put it, both these and the other candidates were helped to win simply by their “affability” toward voters. It is said that the politicians who won were those who managed to persuade their voters amiably that they could be trusted. As already mentioned, there are cases in which an indirect object marked by the dative can be associated with two predicates in the sentence. In example 45, the dative-marked father can be an actant of both the verb did not show (did not show to whom) and the noun affection (affection toward whom). The dative-marked noun subordinate in example 46 should be interpreted similarly. 45) The daughters also did not show their father greater affection; after briefly describing their immediate life goals, they immediately disappeared on their own business for the rest of the evening. 46) However, there would be nothing strange about it: where is a man to turn if his employer happens to be of a “different orientation,” while to a subordinate his sweetness will be unacceptable? Based on DLKT examples with forms of lipšnus, lipšnumas and their contexts, one can speak of two types of affection: in one case, the emotional aspect of affection—tenderness—is more salient (cf. 47, 48); in the other, affection is actualized through a state of ((not) genuine) tenderness and may develop into negativity—flirtatiousness, intrusiveness, hatred, and so on (cf. 40, 49–51). 47) The time has come to cross beyond the enchanted circle of solitude and plunge into healing togetherness, being a couple, love. Overcome by affection, she asked whether he knew how good it was to fall asleep and wake up beside a loved one. 48) Newly born aggression is directed either at oneself or somewhere to the side. The mother, angry with the baby, tries to be especially affable, since a good mother cannot be angry. 49) “No, you wait!” she insists. “Stop it!” He brusquely pushed her hands away, but there was no trace of her former affection. He waits; Aušrelė’s breathing becomes more even and deeper. 50) Constant failure to respond to the child’s needs and attempts to communicate. The attachment disorder arising in childhood manifests itself in intrusive affection and nonselective attachment. As the child grows, the attachment persists, while intrusive affection is replaced by attention-seeking and indiscriminate interaction. Straipsniai / Articles 191 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ 51) For a long time, the Buzas fussed over the puppy, although it had grown quite large, but was still foolish, very affectionate, poking its nose everywhere, catching on everything, and falling over. In brief, it is clear that the semantic valency of lipšnus, lipšnumas is [Pcp, B], while the syntactic valency is Nom, Dat / su Instr. In DLKT examples describing close relationships between living beings (usually people), the prepositional prie construction is not used with these predicates. 4. VALENCY OF DIFFERENT FORMS OF ATSIDUOTI AND ATSIDAVIMAS The DLKT search for atsiduo, atsidav yielded more than 3,000 examples with different (non-)finite atsiduoti forms. The analysis of 500 examples shows that, in cases where the sentence contains an indirect object marked by the dative¹⁶, its semantic function may differ. In cases where the emotional devotion of one living being (usually a human)¹⁷ to another is expressed, the predicate under discussion has two obligatory actants: a percipient subject and a beneficiary indirect object (see 52–54). In examples with forms of atsiduoti, when the situation expressed actualizes not so much emotional as (more) action-oriented devotion to another as a beneficiary, the subject may be understood as a patient (see 55, 56). The fact that the subject actant of semantically bivalent atsiduoti forms may be multilayered, i.e. two semantic functions may intertwine, is also shown by examples 57 and 58, which express a person’s devotion with body and soul, or vice versa (cf. also 59). 52) But I am still convinced that they were devoted (cf. faithful) to each other and loved each other very much. Denis intended to marry her and planned their future together. 53) We have already explained why Jane and all the other mothers are more devoted to their children than Jim and all the other fathers. 54) Forget-me-nots. This is a type of girl characterized by the traits of a meek, unvindictive, loving woman. The sole purpose of these “flowers” is to love, devote themselves to their beloved with all their heart, desires, and deeds, to create a cozy environment, and to sacrifice themselves. 55) Although, of course, a person is able both to restrain their sexual desire and to control it. The same A. Molis wrote: A woman devoting herself to a man in order to conceive may consider all the “pros” and “cons” in advance, and if she decides to continue the family line, that is a free act. ¹⁶ Examples remained in the article’s manuscript in which the indirect object of forms of atsiduoti is marked by the instrumental, e.g.: She took a few sips [of tea] and pushed it away: the tea had taken on the taste of herring and onions. ¹⁷ Cf. the DLKT example: Birch leaves quietly surrendered themselves to the sun. 192 Acta Linguistica LXXXVIII Valency of Pr i e r a i š u s, pr i e r a i š u m a s in contemporary Lithuanian (written) language 56) Nina is not a tragic figure; she gives herself to the soldiers because she desires sex. Realizing that the role of a wanton does not suit her, Nina returns home after Tovo’s death. 57) A cold or passionate and self-contained woman condemns a man to loneliness: he must reject her. It is necessary that the two give each other body and soul. If that act of giving takes place, they remain faithful to each other forever. 58) People say that no person can be everything to another. But I demand this, do you understand, Berita? Whoever gets involved with me devotes themselves body and soul. Body and soul, I was devoted to Saskija. Not a step aside throughout all those years. 59) Yes, it is true, I did it, I am ashamed, I surrender myself entirely to you. Kick me, beat me, mock me. There are examples in which the percipient (see, e.g., 60–62) or patient (see 63, 71) subject of the predicate atsiduoti combines with an indirect object corresponding to content (see 60–64) or goal (see 65–67), marked by the dative. As examples 68 and 69 show, the goal actant can also be expressed by an infinitival construction. 60) I saw how pleasant it was for him to recall again and again those happy days when he was cared for by a wife devoted to everything, friend, and homemaker. 61) E. Iruonas is devoted to these things with all his heart. 62) Why have we surrendered to the paralysis of fear and to the conviction that “one person will change nothing, and no one will support”? 63) Having realized the manager that the job had failed, he surrendered to drink. He chewed sausage, poured it into his large belly by the glassful, and kept boasting. 64) He does not so much surrender to Nothingness as destroy. 65) Saturdays, Sundays, “red-letter” holidays, and evenings on business trips were devoted to this work, which increasingly drew me in and to which I devoted myself with all my heart. 66) Only one who, being extraordinarily devoted to their own desire to live, experiences inner freedom from life’s events is capable of sincerely and consistently sacrificing themselves for the benefit of others. 67) I would not simply fall asleep at the computer; I would not sleep at work on the desk... that did not happen. It is difficult. And my studies suffer. I am unable to devote myself to my studies as much as I would like... 68) Can a person who only yesterday fought for communist ideas and faithfully served the occupier (especially here in Lithuania) be devoted to serving our state today? 69) Note this line: “Since the sentence for evil deeds is not executed immediately, therefore people’s hearts are wholly devoted to doing evil” (Eccles. 8:11). Straipsniai / Articles 193 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ It happens that the indirect object of the verb atsiųduoti is expressed by the fixed construction į (kieno) rankas ‘into (someone’s) hands’, which is semantically related to the dative of a benefactive (see 70), content (see 71), or goal (see 72) (cf. 73). 70) Our conversation has gone on too long...—Think, priest, you... I can no longer think. I surrender [I] into your hands (cf. to you), body and soul. Save me or destroy me. It is all the same to me now. Just do not leave me in such a spiritual crisis as I left my mother. 71) And that night Margarita, as it were, surrendered herself into the hands of fate (cf. to fate)—one might say, for the first time she felt what it meant to become intoxicated by alcohol. Although, of course, the intoxication was twofold... 72) Having experienced a powerful spiritual shock that completely changed her, she continued to think, hesitate, and struggle with herself, and, instinctively resisting, postponed the decision to surrender herself into the doctor’s hands (cf. be treated). 73) Why men fall blindly in love with their hairdressers. Men, who have not been afraid to hand over their carefully groomed hair into the hairdresser’s hands, very quickly surrender themselves to them. From what has been said, on the basis of the available DLKT examples, it is clear that the situation described by sentences with atsiduoti presents certain aspects of the situation as we perceive it. These are foregrounded in the sentence by different semantic structures of the sentence predicate, i.e. by the predicate’s semantic valency, where it becomes clear how the situation described is interpreted. Adhering to the view that “only those participants in a situation that are expressed in a sentence by the forms required by the verb correspond to the predicate’s actants” (Slįžienė 1994: 27), it becomes clear that in the position of the dative-marked actant of bivalent atsiduoti, one of several referents of different semantics is foregrounded (beneficiary, content, goal), differing in their lexical semantics (living being resp. abstract thing). Those referents that remain outside the boundaries of one or another atsiduoti semantic-valency structure appear in the background of the situation described as its nonforegrounded part, irrelevant to the meaning of the predicate atsiduoti (cf. examples 55, 56 and 65, 66, where the goal is foregrounded differently in the situation (a free member vs. a valency-bearing actant)). A similar situation can be seen after examining 500 DLKT examples with different forms of the noun atsidavimas. In some cases, the indirect object marked by the dative corresponds to a benefactive (see 74–76), in others to content (see 76, 77) or goal (see 78). The subject actant has the function of recipient (see 74, 76, 77) or patient (see 75, 78). 74) A daughter’s love and devotion to her mother are infinite. 75) Since we are egoists by nature, throughout life we must walk like acrobats on a tightrope, maintaining a balance between devotion to others, when we do not spare ourselves, 194 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Valency of Pr i e r a i š u s, prieveišumas in contemporary Lithuanian (written) language and using others, since a careless step to the side may reduce our potential for happiness. 76) She nurtures such thoughts while living under one roof with Vanda and Juzefas, these two selfless, brave people, whose devotion to humanity and fellow Polish compatriots, as well as compassion for persecuted Jews, contradicted everything her father proclaimed. 77) The most important thing [...] is passion and complete devotion to this plant philosophy. 78) Your devotion to your career is bearing fruit, but shy Saturn has left you one obstacle on the road to success. 5. VALENCY OF DIFFERENT FORMS OF DRAUGIŠKAS AND DRAUGIŠKU-MAS The DLKT search for draugišką yielded more than 4,500 examples with different forms of the adjective draugiškas. Examination of 300 examples containing this adjective’s indirect object stated in the sentence reveals different valencies. When bivalent draugiškas is used in the meaning distinguished in the Dictionary of the Standard Lithuanian Language (BLKŽe), ‘2. inclined to maintain close, warm relationships, to be friendly’, its subject actant, expressed by the nominative or another agreeing case, corresponds to a percipient, while the indirect object marked by the dative or a prepositional su construction corresponds to a benefactive (see 79–82). Sometimes the indirect object of the benefactive is expressed by an atžvilgiu construction (see 83). 79) That is precisely why I can love myself and be friendly toward myself. 80) The most important thing was that all the people were very friendly and open to one another, which is not usually the case anymore. 81) Papillon [the dog] is friendly with everyone, gets along well with other dogs and domestic animals, and is good with children. 82) At the Academy of Sciences, even older were warm and friendly with young peopleacademics. 83) From then on, her [the neighbor’s] attitude toward him [the boy] fundamentally changed. She is friendly toward him, brings him small gifts when the opportunity arises, and occasionally agrees to look after him. Bivalent draugiškas, used in the meaning ‘5. safe, suitable, favorable, adapted for human use’ (BLKŽe), opens in the sentence a free position for a patient subject marked by an agreeing case and an indirect object expressed by the dative, corresponding to a benefactive (see 84, 85) or content (see 86, 87). 84) The last years were particularly successful for winemaking: nature was especially friendly to grape growers and wine producers. Straipsniai / Articles 195 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ 85) That is why the dryers in the toilets of cafés or large shopping centres dryers are not “friendly” to our hands. 86) Therefore, there is undoubtedly a need to seek ways of promoting environmentally friendly farming. 87) Lithuania’s tax regime is essentially friendly to business. Bivalent draugiškas in the meaning ‘6. harmless, not harmful to the environment’ (BLKŽe) requires a patient subject and a content indirect object expressed by the dative (see 88, 89). 88) Thus, the fact that we live on a rich but resource-limited planet is a clear challenge for world leaders discussing environmentally friendly balanced global development. 89) However, most importantly, environmentally friendly products are being produced, beneficial to our health. The DLKT provided more than 700 examples with different forms of the noun draugiškumas. Fifty-five examples were found in which, when describing one person’s sympathy or favor toward another, the second—the indirect-object—actant of draugiškumas is expressed by the dative (see 90, 91) or by an atžvilgiu construction (see 92, 93). Examination of them showed that the indirect object of the benefactive, marked in one way or another, combines with a percipient subject. 90) France was subjugated, but on two occasions secretly retained its friendliness toward Lithuania. 91) Antanas came here out of friendliness toward Kazimieras. 92) And the feeling of closeness among individuals belonging to the same civilization (e.g., the French hostility toward immigrants from North Africa and friendliness toward Polish immigrants). 93) According to G. Taujańskis, Giedrius V. did not demonstrate friendliness toward him. When a sentence describes a person’s favorable disposition toward a thing, bivalent draugiškumas opens a free position for a percipient subject and a content indirect object (see 94). 94) If every science exists in the soul as it does in the subject, inseparably, and truth cannot perish, then why, I ask, because of some unknown friendliness toward death do we doubt the soul’s eternal life?—Augustine’s Reason cries out, having lost patience. The context may also actualize and make more action-oriented friendliness. One can then speak of a semantically two-layered subject: a patient with a percipient nuance, or vice versa. The fact that friendliness may be interpreted in two ways—as passing (or capable of passing) from emotion into action—is also shown by examples 95 and 96. Whatever the case here, genuine friendliness (like devotion) arises from feeling (cf. 97, 98). 196 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII The valency of prieraišus, prieraišumas in contemporary Lithuanian (written) language 95) His constant displayed friendliness toward me. We were always asked to drop by, always invited to borrow from them if we lacked anything; Henrik, I have several beers in the refrigerator. 96) Congratulating the Lithuanian military pilots, the Soviet press wrote on that occasion about “the constantly increasing manifestation of Lithuania’s friendliness toward it,” noting that this flight would become yet another serious factor in strengthening friendly relations between the two countries. 97) He smiled joyfully, and Kriuksis, thinking that the smile expressed friendliness toward him, also grinned contentedly. 98) Italy’s feelings of friendliness toward Lithuania (cf. Italy’s friendliness toward Lithuania) remain unchanged, and D. Grandi’s visit to Warsaw will have no effect on relations between Lithuania and Italy. Examples also occurred in which the noun friendliness was connected with the sixth meaning of the base word mentioned above (BLKŽė) (see 99). In that case, the valency of the deverbal noun corresponds to that mentioned in examples 88 and 89. 99) In summary, I can say that we seek to create a system that would turn “friendliness toward the environment” into an economically attractive, simple, and pleasant activity. From what has been said so far, it may be assumed that the subject actant of prieraišus, prieraišumas could have not only the percipient function mentioned at the beginning of the article (see section 1), but also that of a patient, while the object actant could be that of a beneficiary and a content. It is likely that the syntactic valency of the predicates discussed, particularly when semantic distinctions are to be actualized, may influence the expression of the facultative object actant of prieraišus, prieraišumas. 6. VALENCY OF DIFFERENT FORMS OF PRIERAIŠŪS AND PRIERAIŠU-MAS The DLKT query prieraiš returned 101 examples with different forms of the adjective prieraišus. Examination of the 15 DLKT examples in which the indirect object is expressed in the sentence showed that it is marked not only by the dative or the prepositional prie construction (see 100–102), but also by the prepositional su or atžvilgiu construction (see 103, 104). From the standpoint of the norm, the latter two constructions should be replaced by the dative (cf. 100) or the prepositional prie construction (cf. 101). On the other hand, what does or may influence the speaker’s choice of such marking of the indirect object becomes clear from what was said earlier. The prepositional su or atžvilgiu construction with prieraišus is semantically Straipsniai / Articles 197 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ based: it has been “borrowed” from the semantics and grammar of the synonymous prieplaukus ‘amiable, friendly’ (see also below). 100) Saliukis [the dog] is pleasant and dignified, keeps his distance from strangers, but is devoted and attached to his owners. 101) Therefore, according to this researcher, she belonged to both the French and Polish nations [...]. It is difficult to say to which country the queen was more attached (cf. devoted). She often proclaimed herself loyal to Louis XIV [...]. 102) Despite this inclination toward gypsy wanderings, Ieva says that she is very attached—not only to people, but also to things. 103) Intelligent, alert, and sensitive [dog]. Attached to friends and cautious with unfamiliar people. 104) The relations between the father or mother who remained with the child improved further—even fewer conflicts. Children were more attached to the family (cf. to the family). The connection of bivalent prieraišus with predicates from the lexical semantic field (devoted, friendly, loyal, pleasant, etc.) is also evident from DLKT examples in which the indirect object of the adjective under examination is clear from the context. Examples 105–108 show how one of the semantic aspects of prieraišus is actualized in the narrative situation (cf. 100, 101). Taking this into account, and acknowledging variant and unclear cases, it may be stated that in contemporary Lithuanian, when bivalent prieraišus is used to denote a close relationship between living beings, the indirect object corresponding to a beneficiary is marked in several ways. 105) A person is attached (cf. attached) being. Attached to what? This depends on individual interests and character traits. 106) Bloodhound is especially attached (cf. affectionate, friendly), does not quarrel with either its owners or other dogs. 107) Men look at a woman even when she is playing with a puppy. In their view, petting animals is a good sign indicating that the woman is attached (cf. amiable, affectionate). 108) She became friends with her godfathers (she had always known how to approach old people warmly, calling them colloquially “grandmothers” and “grandfathers”). I am not so attached (cf. amiable, friendly), perhaps even somewhat “prickly”—I did not engage in lengthy conversations with my godfathers. Besides, my grandmother was almost deaf18. In addition to examples 100–104, in which the subject of bivalent prieraišus corresponds to a percipient and the indirect object to a beneficiary, the DLKT also contains cases in which a percipient subject corresponds to a content indirect object, which is variably marked 18 Cf. also the DLKT example with the adverb affectionately: “Hello, serpent Žaltinėlis! We have been close friends with serpent Žaltinėlis since childhood. We have known each other since the cradle. The two of them would play affectionately (cf. in a friendly, affectionate manner), like a grandfather and grandchild. Together they would suck milk. For so many years he had fed Žaltinėlis from a clay bowl.” 198 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII The valency of Priešais, prieaišumas in contemporary Lithuanian (written) language by the dative or the prepositional prie construction (see 109, 110). In addition, the subject of prieaišus may correspond to a patient, and the indirect object to a content (see 111). 109) In Latvia, society has not yet become attached to images. 110) Black grouse not only remain here to winter; genetically, they are attached to their accustomed, already favored places. 111) At the outset, it should be emphasized that the two-faced attached to the Soviet tradition are the entire science of our history (and sometimes our historical consciousness as a whole). The DLKT returned somewhat over 500 examples with different forms of the noun prieaišumas. Examination of 170 examples in which the indirect object of this noun is expressed in the sentence showed that it is marked by the dative or the prepositional prie construction. Considering the considerably larger number of examples than with the adjective just discussed prieaišus, we can speak of tendencies in usage: the indirect object tends to be marked by the dative (cf. Part 1). More specifically, the optional dative with forms of prieaišumas is selected in 58 percent of all cases (or in 98 of the 170 examples). The dative of the indirect object is most often (73 percent, or in 72 of the 98 examples) expressed by a word denoting an inanimate (concrete or abstract) thing, and considerably less often (27 percent, or 26 of the 98 examples) by a word denoting an animate being (usually a person). In terms of animacy, sentences in which the indirect object is marked by a prepositional prie construction also show similar tendencies: in 33 percent of the cases available (or in 24 of the 72 examples), the indirect object is expressed by a word denoting an animate thing, whereas in 67 percent of all cases (48 of the 72 examples), it is expressed by a word denoting an inanimate thing. Thus, from the perspective of language norms, the indirect object of the noun prieaišumas, marked by the dative, which is to be corrected, or by the appropriate prepositional prie construction, is usually (71 percent, or 120 of the 170 examples) a word denoting an inanimate (concrete or abstract) thing. It is important to note that these two expressions of the indirect object are (or can be) variant iškos (see 112–115). 112) The coherence of child-rearing and upbringing is determined by the mother’s love, emotions, and attachment to her son or daughter. 113) Attachment of the child to the mother is important for its formation—not only the time the mother spends with the baby, but also the manner of communication and the nature of care. 114) They [All Souls’ Day] remind us that the attachment that arose to earthly life will disappear. 19 The DLKT examples with plural forms of the noun prieaišumas in different cases (prieaišumai, prieaišumų, etc.) were also reviewed. 20 There are quite a few examples on the internet in which the indirect object of prieaišumas is expressed by the prepositional su construction, for example: Attachment to the mother is not a priority over attachment to the father (quoted from: https://www.dvejinamai.lt/). Straipsniai / Articles 199 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ 115) Attachment to life contains something stronger than all the world’s troubles. The available examples show that the indirect object corresponding to a beneficiary combines with a percipient subject (see 112, 113). In example 116, the subject can be interpreted in two ways—as a patient and a percipient—where a semantic transfer from the direct meaning of pririšti ‘to fasten to something’ (cf. child [P] fastened by the umbilical cord [I] to the mother [Ad], mother [P] fastened to the child) into the semantics of prieraišus as a perceptive predicate can also be discerned. Semantic connection with the valency of the aforementioned pririšti is also shown by example 117: the adoptive father’s action expressed figuratively (caught, chained (cf. fastened)) is the source of Blanka’s emotional attachment, that is, actions21 influence, shape, and create emotional attachment and its quality (see also 14–16). When the connection of prieraišumas with the direct meanings of the base verb pri(si)rišti has (largely) broken off, perceptive attachment is actualized (see 112, 118). It may be argued that the semantics and grammar of attachment as a feeling (to whom/what) influence the syntactic valency of prieraišumas (prieraišus): when such attachment is actualized, the dative of the indirect object is (more) unmarked (cf. 118–121). Unlike examples 119–121, where the dative of the indirect object can grammatically also be linked with the main predicate of the sentence, jausti (to whom, what), example 122 shows that gyvenimui is not an actant of the noun jausmas ‘feeling’ (cf.? Niliūno jausmas gyvenimui), but of prieraišumas ‘attachment’ (cf. Niliūno prieraišumas gyvenimui). Based on what has been said, it may be stated that example 123 actualizes the subject’s emotional independence—the emotional attachment formed through actions within the family, severed by one’s own will (defeated). A connection between attachment and dependence can also be seen from the contexts of examples 124–126. The subject’s attachment as an emotional bond marked by the dative is evident in example 127. The prepositional prie construction may presumably be chosen to mark more action-oriented subject attachment (cf. 128). Of course, as already mentioned, either aspect of attachment may also be marked variably (cf. 122, 129). 116) The child develops by listening to the mother’s thoughts and experiencing her feelings. Because of the pregnant woman’s attachment to her unborn child, the effect of the stress she experiences may be reduced. 117) In grandiloquent words, Blanka describes her attachment to her adoptive father: she feels like “a falcon caught and chained, nailed to a golden ring” (cf. Adoptive father [A₁] fastened Blanka [P] to himself [B]). ²¹ Cf. the DLKT example: A signal to re-establish contact (by smiling at her or asking her to pick him up), after which they played and explored again. Such behavior by the child indicates secure attachment. 200 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII The valency of prieraišus, prieraišumas in contemporary Lithuanian (written) language 118) For the attachment feeling to develop, great sensitivity to the child’s needs and the ability to satisfy them are particularly important. 119) We nevertheless felt one another a certain affection. In any case, he was my father… 120) There she studied the subtleties of her profession for three years and, as she herself says, learned a great deal, but she feels no particular attachment to this stage of her life. 121) I have no doubt that the absolute majority of Lithuanians have heard it at least once, because the media felt, and still today continues to feel a special attachment to this topic. 122) In general, Niliūnas’s work contains a very strong feeling of attachment to life, which no misfortunes or hardships that befall it can destroy. 123) For his generation, the automobile meant freedom, speed, movement, and a conquered attachment to home and the past, that is, to tradition and order of every kind tradition and order. 124) He understood dependence on religion as an illusory substitute for dependence on the image of a punishing father. The psychoanalyst’s aim is not to strengthen the patient’s attachment to the psychoanalyst, but to break it, strengthening the patient’s autonomy and personal maturity, and their ability to “stand on their own feet.” 125) Addiction specialists have long studied people’s physical and psychological dependence on alcohol. Treating psychological attachment to intoxicating drinks is extremely difficult, whereas physical dependence can be overcome. 126) Kaišiadorys poultry farm was the only one in the Baltic countries to have the exclusive right—it sent about 80% of its production to Poland. It is unknown how long the Poles’ attachment (cf. the habit of eating) to our chicken would have lasted if director Kęstutis Bartkevičius had thought only about the poultry farm’s needs rather than those of the country. 127) The founders died—the composition of the convent changed—and Sister Beatrice continued to live in a family devoted to prayer. Her attachment to the sisters was calm and simple. 128) And one first takes revenge on oneself for that masochistic attachment to those who caused pain, destroyed, annihilated… 129) At the group’s maturity stage, group members experience feelings of attachment to the group, create close emotional bonds with other members, yet retain autonomy and become aware of their differences from other group members. DLKT examples show that the subject actant of the noun prieraišumas corresponds to a percipient, while the indirectly expressed object—expressed in two ways—corresponds to a content (see 130). By analogy with example 111, it can be seen that in example 131 the subject actant corresponds to a patient and the indirect object to a content. 130) Another quality helps one focus and maintain attention: suggestibility and autosuggestion, a strong attachment to that which is desirable. 131) In my view, the attachment of cultural history to the Marxist tradition is somewhat different, but the latter quality is evident in both civic and cultural history. Straipsniai / Articles 201 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ 7. APIBENDRINIMAS IR IŠVADOS An examination of 600 DLKT examples with different forms of prieraišus, prieraišumas shows that their semantic and syntactic valency is influenced by the semantics and grammar of predicates (pri(si)rišti, atiduoti, pripleikus, lipšnus, draugiškas, etc.) from the lexical semantic field. Through synonymous pripleikus ‘amiable, friendly’, the prepositional su construction “travels” into the expression of the indirect prieraišus, prieraišumas object. Such marking of the facultative actant (German markierung) is chosen when speaking of a close relationship between two living beings (usually people) (In the family, parents would teach safe attachment with the child?22). When bivalent prieraišus is used in the sense ‘amiable, friendly’, its syntactic actants are expressed by the subject nominative (or another agreeing case) and the indirect-object dative or the prepositional su construction; semantic valency: [Pcp, B]. The expression of the indirect object with forms of prieraišus ‘quickly, easily becoming attached; devoted’ and prieraišumas is generally variable between the dative and the prepositional prie construction. DLKT examples show several combinations of the semantic valency of prieraišus, prieraišumas marked variably. When the subject percipient combines with an indirect-object beneficiary, in the situation described by the predicates prieraišus, prieraišumas, a close emotional relationship between two living beings is actualized. When the situation concerns a person’s disposition toward something, the subject percipient combines with an indirect-object content. The combination of a patient subject and an indirect object corresponding to a content is seen when attachment is important as a certain habit or dependence. When the indirect prieraišumas object is expressed by a word denoting an inanimate thing, there is an evident tendency to disregard the norm—the dative is used instead of the prepositional prie construction. Predicates prieraišus, prieraišumas generally actualize the emotional aspect (The director addresses rather subtle feelings—memories, attachment to the city’s soul, creating a film about the trifles from which everything is composed (DLKT)). In the contexts, one can recognize a person’s self-attachment to something material, as the possessor of a state and a patient, derived from the semantics and grammar of the base pri(si)rišti. 22 Quoted from: https://www.bernardinai.lt/2014-07-04-diskusija-apie-globa-kokia-aplinka-palankiausia-augti-vaikui-ii/. 202 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII The valency of prieraišus, prieraišumas in contemporary Lithuanian (written) language ŠALTINIAI BLKŽe – Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, vyr. red. D. Liutkevičienė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2013–2022. Prieiga internete: https://ekalba.lt/bendrines-lietuviu-kalbos-zodynas/. DLKT – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos tekstynas, Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas. Prieiga internete: http://tekstynas.vdu.lt/tekstynas/. DLKŽe – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, 8-as patais. ir papild. leidimas, vyr. red. St. Keinys, e. variantas, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2021. Prieiga internete: https://ekalba.lt/dabartines-lietuviu-kalbos-zodynas/. LKŽe – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1–20 (1941–2002), red. kolegija G. Naktinienė, J. Paulauskas, R. Petrokienė, V. Vitkauskas, J. Zabarskaitė, vyr. red. G. Naktinienė, e. variantas, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2005 (atnaujinta versija 2018). Prieiga internete: https://ekalba.lt/lietuviu-kalbos-zodynas/. SŽe – Lyberis Antanas 2002: Lietuvių kalbos sinonimų žodynas, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas; e. variantas 2015. Prieiga internete: https://ekalba.lt/sinonimu-zodynas/. SisŽe – Paulauskas Jonas 1987: Sisteminis lietuvių kalbos žodynas, Vilnius, Lietuvių kalbos institutas; e. variantas 2015. Prieiga internete: https://ekalba.lt/sisteminis-lietuviu-kalbos-zodynas/perziura. LITERATŪRA Drukteinis Albinas 2009: Semantinės sakinių struktūros su sinkretinės reikšmės predikatais. – Res humanitariae 6, 24–41. Miliūnaitė Rita 2022: Įvairuojantys ir nauji lietuvių kalbos reiškiniai XXI a. pradžioje: sistematika ir pokyčių kryptys, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, DOI: doi.org/10.355321/e-pub.42.lietuviu-kalbos-pokyčiai. Semėnienė Loreta 2003: Būdvardžių derinimas. – Sintaksinių ryšių tyrimai. Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai 1, red. A. Holvoet, A. Judžentis, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 37–66. Sližienė Nijolė 1994: Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių junglumo žodynas 1, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Sližienė Nijolė 1998: Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių junglumo žodynas 2(1), Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Šukys Jonas 1998: Lietuvių kalbos linksniai ir prielinksniai: vartosena ir normos, Kaunas: Šviesa. Straipsniai / Articles 203 LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė Loreta 2001: Lietuvių kalbos būdvardžių valentingumas: daktaro disertacija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė Loreta 2020: Daiktavardžiai atitiktis, atitikimas administracinėje kalboje. – Bendrinė kalba 93, 1–35. Prieiga internete: https://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba/article/view/2059. Valency of the Adjective prieraišus and the Noun prieraišumas in Contemporary Lithuanian (Written) Language SUMMARY The analysis of 600 examples with different forms of prieraišus and prieraišumas drawn from the Corpus of Contemporary Lithuanian Language reveals that their semantic and syntactic valency is influenced by the semantics and grammar of the predicates from the lexical semantic field (pri(si)rišti, at­siduoti, prieplai­kus, lipšnus, draugiškas, etc.). The construction of the preposition su has entered the expression of the indirect object of prieraišus and prieraišumas through the synonymous adjective prieplai­kus ‘affectionate, friendly’. Such marking (Ger. markierung) of a facultative actant is chosen when a close relationship of two living beings (usually people) is meant. In cases where bivalent prieraišus is used in the sense ‘affectionate, friendly’, its syntactic actants are expressed in the nominative of the subject (or another case in agreement) and the dative of the indirect object or the construction of the preposition su; the subject percipient is in agreement with the indirect object beneficiary. The expression of the indirect object with the forms of prieraišus ‘one who gets attached fast and easily; devoted’ and prieraišumas in the dative case and the construction of the preposition prie is usually variable. Several combinations of semantic valency of variably marked prieraišus and prieraišumas are possible. In cases where the subject percipient is in agreement with the indirect object beneficiary, the situation expressed by the predicates prieraišus and prieraišumas conveys a close emotional relationship of two living beings. Where the situation is concerned with the person’s disposition towards something, the subject percipient is in agreement with the indirect object contentive. The agreement of the patient subject and the indirect object corresponding to the contentive can be seen where attachment is highlighted as a certain habit and dependency. 204 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII Pr eiraišus, pr eiraišumas valentingumas dabartinėje lietuvių (rašto) kalboje In cases where the indirect object of pr eiraišumas is expressed in the word denoting an inanimate thing, there is a clear tendency to disregard the established norm – the construction of the preposition prie is replaced by the dative case. The predicates pr eiraišus and pr eiraišumas usually convey an emotional aspect. The attachment of a person as the conveyor of a certain state, the so called patient, to something tangible, which comes from the semantics and grammar of the base verb pri(si)rišti can be recognized through contexts. Įteikta 2023 m. gegužės 8 d. LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected] Straipsniai / Articles 205