Go to originalLocalized version was produced by AI. It may contain inaccuracies.
Preparing document pages…
Page 1
LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ
Institute of the Lithuanian Language
ORCID id: orcid.org/0000-0003-2196-8937
Research areas: morphosyntax, valency, semantics, typology.
DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all87-12
ATŽVILGIU CONSTRUCTION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF VALENCY
Construction with atžvilgiu from the Perspective of Valency
ANNOTATION
The subject of this article is the postpositional atžvilgiu construction. The aim is to clarify the relationship of this construction to valency on the basis of material from the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language (DLKT). The study showed that in the sentence the postpositional atžvilgiu construction is used both as a lexical valency-bearing actant and as a non-valency-bearing, free member.
KEYWORDS: valency, valency-bearing actant, free member, atžvilgiu construction.
ANNOTATION
The object of this article is the construction with postpositional atžvilgiu. The aim is to find out the relation between the said construction and valency drawing on the data from The Corpus of Contemporary Lithuanian Language. The study revealed that the construction with postpositional atžvilgiu is used in a sentence both as a valent actant of the lexeme and as a non-valent (free) element.
KEYWORDS: valency, valent actant, free element, construction with atžvilgiu.
Straipsniai / Articles
245
Page 2
LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ
1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Ernst Fraenkel (1928: 185–186) already mentions the instrumental of the noun atžvilgis in his work on Lithuanian cases1. Jonas Jablonskis (1957: 632) calls the atžvilgiu used in examples 1–2 the instrumental of difference and states that “this case is merely a certain distinction of the instrumental of manner or instruments”.
1) In this atžvilgiu he does not differ from the others. (quoted according to Jablonskis 1957: 632)
2) His writings and speech are tolerable atžvilgiu. (quoted according to Jablonskis 1957: 632)
Today Jonas Šukys (1998: 267) states that atžvilgiu is an instrumental of relation, or specifying instrumental (ibid.: 557), which is “relatively independent, often resembling words close to prepositions (more precisely, postpositions), since it usually follows [...] most often a genitive and specifies it, as if forming with it, like a postposition, a certain construction”; “especially in the language of the press and writing, it often indicates with respect to what atžvilgiu a thing or phenomenon is characterized”. Šukys (1998: 268) specifies that atžvilgiu is most frequent in administrative and scholarly language, and draws attention to the fact that atžvilgiu is used “when there is a clear meaning of an attitude toward something or evaluation of something”, whereas “when the meaning of attitude or evaluation has become blurred, traditional means of expression from more vibrant language should not be forgotten. Instead of the genitive with postpositional atžvilgiu, adverbs (see 3), pure cases (especially the dative) (see 4–5), and prepositional (especially dėl) constructions may be more suitable” (see 6–8).
3) Here children are educated physically, morally, and intellectually atžvilgiu (cf. fiziškai, doriškai, protiškai). (quoted according to Šukys 1998: 268)
4) Can you do anything good with regard to disabled people atžvilgiu (cf. invalidams). (quoted according to Šukys 1998: 268)
5) I sensed the committee members’ coldness toward me atžvilgiu (cf. man). (quoted according to Šukys 1998: 268)
6) No measures were taken against the offenders atžvilgiu (cf. prieš pažeidėjus). (quoted according to Šukys 1998: 268)
7) Some people had a negative opinion of the institute atžvilgiu (cf. apie institutą). (quoted according to Šukys 1998: 268)
8) The government has no considered policy toward schools atžvilgiu (could also be dėl mokyklų). (quoted according to Šukys 1998: 267)
1 For a more detailed overview of works on atžvilgiu, see Akelaitis (2005: 67–70).
246
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII
Page 3
Atžvilgiu konstrukcija valentingumo aspektu
In the language advice (KP S1 2009: 90), Šukys specifies that in example 3 atžvilgiu, used in the meaning of a postposition, is a secondary (partial) variant of the norm. As a bookish phenomenon, it may be used in the standard language, but preference should be given to the principal (neutral) variant of the norm—the adverb of manner. In examples 4–6, as in examples 9–11, atžvilgiu is unacceptable in the standard language. Here a direct relationship with the object must be expressed by the dative or prepositional constructions (KP S1 2009: 89; see also Akelaitis 2005: 71, 76).
9) We would expect greater respect toward the girls atžvilgiu (=mergaitėms). (quoted according to KP S1 2009: 89)
10) You will be correct toward us atžvilgiu (=mums). (quoted according to Akelaitis 2005: 71)
11) There was, of course, intolerance toward Lithuania atžvilgiu (=Lietuvai). (quoted according to Akelaitis 2005: 71)
Šukys (KP S1 2009: 89) notes that in the standard language atžvilgiu may be used to express an indirect relationship with the object in example 12.
12) I did nothing bad toward the child atžvilgiu.
Gintautas Akelaitis (2005: 67) examines the atžvilgiu construction in administrative language (see 10–11) and states that atžvilgiu (and požiūriu) “stands out for its frequency of use and its obvious administrative functional-stylistic coloring”. He (Akelaitis 2005: 76) concludes that “the genitive + atžvilgiu construction of administrative language [...] is not supported by living usage and, judging by the time of its emergence, is a late phenomenon of intellectualized language”. Akelaitis (2005: 67) states: the fact that atžvilgiu “follows the genitive of nouns and substantivized words would seem to allow them to be regarded as close to postpositions. They cannot be considered true postpositions because they retain their lexical meaning. Another reason is that attributive constructions and constructions with the genitive of substantivized words are often close or even form pairs, cf.: ekonominiu atžvilgiu and ekonomikos atžvilgiu”. On the other hand, having conducted a study of the use of atžvilgiu in administrative language on the basis of examples from the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, Akelaitis (2005: 70) writes: “The lexicalized atžvilgiu is most often used with the genitive of substantivized words [...], but is very rare in phrases formed attributively [...]—a ratio of 0.07: 0.93”. His detailed study makes clear that atžvilgiu constructions are appropriately used in administrative language when they indicate the basis of something according to an external object conditioning an action or state (Akelaitis 2005: 71), are suitable as a secondary variant of the norm for expressing a relation of basis (Akelaitis 2005: 74–75), or express an object relation that may have a causal nuance and in which atžvilgis, consideration of that indirect object, may be expressed (Akelaitis 2005: 73). In addition to the fact that atžvilgiu is unsuitable for expressing a direct relationship with the object (Akelaitis 2005: 71), the constructions in question are not to be used
Straipsniai / Articles
247
Page 4
LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ
to express a causal relation (Akelaitis 2005: 73). Likewise, “wherever possible, especially where the established expression of Lithuanian syntactic relations is violated, constructions of genitive + atžvilgiu should be avoided [...], when an attributive relation must be expressed” (Akelaitis 2005: 73).
The question of whether atžvilgiu is (or becomes) postpositional is left aside below, and the term used in the article as a working term is postpositional atžvilgiu. As the cited examples and the brief discussion above make clear, the construction with it is used at the sentence and phrase levels. Attention should be drawn to Akelaitis’s (2005: 72) observation: “when genitive + atžvilgiu constructions are used [...], the direct orientation of an action, activity, or quality toward an object is, as it were, softened and blurred”.
With examples 4–12 in view, the following question arises: what is the basis of this softened relationship with the object, and why, for example, does the speaker choose to replace the typical dative of the beneficiary in example 10 with postpositional atžvilgiu? Is this related to the meaning and valency of the word? If the use of postpositional atžvilgiu is related to valency, then, following the conception of the verbocentric sentence model, several assumptions can be made: in addition to the fact that (a) the use of postpositional atžvilgiu is influenced by the meaning of the noun atžvilgis, (b) the use of postpositional atžvilgiu is influenced by the lexical, semantic, or other properties of the sentence predicate, and by the semantics of the word and the entire sentence.
The questions mentioned above are addressed on the basis of material collected from the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language (hereafter DLKT), compiled by the Vytautas Magnus University Center of Computational Linguistics in Kaunas (see section 2). This exploratory study pursues the following objectives: (a) to discuss the meaning of the noun atžvilgis in dictionaries (see section 3), (b) to briefly review the premises of valency theory and mention how this relates to the use of postpositional atžvilgiu (see section 4), (c) to examine, from the perspective of valency, the use of atžvilgiu constructions in empirical material from the DLKT (see sections 5 and 6). This is followed by an overall summary (see section 7). As far as is known, no works have addressed postpositional atžvilgiu from the perspective of valency.
2. RESEARCH MATERIAL
Most of the DLKT consists of written, often edited, texts in different genres (journalistic, literary, non-literary, or administrative literature). There are evidently far fewer examples of spoken language. This can be seen in Table 1, which shows how atžvilgiu is distributed by genre in the DLKT² search results.
² Examples from the DLKT were collected in June 2022.
248
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII
Page 5
Atžvilgiu konstrukcija valentingumo aspektu
It can be seen from Table 1 that functional style may be significant for the use of the postpositional with regard to construction. With regard to is the rarest in spoken language. In written language, the postpositional with regard to is used least frequently in fiction and most frequently in journalism and nonfiction. DLKT³ includes under journalism: general periodicals, popular periodicals, scholarly periodicals, books (autobiographies, memoirs, reminiscences, chronicles, annals, diaries, letters, essays, sketches, etc.) and others, whereas nonfiction includes scholarly, educational, informative, popular-science and other literature. Fiction in DLKT consists of novellas, short stories, tales, novels and the like. Given that the examples of administrative literature (documents) containing the postpositional with regard to provided in DLKT have been studied (Akelaitis 2005), the following discussion draws on slightly more than 600 examples from other genres, in which with regard to is used postpositionally. More specifically, the subsequent exploratory study uses 200 examples each from fiction, nonfiction and journalism, as well as the 5 available examples from spoken language.
TABLE 1. Use of Atžvilgiu by genre
Corpus section | Total number of words | Query | Number of occurrences | Number of words in analyzed sources Fiction | 15765554 | atžvilgiu | 601 | 2478947 Non-fiction | 19322341 | atžvilgiu | 5873 | 4377158 Administrative literature | 13625715 | atžvilgiu | 1422 | 1524835 Journalism | 86497837 | atžvilgiu | 9981 | 20774801 Spoken language | 447396 | atžvilgiu | 26 | 29146 Total: | 140921288 | atžvilgiu | 17903 | 29184887
The available examples (see Table 2) show that in the sentence the postpositional atžvilgiu construction is (or may be) associated with various forms of a verb, adjective, or noun, or with an adverb. It is striking that in the material at hand the meaning of a frequently mentioned word implies a perceptual subject (cf. jaustis, nusistatyti, abejingas, jautrus, nuostata, pažiūra, etc.), or, in terms of semantic functions distinguished on the basis of valency, a percipient [Pcp]—the experiencer of a mental state (Sližienė 1994: 20), which, presumably, influences the use of postpositional atžvilgiu.
Considering that in the examples from different genres under study postpositional atžvilgiu recurs with the same words or is used in different genres
the words with which the postpositional atžvilgiu construction is semantically and syntactically related complement rather than contradict one another, the following examples are not subdivided by genre. For example, from fiction and journalism there are examples with postpositional atžvilgiu constructions associated with the verb nu(si)teikti, while from journalism and non-fiction there are examples with nusiteikimas; likewise, from fiction and journalism there are examples with postpositional atžvilgiu associated with the adjectives geranoriškas, tolerantiškas, while in non-fiction it occurs with tolerancija. The fact that in texts of all the styles examined atžvilgiu is used with the same or similar words would suggest that functional style does not have a decisive influence on the use of postpositional atžvilgiu in written language.
TABLE 2. The relationship of the Atžvilgiu construction to the part of speech in the sentence
Part of speech
Examples
Verb
būti, daryti, derėti, elgtis, įpareigoti, jaustis, laikytis, (ne)moralizuoti, nu(si)teikti, nusileisti, nus(is)atyti, nuvertėti, pasielgti, patirti, pasikeisti, pasisakyti, pavadėti, priešintis, reaguoti, rodyti, suprasti, susvetimėti, taikyti, turėti and so on.
gerai, lygiagrečiai, (ne)palankiai, piktai, priešiškai, skeptiškai and so on.
250
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII
Page 7
Atžvilgiu konstrukcija valentingumo aspektu
3. THE MEANING OF THE NOUN ATŽVILGIS IN EXPLANATORY DICTIONARIES OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE
Assuming that atžvilgiu used postpositionally has a meaning, and that this meaning may influence the use of the construction in question, it is appropriate to mention the definitions of the noun atžvilgis. In the Dictionary of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language (DLKŽₑ), the noun atžvilgis is given as 1. ‘consideration, taking into account’, 2. ‘attitude’ (see 1). In the academic Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (LKŽₑ), atžvilgis has three meanings: 1. ‘looking back, looking around’ (see 13); 2. ‘attitude, view’ (see 14; see also 2); 3. ‘consideration’ (see 15).
13) The wolf caught one sheep, and the others, without regard scattered Žem. 14) Our literature has become much more diverse in terms of formwith regard to rš. 15) After all the hardships, perhaps there will be some regard Krkn.
Thus, the instrumental of the noun atžvilgis, used in examples 1–12, has (or should have) the meaning ‘attitude, view’. The noun atžvilgis is semantically close to požiūris, which is likewise polysemous: 1. ‘view, atžvilgis’, 2. ‘a specific opinion, attitude⁴’ (DLKŽₑ; cf. LKŽₑ). Thus, there is a minimal lexical-semantic field of mutually related nouns (atžvilgis, požiūris, žvilgsnis, pažiūra, nuomonė, nusistatymas). Here attention should be drawn to the fact that, as mentioned in section 2, the nouns pažiūra, nuomonė, požiūris, nusistatymas are used with the postpositional atžvilgiu construction under discussion. This would indicate a process of grammaticalization of atžvilgiu.
Examining the valency of the basic words (pa)žiūrėti and žvelgti of the abstract nouns požiūris, žvilgsnis, pažiūra in Nijolė Sližienė’s Dictionary of Lithuanian Verb Government (hereafter LKVJŽ), it becomes clear that the verb žiūrėti ‘to heed, take into account’ requires a nominative subject corresponding to the percipient and a genitive content⁵ or a subordinate clause (see 16). The verbs (pa)žiūrėti and žvelgti ‘to form an opinion, evaluate’ require a nominative percipient subject, a prepositional phrase with į corresponding to the patient⁶, and an adverb fulfilling the function of manner⁷ (see 17–18) (Sližienė 2004: 457, 461). Thus, in the semantics of the noun atžvilgis ‘attitude, view’ lie the functions of percipient, patient,
⁵ “Content [Con]—the function of the content of an action or state” (Sližienė 1994: 22).
⁶ “Patient [P]—the function of the recipient of an action’s effect or the holder of a state” (Sližienė 1994: 20).
⁷ “Manner [Mod]—the function of the quality or manner of an action” (Sližienė 1994: 25).
Straipsniai / Articles
251
Page 8
LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ
content, and manner functions with their own expression. The percipient subject should restrict the use of postpositional atžvilgiu with active-action (transitive) predicates. Nevertheless, as was seen, for example, in example 4, postpositional atžvilgiu is used (see below). On the other hand, it may be assumed that, for example, in example 11, it is precisely postpositional atžvilgiu that marks (German markiert) in the broad sense a person’s attitude or disposition as a percipient, and thus the indirect effect on the object corresponding to the beneficiary⁸ is distinguished in the (con)text (cf. 19–20).
16) Are you [Pcp] going to look at him [Con] [b. (cited according to Sližienė 2004: 457) 17) Some [Pcp] looked even suspiciously [M] at Bering himself [P] and his entire journey [P] Br. (cited according to Sližienė 2004: 457) 18) Whether individuals become moral depends on how [M] other people view them [Pcp] VDTUk. (cited according to Sližienė 2004: 461) 19) French society is hostile. The distance to a tolerant society [Pcp] with regard to Muslims [B] is in this case farther than ever⁹. 20) He [Pcp] was tolerant toward the big and the small [B], and willingly shared his knowledge and experience of sports with everyone.
In examples 19–20, where different interpretations of things in reality are discussed, are two valencies of tolerantiškas to be distinguished? It could be either way (see below). According to the principle of iconicity, or isomorphism, different expression is associated with different predicate meanings: each form has its own meaning. The notion of iconicity is implicitly associated with markedness (English markedness). Talmy Givón (1990: 945–947; cf. 2001: 38–41), who defined markedness according to three criteria—structural and cognitive complexity and frequency—states that the relationship between cognitive and structural complexity is one of the most general aspects of iconicity: a cognitively marked category tends to be marked structurally as well, and vice versa¹⁰. Iconicity and markedness are directly related to economy and distinctiveness in language: the speaker seeks to convey as much content as possible with the minimal linguistic means of expression and effort (see below). With all this in mind, it is likely that the use of postpositional atžvilgiu is likewise related to language users’ expression of grammatical structures’
⁸ “Beneficiary [B]—the function of an addressee, recipient, or holder, characteristic of living beings, especially persons, for whose benefit or detriment something happens, is done, or exists” (Sližienė 1994: 21).
⁹ Unless otherwise indicated, the examples are from the DLKT.
¹⁰ „The meta-iconic markedness principle: Categories that are cognitively marked tend also to be structurally marked“ (Givón 1995: 58). Plg.: „Categories that are structurally marked are also substantively marked“ (Givón 1990: 965).
252
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII
Page 9
Atžvilgiu konstrukcija valentingumo aspektu
natural communicative needs for economy (which do not always coincide with the language norm).
4. VALENCY AND POSTPOSITIONAL ATŽVILGIU
Briefly, valency is the property of a word, determined by its meaning, to open a certain number of empty slots, which in a sentence or phrase are occupied by words and their forms, or their equivalents, of certain meanings (see Sližienė 1994: 16; Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė 2001: 19 and the literature cited there).
Valency is usually 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 empty slots and the semantic functions of their possible actants are established; at the syntactic level, the grammatical form of valency-bearing actants and their obligatory or optional status are established; at the level of lexical semantics, the semantics of valency-bearing actants is established (what semantic classes of words can be a word’s actants). In addition to valency-bearing syntactic actants, whose obligatoriness or optionality is established in the sentence, free members are distinguished—sentence words that are not conditioned by a word’s meaning and do not belong to its valency. In a predicative structure, free members corresponding to separate predicates, rather than to predicate arguments, do not fill the empty slots opened by the predicate; their relation to the predicate is determined by its purely grammatical capacity, as a particular part of speech, to combine with 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 meaning of the word (Sližienė 1994: 31). Optional syntactic actants are those that may 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 (Sližienė 1994: 35). Optional actants, which below are written in parentheses in the examples from the DLKT, describe the part of the situation that is less relevant to the predicate’s meaning. It is acknowledged that there is no strict boundary between obligatory and optional actants and free members (Hentschel, Weydt 1994: 345).
Vilmos Ágel (2000: 211–212) hypothesizes that the more frequently free members (A) are used, the more expected they become. Then, in his view, free members as content specifiers (INSP) may be reinterpreted as components of the predicate’s semantic valency, and over time the latter may, in accordance with Paul Grice’s maxim of relevance (English relevance), become established as communicatively necessary
Straipsniai / Articles
253
Page 10
LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ
(KOM-NOT). When the conditions of pragmatic significance encompassing KOM-NOT and INSP become conventionalized, communicative necessity (KOM-NOT) is lexicalized as semantic necessity (SEM-NOT). It is precisely the latter that (co-)determines syntactic necessity (SYN-NOT) and formal specificity (FOSP) (see the diagram). In V. Ágel’s (2000: 211) view, the syntactic actants of a predicate are (or may be) lexicalized, grammaticalized free members.
SCHEMA. Lexicalization / grammaticalization of free members, according to Ágel (2000: 211)
In addition to the aforementioned maxim of relevance—say what is related and important to the topic of conversation—several other maxims identified by P. Grice (1989) should be briefly mentioned. Speaking of communication based on the cooperative principle (English: the cooperative principle), he distinguishes three further maxims of effective conversation, which interlocutors follow unconsciously in order to ensure the quality of conversation. These are the maxim of quantity (English: quantity) (say as much as is necessary), the maxim of quality (English: quality) (say what is true and comprehensible), and the maxim of manner (English: manner) (speak comprehensibly, clearly and coherently).
Wallace Chafe (Чейф 1983: 36), drawing on a psycholinguistic experiment and discussing how a real-life situation (is transformed) into a text, argues that the verbalization of an experienced situation is an individual interpretation of the situation perceived by a person in reality. What is perceived and how it is said and expressed about the situation in the (con)text—the means of verbalization—depends on the speaker. A sentence expresses a semantic description of the interpreted situation, and “the semantic structure of a sentence presents only certain aspects of the situation we perceive” (Sližienė 1994: 26). The pragmatic aspect of valency is related to sentence perspective, language use and communication (Sližienė 1994: 26–41). It depends on communicative
the appearance of facultative syntactic actants in the sentence belongs above all among the tasks.
Returning from the principles of valency theory to the atžvilgiu construction discussed in the article, Pavel Grashchenkov’s study should be mentioned; in it, he (Гращенков 2018: 169) argues that the semantic function of the basis as an evaluator may be determined equally by the semantics of the word (predicate) itself and by the context. P. Grashchenkov draws attention to the fact that the function of the basis is typical of an adjective: in the situation described, the evaluation implied by adjective predicates is marked, for example, by the Russian prepositional для construction corresponding to the semantic function of an experiencer (otherwise, percipient) or beneficient (Говорун [...] испyскат неприятный для непьющего Федора запах дорогого коньяка; давление опасное для психики и даже для самой жизни.) (Гращенков 2018: 167–168). In Russian, the facultative syntactic actant marked, for example, by the prepositional k construction is semantically close to the beneficient marked by the construction в отношении кого-либо («Мерзость какая!» – подумал пристав, хотя в отношении чистоты был человек нетребовательный...). The construction в отношении кого-либо is also used where the Russian adjective does not require the syntactic actant marked by the aforementioned prepositional k construction; in that case, в отношении кого-либо is the adjective’s obligatory syntactic actant (нужно не сбиваться и на восхваления, а также быть корректным в отношении соперников).
Leaving aside the aspect of the norm governing atžvilgiu constructions, we return to the question raised at the beginning: what is the relationship of atžvilgiu to valency-bearing actants and free constituents.
5. POLINKSNIŠKASIS ATŽVILGIU AND VALENCY-BEARING ACTANTS
Turning to the analysis of the available DLKT material, it can be seen that, for example, when the bivalent adjective reiklus describes a person’s attitude toward something or their mental disposition toward something, it requires (governs), besides a nominative subject corresponding to the percipient, a dative of the content, which functions in the sentence as an indirect object, e.g.: Autorius labai reiklus savo kalbai¹⁸. In cases where reiklus describes one person’s sympathies, favor, or antipathy toward another person, its dative-marked facultative syntactic actant
¹⁸ Example from DLKŽ.
Straipsniai / Articles
255
Page 12
LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ
corresponds to the beneficient, e.g., Geras vadovas sau turi būti reiklesnis negu kitiems¹⁹. From the perspective of valency, reiklus ‘having a great need’ requires a nominative patient and a facultative dative of the content, e.g., Agurkai yra labai reiklus šilumai²⁰. As can be seen from examples 21–23, instead of the obligatory and facultative syntactic actant marked by the dative, the atžvilgiu construction is used.
21) – Are you reiklus komforto atžvilgiu [Con]? 22) Prezidentas [Pcp] turėtų būti labai reiklus (savo atžvilgiu) [B], sugebantis abejoti. 23) Agrastai dera kasmet, ypač gerai Žemaitijoje. Reiklumas vietai ir dirvai. Agrastai [P] (vietos atžvilgiu) [Con] nereiklus.
As for demandingness, the available DLKT material shows that the postpositional with respect to is used with a whole series of adjectives when they denote one person’s attitude toward another person and have a semantic valency structure [Pcp, B]: indifferent, bad, friendly, (un)merciful, benevolent, strict, impudent, hard-hearted, critical, kind, moderate, favorable, respectful, hostile, caring, tolerant, forbearing, (dis)honest, gentle, (un)just, impetuous, and so on (see 24–25). Analogous usage can also be observed when the abstracts of the aforementioned adjectives are used, for example, indifference, leniency, delicacy, despotism, mercy, benevolence, hard-heartedness, understanding, tolerance, partiality, cruelty, etc. (see 26–28). Their optional, usually dative²¹-marked actant, functioning in the sentence as an indirect object, is replaced by the postpositional with respect to. On the basis of example 27, it is worth noting that BLKŽ despotism is defined as ‘2. domination and arbitrariness toward those around one, i.e. an explicitly expressed aspect of an attitude, a view toward another person, which, when communicatively necessary, is expressed by an optional actant.
24) She [the neighbor] is friendly (toward him [the boy]). 25) Viktoria, I was not completely honest (toward you). 26) I also thank the Speaker of the Seimas, Mr. A. P., for his goodwill (toward VU). 27) It was strange to hear increasingly frequent talk about the director’s despotism (toward the actor). 28) That blind anger, once unleashed, knows no bounds. Did they notice something else that I myself did not understand and because of which that barely perceptible chill arose (toward me)? (cf. example 5)
¹⁹ Example from BLKŽe. ²⁰ Example from LKŽe. ²¹ The beneficient may also be marked by a su construction, cf. the DLKT sentence: Dar kurį laiką buvo su ja griežti.
256
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII
Page 13
Atžvilgiu konstrukcija valentingumo aspektu
The aforementioned [Pcp, B] structure is also found in verbal abstracts used in sentences feeling, attitude, hatred, disposition, e.g.:
29) Or perhaps my feelings (toward her) were ambivalent?
30) This determined the different view of the representatives of the currents of the currents toward the political system of a future free Lithuania, as well as the rather cool attitude (toward A. Smetona, who had arrived in the USA).
31) Whoever she may have been, she did not show proper concern for you. – You are full of prejudices against women! (unlike: prejudices against women)
In cases where a word in a sentence describes a person’s attitude toward something or a person’s mental disposition toward something, it has a semantic valency structure [Pcp, Con]. In a finite sentence, this is usually marked by the nominative of the perceptive subject and the dative of the indirect object or by the prepositional dėl construction. As can be seen from the available examples 32–33 and similar examples, the postpositional atžvilgiu is used with perceptive lexemes. Similarly, in example 34 the speaker chooses to use it with the abstract noun nepasitenkinimas, where the postpositional atžvilgiu is associated not with the beneficiary dative (ji rodė man), but with the content instrumental (cf. ji nepatenkinta manimi).
32) The researcher’s impartiality toward the source.
33) I can afford to briefly describe Palino’s deeper attitude (toward teaching).
34) Toward me she showed an irritable dissatisfaction.
The postpositional atžvilgiu is used instead of the dative corresponding to the patient with the perceptive verbal abstract įtarimas:
35) Reino smiled sourly, as if this brief acquaintance with my daughter confirmed all his suspicions toward me.
The DLKT examples examined show that the postpositional atžvilgiu construction is used instead of the typical indirect-object dative when a predicatively or attributively used word denotes a certain benefit or harm of a thing or matter to a person. Then, as examples 36–37 and similar examples show, where words such as drastiškas, (ne)draugiškas, griežtas, korektiškas, kritiškas, naudingas, pagarbus, palankus, pavojingas, reiklus, teisingas, tinkamas, etc., are used, it has the semantic valency structure [P, B].
36) This may be grounds for making (toward him atžvilgiu) a strict decision.
37) You heard a respectful conversation, friendly toward one another (one another’s regard).
In a sentence, the predicate’s optional syntactic actant, usually marked by the dative, is replaced by the postpositional atžvilgiu construction in cases where both expressions of the indirect object correspond to the semantic function of the percipient, while the subject
Straipsniai / Articles
257
Page 14
LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ
the actant – the patient, i.e. the semantic valency structure characteristic of the word is [P, Pcp], e.g.:
38) That is why we ask you to forgive us for being annoying (with regard to the young lady).
39) Is this not too awful (with regard to the families of the victims)?
On the basis of the valency of the verb to view ‘to have an opinion formed, to evaluate’ mentioned in part 3, the examples examined also reveal differences in the syntactic valency of the noun view. Example 40 makes clear that, instead of the prepositional į construction corresponding to the patient, the speaker chose to use a construction with the postpositional with respect to. Here, the use of the postpositional with respect to could also be explained on the basis of the aforementioned marking of the beneficiary by critical in the construction under discussion (see also below). However, example 41 with the noun attitude shows that the prepositional construction corresponding to the patient of the basic perceptive verb is replaced by the construction with the postpositional with respect to.
40) Then [...] my views with regard to him were rather critical.
41) A rather clear negative attitude with regard to the state of Lithuania is expressed.
The postpositional atžvilgiu construction is also used in sentences in which the word (nusidėti; diskriminacija, išdavystė, įtaka, kaltinimas, kėslas, kritika, nusikaltimas, prievarta, smurtas, teroras, etc.) requires a syntactic act corresponding to the subject performing the agent²² function. Examples 42–46 show that, in the context of the sentence, an active action expressed by verb forms or their abstracts, or an action conceived nominally, loses its typical activity and thereby reduces the agentivity of the subject. In example 42, where the verb nusidėti ‘to sin’ requires a subject corresponding to the agent and an indirect object of the benefactive marked by the dative (Sližienė 1994: 63), the agentivity of the subject is “reduced” according to the semantics of the perceptive jaustis ‘to feel’ (see 34). Similarly, the speaker apparently chooses the postpositional atžvilgiu in the situations described in examples 43–44, where the activity of nouns typically implying an agent, kritika, represija, is softened by the perceptives pažiūra, bijo, which govern the aforementioned abstracts of active action in the sentence or phrase. In example 45, the use of the atžvilgiu construction with an abstract of active action (kritika) is influenced by indirectness. Of course, DLKT contains examples (see 46) in which the unmarked expression of the indirect object—the dative—is more suitable than the postpositional atžvilgiu. This would seem particularly relevant in example 47, where the action described in the noun phrase by the verbal abstract pasisakymas is more active. On the other hand, if we assumed that in examples of type 48
²² Agent [A] – the function of the performer of an action, which is presupposed by verbs expressing the meaning of an action (Sližienė 1994: 19).
258
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII
Page 15
Atžvilgiu konstrukcija valentingumo aspektu
the postpositional atžvilgiu is semantically related both to kalba ‘speech’ (cf. pirmininko kalba apie signatarus ‘the chairman’s speech about the signatories’), and to griežtas ‘strict’ (cf. pirmininkas griežtas signatarų atžvilgiu ‘the chairman is strict toward the signatories’), then we could claim that in example 47 as well, the use of the postpositional atžvilgiu construction is also influenced by the attributively used nedraugiškas ‘unfriendly’ (see 24). The situation is somewhat different in examples 49–50, where the postpositional atžvilgiu construction, associated with the accusative of the direct object of the transitive verb (vertinti, išduoti) ‘evaluate, betray’, becomes communicatively and grammatically necessary alongside the verbal abstract (vertinimas, išdavystė) ‘evaluation, betrayal’.
42) He did not do anything for which he could reproach himself and feel guilty toward Margo.
43) I. K. [...] insincerely acknowledged the party criticism, [...] while concealing her view of criticism of them.
44) A witness to Moro’s activities, not daring to denounce him publicly because he fears reprisals against him.
45) We are greatly concerned that recently the press and other media have frequently expressed excessively harsh criticism of Lithuanian scientists.
46) They changed their decision only after hearing harsh criticism of themselves at district DDP conferences.
47) Kreipiamas dėmesys į pastaruoju metu kai kurių Rusijos politikų, įskaitant Dūmos deputatus V. Ž. ir A. N., jų nedraugiškus pasisakymus Lietuvos atžvilgiu.
48) The chairman, having delivered a harsh speech toward the majority of the signatories of the March 11 Act at a Sunday Sąjūdis supporters’ rally, left for Sweden.
49) Knowing our party’s critical evaluations of J. B. (cf.?our party’s critical evaluations of J. B.), Prime Minister G. K. could afford not to hurry to appoint J. B. as chief adviser.
50) Most Belarusian figures evaluated Kaunas’s proposals to Warsaw, if not as the Lithuanians’ betrayal toward them (cf. *them), then at least as a failure to honor the agreements.
A separate mention is warranted for the use in example 51 of daryti ‘behave toward someone’. Usually, daryti requires an agentive subject, a modus corresponding to the accusative of a direct object or an adverb, and an indirect object representing the patient, marked by the prepositional su construction, e.g., Ką [Mod] tu [A₁] darysi su ja [P] ir su manimi [P] (Sližienė 1994: 166). In example 51, the typical expression of the indirect object is replaced by the postpositional atžvilgiu construction, which highlights that the agentive action does not take place—or, more precisely, takes place at the level of consciousness and thought. It is important that the meaning of daryti itself (cf. also BLKŽₑ daryti ‘3. (what, to whom, with whom) behave (usually toward someone)’) explicitly includes the notion of relation and that
Straipsniai / Articles
259
Page 16
LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ
the subject of the action expressed by the verb is less typical in terms of agency. In the situation under discussion, the action performed by the subject (the master, the slave) does not directly affect the object (the other, oneself).
51) What the master does with regard to “the other,” he would also do with regard to himself, while what the slave does with regard to himself, he would also do with regard to “the other.” Thus, a one-sided and unequal recognition arose. In this case, the unthinking consciousness is an object for the master.
From the verb daryti ‘to behave toward someone’ one can proceed to the verb elgtis. N. Sližienė (1994: 193) distinguishes elgtis ‘1. to conduct oneself or act in one way or another, e.g., Jis [A₁] elgiasi padoriai, gražiai, teisingai [Mod]²³, or ‘2. to relate to someone or affect someone’s fate in one way or another, e.g., Jis [A₁] nedorai [Mod] pasielgė su savo motina [P]. In brief, in the aforementioned meaning of daryti, the explicitly expressed seme of relation is implied in the definitions of the meanings of elgtis. This affects the use of the postpositional atžvilgiu in examples 52–54 with elgtis, elgesys, poelgis. In example 52, instead of the typical prepositional su-construction corresponding to the patient, the postpositional atžvilgiu construction is selected. A comparison of examples 53 and 54 makes clear that the use of the postpositional atžvilgiu in example 54 is necessary—grammatically determined. Attention should also be drawn to the fact that, for example, in example 55 the use of atžvilgiu is also influenced by the fact that the adjective sąžiningas is likewise used with the postpositional atžvilgiu (see 25). This is evident in examples 56–57, where the valency-bearing actant corresponding to the modus of the sentence predicate (elgtis), expressed by an adjectival adverb, itself requires a benefactive actant (similarly expressed by, for example, draugiškai, sąžiningai, priešiškai, netaktiškai, šališkai or other such forms) or freely attaches a non-valency member. These examples show that the use of the postpositional atžvilgiu may be influenced both by the valency of the sentence’s main predicate (elgtis) and by the valency or combinability of one of the predicate’s lexicalized actants.
52) Nė pusė lūpų [konservatoriai] nėra pasakę, kaip jie elgiasi Seime mažumos atžvilgiu.
53) Tėčio elgesys buvo kilnus. Tik Nanos atžvilgiu jis buvo niekingas.
54) Konditeris taip pat nusivylęs krikdemų elgesiu vienas kito atžvilgiu (plg. nusivylęs?krikdemų elgesiu vieno su kitu).
55) Savo teigiamą ar neigiamą nuomonę apie žmogų sudarėte bendraudami su juo, elgiatės sąžiningai tiek savo, tiek jo atžvilgiu.
56) Frustracijos apimtas vaikas pasidaro judrus, piktas, elgiasi agresyviai savo bendraamžių atžvilgiu.
²³ Cf. the meaning of daryti ‘to behave’ distinguished in LKVJŽ (Sližienė 1994: 166), e.g., Neprotingai [Mod], katel [A₁], darai.
260
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII
Page 17
Atžvilgiu konstrukcija valentingumo aspektu
57) It seems that during the commemoration of the Great Patriotic War Jonas and I behaved rudely toward the veteran [...].
Similarly, in the available DLKT examples, the atžvilgiu construction is used when the main predicate of the sentence is a form of the verbs nu(si)teikti, nusistatyti ‘2. to resolve, firmly adhere to an opinion or decision’ (DLKŽₑ), or when the postpositional atžvilgiu is associated with abstract nouns derived from these or other perceptive verbs: nusistatymas, nusiteikimas, nuostata, ketinimas (see 58–61). In example 58, the use of the postpositional atžvilgiu is influenced not so much by the non-agentive nuteikti ‘to evoke a certain mood or feelings’ as by the adjective—apparently nepalankiai ‘unfavorably’—which itself requires a benefactive complement. A similar pattern can be seen in example 59 with the reflexive nusiteikti: the postpositional atžvilgiu is likewise associated with the adverb geranoriškai ‘benevolently’ (in the examples examined, atžvilgiu is similarly used with nusiteikti, gerai, piktai, priešiškai, skeptiškai and so on), but, unlike in case 58, its replacement by a benefactive dative is more restricted by the predicate’s intransitivity. Examples 60–61 show that the lexical categorical properties of the lexeme also influence the use of the postpositional atžvilgiu (see also 26–28). That the perceptivity of the lexeme influences the use of atžvilgiu in the sentence is clear from example 62, where the choice of the postpositional atžvilgiu may be explained not by the typical valency of elgtis ‘to behave’ (cf. elgtis su kitais savo nuožiūra), but by nuožiūrą ‘judgment, opinion’ (DLKŽₑ).
58) Can I really now release even one person so unfavorably toward me (cf. to me) disposed?
59) Viena puse mažiau tikėtine, kad kita jos atžvilgiu (?.iai) geranoriškai nusiteikusi.
60) Mokinys nesąmoningai jaučia mokytojo nusiteikimą jo atžvilgiu.
61) Norom nenorom keičiasi ir mūsų nuostatos jų atžvilgiu.
62) The freedom they defended was the freedom to behave according to one’s own judgment toward others.
Considering that in example 62 the use of atžvilgiu is also influenced by the semantics of nuožiūra, it becomes clear why in examples 63–65 it is chosen instead of the content-corresponding prepositional construction with apie ‘about’ or dėl ‘concerning’, or the construction with nuomone, pozicija ‘3. figuratively, view, fundamental attitude’ (DLKŽₑ). Example 64 also shows that the use of the atžvilgiu construction is influenced by the context.
63) Many people, I myself, and many of our party comrades have a very clear opinion of Paleckis.
64) – What is it? – About your friend Moses. I have formed a firm opinion of him.
65) What is the official position of the Church in our time toward Jews?
Straipsniai / Articles
261
Page 18
LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ
On the basis of examples 63–65, the use of the postpositional with respect to with politics ‘the theory and practice of managing state affairs and of state power’ (DLKŽe) can be explained. The speaker would choose the designation; for example, in example 66, it actualizes the aspect of politics as theory, ideology, or viewpoint, although it cannot be ruled out that such a designation also generalizes the practical aspect of politics when speaking about it (see 67).
66) In response to the question of whether it is now believed in Moscow that the previous policy with respect to the West had been overly conciliatory.
67) However, the long and painful history of “Mažeikių nafta” raises doubts as to whether Russia’s policy toward Lithuania will be based on pragmatism.
6. POLINKSNIŠKASIS ATŽVILGIU IR NEVALENTINIAI (LAISVIEJI) NARIAI
As mentioned, the main difference between free members and optional actants is that they have no basis in the semantic valency structure of the sentence predicate and do not realize any semantic actants at the level of logical semantics. In example 68, the postpositional atžvilgiu construction is a free member of the sentence predicate (laikėsi). However, as stated earlier, it is the syntactic actant required by one of the predicate’s valency actants (neapykanta) (neapykanta žydų atžvilgiu (cf. žydams)). In other words, at the sentence level the atžvilgiu construction is a free member, whereas at the phrase level it is a valency actant.
68) Nevertheless, not all thinkers of the Enlightenment were benevolent toward Jews. A considerable proportion of them, although they criticized the old traditions, nevertheless maintained toward Jews an attitude of hatred.
From the perspective of valency, when discussing free members in the sentence, the free dative (German freier Dativ) is assigned to them. In the view of N. Sližienė (1994: 39), it is “an element of the syntactic structure of the entire sentence, denoting a person or thing interested in the action or to whom something happens (the beneficiary).” Axelis Holvoet and Veslava Čižik-Prokaševa (2005: 81–92) discuss four types of free dative: dativus commodi, dativus sympatheticus, dativus ethicus, dativus iudicantis. The authors (Holvoet, Čižik-Prokaševa 2005: 83, 86, 88, 90) interpret dativus commodi as a beneficiary circumstance, dativus sympatheticus as a case of argument splitting, and associate dativus ethicus with discourse and regard it as a sentence circumstance. They (Holvoet, Čižik-Prokaševa 2005: 90, 92) state that “dativus iudicantis is semantically required and syntactically governed,” “but it is not governed by the verb.” Agnieszka Rembiałkowska (2009: 159–161) draws on Simon
262
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII
Page 19
Atžvilgiu konstrukcija valentingumo aspektu
Dik’s (Dik 1997) functional grammar theory and the concept of a layered semantic sentence structure and, discussing different free datives, proposes that “in classifying [...] one should rely on the criterion of their scope (English scope)” (Rembiałkowska 2009: 149). “The types of free datives are distinguished primarily according to [...] the level of predication with which they form a closer unit and the level of predication at which the effect of the predication they express is delimited” (Rembiałkowska 2009: 149–150). On this basis, “the possessive meanings encoded by dativus sympatheticus manifest themselves at the level of core 24 predication, while the beneficiary/maleficiary meanings encoded by dativus commodi / incommodi “should belong to the level of extended 25 predication (extended predication)” (ibid.: 162), while “the meanings of dativus iudicantis [are encoded] at the level of the proposition26, and dativus ethicus at the level of the speech act (sentence)” (ibid.: 168).
That the atžvilgiu construction is associated with dativus commodi / incommodi, which denotes the person or thing for whose benefit or detriment an action is performed or to whom something is, is evident from examples 69–70 (and from cases in which grammatically atžvilgiu is associated with humane, neutral, negative, passive, selfish; peace, understanding, neutrality, inhumanity; scornfully, contemptuously, etc.).
69) What does this sense of one’s own worth consist of? Put simply, it can be said to consist of all the feelings and thoughts that we feel toward ourselves (cf. to ourselves, within ourselves) .
70) In life I have met many great artists, but I had never met one who was so abstractly and unfailingly objective toward himself.
The general function of the free dativus iudicantis is “to indicate the system of evaluation according to which it can be determined whether a certain property is correctly attributed to someone. The need to indicate the system of evaluation arises when one wishes to emphasize that it does not coincide with the evaluation standards accepted or presumed in society” (Rembiałkowska 2009: 156). The latter dativus iudicantis, associated with the percipient and belonging to the level of the proposition (English proposition), is also replaced by the atžvilgiu construction, as shown by examples 71–72 and similar examples with cynical, meaningful, unethical; ambivalence; good, ugly, unhygienic, unethical, impolite, decent, improper, etc. At the level of the proposition, which corresponds to a “possible fact”
24 At the level of core predication (English core predication [...]), the “internal” parameters of the elementary situation are defined” (Rembiałkowska 2009: 160).
25 At the level of extended predication, “the time, place, cause, purpose, and so on of the occurrence of the elementary situation are specified” (Rembiałkowska 2009: 160).
26 At the level of the proposition, or statement, “the speaker’s attitude toward the elementary situation is presented” (Rembiałkowska 2009: 160).
Straipsniai / Articles
263
Page 20
LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ
and where the speaker’s attitude toward the elementary situation is presented (cf. Dik 1997: 68), dativus iudicantis specifies the conditions of validity of the statement (Rembiakovska 2009: 163).
71) After all, that would be immoral— immoral toward everyone!
72) Your salary will be reduced by at least half, but there is no other way; it would be unfair toward the others.
On the basis of the material examined, it should be added that which was mentioned at the beginning of the article: the postpositional atžvilgiu is used instead of adverbs of manner (circumstances). This is evident in example 73. These modifiers, marked by the postpositional atžvilgiu construction, do not enter into the nuclear (English nuclear) predication of the sentence and form the core (English core) predication. Such first-level modifiers associated with the sentence predicate itself (prototypically of manner, means, quality, and so on) modify the event expressed by the main predicate, or, according to S. Dik (1997: 225–226), the state of affairs (English states of affairs (SoA)) of the nuclear predication (English nuclear predication) (see also example 74, where the postpositional atžvilgiu construction expresses the basis).
73) Nominalizatoriaus funkciją atliekanti įvardinė morfema nei konceptualiai, nei (mor)fonologiniu atžvilgiu nėra savarankiška.
74) A certain kinship between geometric art and the epic can be discerned both in terms of kinship, both in terms of ideas and in terms of form.
The examples 75–76 permit us to speak of the postpositional atžvilgiu being associated with second-level modifiers, distinguished at the sentence level, where the state of affairs is expressed with respect to place, time, result, purpose, cause, and so on (Dik 1997: 243–244).
75) Marijus has clearly enchanted that girl already. […] What are his intentions toward that young creature?
76) I thank You once again for the steps taken toward me, but, unfortunately, there are still no results.
7. APIBENDRINIMAS IR IŠVADOS
Having examined 600 examples from DLKT with the postpositional atžvilgiu construction, it is evident that this construction is used both instead of the valency actants of a word and as free members. From the perspective of valency, the material examined allows us to arrange the following correlations:
The postpositional atžvilgiu construction is used as a free member at the level of core predication, extended predication, and the proposition. From the perspective of valency, with
264
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII
Page 21
Atžvilgiu konstrukcija valentingumo aspektu
the free dative (or the construction with the preposition su)–related postpositional atžvilgiu is a free member corresponding to a percipient or beneficiary. In cases where the atžvilgiu construction marks a free member functioning in the sentence as a circumstance (of manner, basis, cause), it is associated with an adverb or prepositional constructions.
The postpositional atžvilgiu construction has moved from free members (of the predicate and sentence modifiers (circumstances)) into the position of a word’s valency actants (governed (indirect) objects). By analogy with the free members marked by the postpositional atžvilgiu construction that are communicatively necessary, it is optionally chosen to mark the corresponding actants of a word’s semantic valency.
The postpositional atžvilgiu construction is the predicate’s obligatory valency actant: in this way, two meanings of one lexeme with different valencies are distinguished (cf.: korektiškas – ‘polite, tactful’ (BLKŽė), e.g., He was (toward me) (cf. with me) fairly korektiškas (DLKT), and korektiškas – ‘correct, precise, conforming’, e.g., The Constitutional Court has not stated its opinion; the Seimas statute is not regarded as a document contradicting the country’s fundamental law: “However, it is not correct with respect to the Constitution.” (DLKT)).
The postpositional atžvilgiu construction is chosen instead of a lexeme’s valency (obligatory and optional) actants when they perform the functions of percipient, beneficiary, or content. Then, in the sentence, the atžvilgiu construction functioning as an indirect object replaces the actant marked by the dative or by a prepositional construction (su, į, apie, dėl); the subject may correspond to a percipient, patient, or agent. The postpositional atžvilgiu construction tends to be used when the lexeme provides for a subject syntactic actant corresponding to a percipient. Perceptivity influences the fact that the beneficiary actant, typically marked by the dative even with active-action verbs, is also replaced by the postpositional atžvilgiu construction. A distinction is made (or tends to be made) to actualize and mark the beneficiary’s state resp. active action. In view of this, there is reason to claim that the semantic actant corresponding to the less typical beneficiary of perceptive predicates will be marked by several syntactic forms: the dative and/or the postpositional atžvilgiu construction. The use of the postpositional atžvilgiu is associated with the (in)transitivity of the lexeme and the (non-)agentivity of the subject.27
The categorical properties of a lexeme affect the morphosyntactic marking of the semantic actant (beneficiary, patient, content) correlating with the indirect object (by the dative, the preposition į, apie or similar constructions, and/or the postpositional atžvilgiu construction). A syntactic actant governed by an adverb can be marked only by the postpositional atžvilgiu construction (e.g., He was dangerously (and
27 Cf. the concept of the mentalInio recipiento (German mentaler Rezipient) in Hentschel (2001: 183), Bartels (2005: 106–107).
Straipsniai / Articles
265
Page 22
LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ
unfavorably toward his hopes) (cf. *and unfavorably toward his hopes) the pensive baker lured the waiter (DLKT)). A postpositional atžvilgiu construction required by a noun may also be semantically and grammatically necessary (cf. Germans’ discrimination toward them, *Germans’ their discrimination).
In cases where the aspect of attitude or disposition inherent in atžvilgis is explicit or implicit in the meaning of the lexeme itself (e.g., priešas – ‘2. a person disposed in an unfriendly manner toward others, wishing them harm’ (DLKŽₑ); priešingas – ‘4. one who holds different views, is unfriendly, hostile’ (LKŽₑ); despotizmas – ‘2. domination and arbitrariness toward those around one’ (BLKŽₑ), nuotaika – ‘3. usually plural: an attitude or disposition toward someone or something’ (LKŽₑ), etc.), it may be preferred or necessary to mark it—that is, to use the postpositional atžvilgiu construction (cf. According to the general mood of the Lithuanian nation toward Jews, applying this also to Šilalė County, matters unfolded in this way. (DLKT)). By analogy, attitude or disposition (usually with perception predicates) is also marked in cases where the lexeme’s meaning does not indicate this aspect. The aspect of attitude or disposition marked by the postpositional atžvilgiu construction is associated with an indirect (cf. Can I hope that some indulgences will also fall to my share from your storehouse if I honestly confess to having sinned against you? (DLKT)).
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/.
LITERATŪRA
Ágel Vilmos 2000: Valenztheorie, Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
266
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII
Page 23
Atžvilgiu konstrukcija valentingumo aspektu
Akelaitis Gintautas 2005: Konstrukcijos su atžvilgiu, požiūriu administracinėje kalboje. – Kalbos kultūra 78, 67–78.
Bartels Hauke 2005: Dativ oder Präposition: Zur Markierungsvariation im Kontext adjektivischer Prädikate im Deutschen, Russischen und Polnischen (Studia Slavica Oldenburgensia 12), Oldenburg: BIS-Vlg.
Chafe Wallace 1983: Чейф У. Память и вербализация прошлого опыта [Pamjat’ i verbalizacija prošlogo opyta]. – Новое в зарубежной лингвистике [Novoe v zarubežnoj lingvistike] 12, 35–73.
Dik Simon C. 1997: The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: The Structure of the Clause, Second, revised edition, ed. by K. Hengeveld, Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fraenkel Ernst 1928: Syntax der litauischen Kasus, Kaunas: Lietuvos universiteto Humanitarinių mokslų fakultetas.
Givón Talmy 1990: Syntax. A Functional-Typological Introduction 2, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Givón Talmy 1991: Markedness in Grammar: Distributional, Communicative and Cognitive Correlates of Syntactic Structure. – Studies in Language 15, 335–370.
Givón Talmy 1995: Functionalism and Grammar, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Graščenkov Pavel V. 2018: Гращенков, Павел В. Синтаксические зависимые: лексический и конфигурационный подходы (на материале прилагательных) [Sintaksičeskie zavisimye: leksičeskij i konfiguracionnyj podxody (na materiale prilagatel’nyx)]. – Вестник Института востоковедения РАН [Vestnik Instituta vostokovedenija RAN], № 5, Москва: ИВ РАН [Moskva: IV RAN], 160–174.
Grice Paul 1989: Logic and Conversation. – Studies in the Way of Words, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 22–40.
Hentschel Elke, Weydt Harald 1994: Handbuch der deutschen Grammatik, 2. Aufl., Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.
Hentschel Gerd 2001: Dative or prepositional marking of noun phrases in the context of Russian adjectival experiencer predicates. – Variierende Markierungen von Nominalgruppen in Sprachen unterschiedlichen Typs (Studia Slavica Oldenburgensia 4), Hrsg. W. Boeder, G. Hentschel, Oldenburg: Bibliotheksund Informationssystem der Universität Oldenburg, 171–200.
Straipsniai / Articles
267
Page 24
LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ
Holvoet Axel, Čižik-Prokaševa Veslava 2005: Papildiniai ir aplinkybės. – Gramatinių funkcijų tyrimai (Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai 3), red. A. Holvoet, R. Mikulskas, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 65–92.
Jablonskis Jonas 1957: Rinktiniai raštai 1, sud. J. Palionis, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.
KP S1 2009: Kalbos patarimai 2: Sintaksė 1. Linksnių vartojimas, sud. R. Miliūnaitė, vyr. red. A. Pupkis, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.
Rembiaľkowska Agnieszka 2009: Lietuvių kalbos laisvieji naudininkai ir predikacijos lygmenys. – Gramatinių funkcijų prigimtis ir raiška (Acta Salensia 3), red. A. Holvoet, R. Mikulskas, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas, asociacija „Academia Salensis“, 147–168.
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.
Sližienė Nijolė 2004: Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių junglumo žodynas 2(2), Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla.
Šukys Jonas 1998: Lietuvių kalbos linksniai ir prielinksniai: vartosena ir normos, Kaunas: Šviesa.
Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė Loreta 2001: Lietuvių kalbos būdvardžių valentingumas: daktaro disertacija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.
Construction with atžvilgiu from the Perspective of Valency
SUMMARY
The article addresses the construction with postpositional atžvilgiu from the perspective of valency. It draws on 600 examples collected from The Corpus of Contemporary Lithuanian Language, which was developed at the Centre of Computational Linguistics of Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas.
It appeared that the construction with postpositional atžvilgiu is used in a sentence both instead of the valent actants of the word and as free elements.
As a free element, the construction with postpositional atžvilgiu is related to the free dative (or the construction with the preposition su), prepositional constructions, adverb; they are used at the core, extended and propositional level.
268
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVII
Page 25
Atžvilgiu konstrukcija valentingumo aspektu
There is a tendency to use the construction with postpositional atžvilgiu instead of the valent (mandatory and facultative) actants of the lexeme where they correspond to the functions of the percipient, beneficiary or contentive. In such case, the construction with atžvilgiu used as an indirect object replaces the dative or the actant expressed by a prepositional (su, į, apie, dėl) construction; the subject corresponds to the percipient, patient, agent. The construction with postpositional atžvilgiu is preferred when the lexeme denotes the syntactic actant of the subject corresponding to the percipient. A beneficiary is specified (tends to be specified) in order to highlight and mark a state or an active action. The usage of postpositional atžvilgiu pertains to the (in)transitivity of the lexeme and the (non)agency of the subject.
The categorical properties of the lexeme affect the morphosyntactic marking of the semantic actant correlating to the indirect object (by the dative, constructions with the prepositions į, apie, etc. and/or the construction with postpositional atžvilgiu).
