LORETA VAIČULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

Research areas: morphosyntax, typology, valency, semantics.

THE FUNCTIONAL ASPECT OF RECIPROCAL MARKERS IN MONADIC CONSTRUCTIONS

Functional Aspect of Reciprocal Markers in Monadic Constructions

ABSTRACT

The subject of this article is reciprocal markers used in monadic constructions with reciprocal verbs. Drawing on the material of the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language (DLKT), the article discusses what is made salient and specified by one or another reciprocal marker. Semantics serves as the starting point. The study showed that reciprocal markers can be classified somewhat differently than hitherto, namely gradationally, and that a hierarchy of reciprocal markers can be discussed according to their orientation toward the subject or the predicate and the division of the participants expressed by the subject into mutants. Subject-oriented reciprocal markers are used most frequently; they make salient different participants in a reciprocal situation, construed (separately: as a whole).

KEYWORDS: reciprocal verb, mutant, reciprocal monadic construction, reciprocal marker, semantic parameter.

ANNOTATION

The object of the article is reciprocal markers used in monadic constructions with reciprocal verbs. With the use of the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language (CCL) the things actualised and specified by one or another reciprocal marker are discussed. In this case, semantics is applied as a starting point. The study revealed that reciprocal markers can be distinguished in slightly different way than they were before, i.e., gradually, and hierarchy of reciprocal markers can be discussed according to the orientation to subject or predicate and segmentation of mutants expressed as subject. Subject-oriented reciprocal markers are used the most frequently; they actualise differently understood (separately: seamlessly; Lith. atskirai: vientisai) participants of a mutual situation.

Straipsniai / Articles

105

LORETA VAČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNĖ

K E Y W O R D S: reciprocal verb, mutant, reciprocal monadic construction, reciprocal marker, semantic parameter.

1. INTRODUCTION

Lithuanian verbs bendrauti, bendradarbiauti, bičiuliauti, bučiuotis, derėti(s), diskutuoti, (su)sugraugauti, ginčytis, kariauti, kovoti, kužėtis, lenktyniauti, muštis, rungtyniauti, sugyventi, su(si)tarti, susižvalgyti, sveikintis, šnabždėtis, taikytis, tuoktis, žaisti, varžytis, and the like, denote reciprocal action, or reciprocals. Some are lexical reciprocals¹ (Eng. lexical reciprocal) (bičiuliauti (: bičiulis), draugauti (: draugas), kovoti (: kova), etc.), while others are grammatical², more specifically, reflexive³ (Eng. reflexive reciprocals) (apkabinti (: apkabinti), bučiuotis (: bučiuoti); muštis (: mušti), tuoktis (: tuokti), etc.). Such reciprocal verbs (predicates) express a mutual relation between at least two participants in a situation—mutants (Eng. mutant)⁴. The inherent relation between mutants is symmetrical. For example, in the reciprocal construction (Eng. reciprocal construction) Jonas speaks with Onute, the participants in the mutual relation are

¹ „This term [i. e. lexical reciprocals] used to refer to verbs with inherent reciprocal meaning not marked by any derivational means, i. e. to semantically reciprocal verbs without the marker -si/-s [...] and verbs with the reflexive-middle marker which does not mark the reciprocal meaning (giminiotis). [...] Formally, lexical reciprocals can be simple (underived) and derived, in which case they may be denominal or deverbal derivatives“ (Geniušienė 2007: 658; šiuo klausimu plačiau žr. Nedjalkov 2007: 14–16, 96–101).

² Plačiau apie tai žr. Nedjalkov 2007: 9–12.

³ “This term [i. e. reflexive reciprocals] is used here to refer to morphologically marked reciprocals derived from non-reciprocal verbs by means of the reflexive-middle marker alone” (Geniušienė 2007: 658). Petronėlė Bernadišienė (Ulvydas, ed., 1971: 196) states that “reflexive verbs denoting reciprocal action (reflexiva reciproca) indicate that at the same time two, several, or more participants act upon one another.” Stasė Kniūkštė, in Dabartinė lietuvių kalbos gramatika (Ambrazas, ed., 1996: 288), writes that “the function of the main reflexive formative -s(i)—to restrict the sphere of the verb’s subject—is evident in various semantic groups of reflexive verbs: a) reciprocal action: bučiuotis, bartis.” Evalda Jakaitienė, in the same volume (Ambrazas, ed., 1996: 408), states that “reflexive verbs of reciprocal action mean that the action denoted by the base word is performed by two participants: the one that was the subject of the base word and the one that was its object, e.g.: bučiuotis (cf. Jonas kissed Ona—they (Jonas and Ona) are kissing), bartis, mylėtis, peštis, sveikintis, susitikti. In such derivatives, the reflexive affix adds the semantic feature ‘one another’.”

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

106

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Funcinis reciprokinių žymelių monadinės konstrukcijose aspektas

(Jonas, Onute) are expressed by the predicate kalbėti ‘to speak’ through two separate valency slots: by a nominative subject corresponding to the agent and by a prepositional su phrase functioning as an indirect object and taking the instrumental case, which corresponds to the comitative function (Šližienė 1994: 330). Such reciprocal constructions are called discontinuous, or dyadic (Eng. discontinous construction, dyadic construction).

Language exhibits a tendency to express the mutants of a mutual situation (Eng. mutual situation) as a single actant, that is, typically, all (at least two) mutants participating in the situation—the group as a whole, rather than any one of them—are selected as the reference point (Eng. reference point) (Haspelmath 2007: 291). In that case, both actants of the two-place predicate are expressed in the sentence by a plural noun or pronoun functioning as the subject, or by two nouns or pronouns joined by the conjunction and⁶. In sentences 1–3, such a group of mutants functions as a collective actant serving as the agent-corresponding subject (see Šližienė 1994: 43). More precisely, this agent coincides (merges) with the comitative and can be understood as a comitative. Here we see syntactic actant reduction (Eng. valence-reduction) (cf. Šližienė 1994: 330). These uses are called unitary, or monadic (reciprocal), constructions (Eng. simple construction, monadic construction⁷).

1) Jonas, Petras ir Antanas talk to one another. (quoted from Šližienė 1994: 43)

2) If they had been chatting for a long time, he pretended, and she could not bring herself to introduce an error, he also said nothing; the two of them continued talking as if nothing had happened. Many years have passed since then. DKT

3) Vaida, as if she wanted to discredit you here, but they come across as very childish. You and I spoke more seriously in that respect. But the childish anger she showed here sometime ago (from a professional point of view, it was a complete kindergarten) comes across as a serious fact. DKT

From sentences 1–3 it is clear that the position of the comitative-corresponding argument of the predicates in question remains unfilled. It can be filled by a non-valency-bearing free modifier—

⁵ “Discontinous constructions are those in which the second reciprocant is a non-subject” (Nedjalkov, Geniušienė 2007: 396). “A dyadic construction which creates a symmetric situation by placing one participant in a subject NP and another in a comitative phrase” (Hurst 2010: 290).

⁶ In such cases, in the Dictionary of Lithuanian Verb Valency, Nijolė Šližienė generally distinguishes a separate verb valency structure in which the syntactic actant corresponding to the collective actant is expressed by a noun (or pronoun) in the plural form—Nomₚlr: Juodu tarp savęs kariauja dėl pirmenybės ‘The two of them are fighting one another for precedence’ (see, e.g., Šližienė 1994: 175t, 330, 336, 338, 356, 440; 1998: 178t; 2004: 221t, 233, 270, 452).

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

Straipsniai / Articles

107

LORETA VAIČULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ

reciprocal markers (Eng. reciprocal marker) that have this status, for example, the monosemantic reciprocal anaphor one another, the locative case of the noun each other, and the prepositional construction among themselves (cf. sentences 4–5). These reciprocal markers in sentence 5 are not related to the valency of the verb to speak ‘to know a language; to be able to express thoughts in words’ (see Slizienė 1994: 31), but are important from a communicative point of view. These reciprocal markers, which express a mutual relationship and in one way or another make it salient and specify it, are modifiers⁸; that is, the verb does not require them either semantically or syntactically (so-called reduplication, or the double expression of a mutual relationship⁹ (Eng. replication, double reciprocals).

4) When I ask each of them separately what kind of life would make them happy, it turns out that the husband imagines it one way and the wife quite differently. However, with each other (cf. one another, among themselves) they do not talk about it, do not create a shared vision, so everything remains in pieces. DLKT

5) The meeting was moving, heartrending—a melodrama. Words were unnecessary. They with one another (cf. among themselves; mutually) spoke through subtle movements, in a sign language known only to them, which, had an outsider suddenly come in, might have seemed rather strange, to say the least. DLKT

The discussion below will focus mainly on sentences 4–5: cases will be considered in which all participants in a reciprocal situation are taken as the point of reference, are treated as the subject in monadic constructions, and their mutual relationship or the reciprocal-action meaning of the predicate itself is further highlighted and specified by a reciprocal marker. The article aims to answer the question of what is highlighted by one or another reciprocal marker, and according to which semantic parameters. To achieve this aim, the following tasks are set: briefly mention what has been written on the subject (see Section 2), analyze the use of reciprocal markers in monadic constructions, and determine the hierarchical relationships among reciprocal markers (see Section 4). The descriptive-analytical and interpretive methods are used. To achieve the aim, the study draws on material collected from the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language (hereafter DLKT), compiled at the Center of Computational Linguistics of Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas (for more details, see Section 3).

⁸ For a fuller discussion of the concepts of syntactic relations—government and modification, a dependent and a modifier, a governing word and a modified word—as used here, see Holvoet, Judžentis (2003: 11–35; 2005: 11–38). See also there a traditional overview of the types of syntactic relations.

⁹ Dalia Tekorienė (1985: 74) proposes calling such a repeated expression, where the other form provides no new information supplementing the meaning of the predicative word, a doubled expression of the same semantic actant (e.g.: I am driving toward each other; couples resemble one another).

108

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Funkcinis reciprokinių žymeklių monadinėse konstrukcijose aspektas

2. DESCRIPTION OF RECIPROCAL MARKERS IN GRAMMATICAL WORKS

To discuss what is highlighted by reciprocal markers and according to which semantic parameters, and to determine their relationships to one another, it is important to mention what has already been said about this.

Pavyzdžiui, Petronėlė Bernardienė Lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje (Ulvy das, red., 1971: 198) rašo, kad „tarpusavio veiksmo reikšmės sangrąžiniai veiksmažodžiai gali būti vartojami kartu su paryškinamaisiais žodžių junginiais ar žodžiais, pvz.: vienas kitą, vienas su kitu, tarp savęs, savo tarpe, tarpusavy ir pan.; šie žodžių junginiai ar žodžiai sustiprina dviejų ar kelių veikėjų sąveikos reikšmę, pabrėžia glaudesnius pačių veikėjų tarpusavio santykius“.

Jonas Šukys (1998: 515), aptardamas lietuvių kalbos linksnį ir prielinksnių vartoseną, laikosi nuomonės, kad „prielinksnio tarp konstrukcijos kartais reiškia objektą, tiksliau – objektus, tarp kurių yra koks neatitikimas, vyksta konfliktai ar bendravimas. [...] Konfliktą ar bendravimą gali reikšti ir posakis tarp savęs. [...] Tokiam tarp savęs yra sinonimiškas aptarėjais vienininkas tarpusavy(je), plg. Pasitare tarp savęs – Pasitare tarpusavyje.“ „Toks vienininkas sakinėje eina būdo aplinkybe. [...] Bet ir jie [būdo vienininkai tarpusavyje] turi tokių nors, kartais kalbai net įprastesnių pakaitalų. Moterys [...] ėmė tarpusavyje (plg. tarp savęs, viena su kita) šnabždėtis“ (Šukys 1998: 300). Kitais žodžiais kalbant, J. Šukys, panašiai kaip Elena Valiulytė Lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje (Ulvy das, red., 1976: 75, 105), skiria objektinius santykius žyminčią tarp savęs konstrukciją ir (būdo) aplinkybę tarpusavyje. Autorius (Šukys 1998: 515) mano, kad „posakiu tarp savęs nereikėtų piktnaudžiauti, ypač kai jis dubliuoja sangrąžinę veiksmažodžio formą ir kai iš sakinio aišku, kokius veikėjus ir kaip sieja veiksmas“.

Emma Geniušienė (2007: 669t, aptardama lietuvių kalbos reciprokines konstrukcijas, laikosi nuomonės, kad, pavyzdžiui, konstrukcija seserys pasi-bčiavo viena su kita reciprokine anafora viena su kita veikiau pabrėžia refleksyvinio reciproko reikšmės komitatyvinį komponentą. Tarpusavio komponento emfazei (an. emphasis), pasak jos, pasirenkamas reciprokinių žymeklis tarpusavyje arba tarp savęs¹⁰.

Here it becomes clear that some authors (for example, P. Bernardienė) mention reciprocal markers in general and draw attention to their semantic connection, that is, their orientation¹¹,

¹⁰ Cf.: “Explicit expressions of the reciprocal meaning are the phrases tarpusavyje/tarp savęs [...] containing the reflexive pronoun save, and savo tarpe [...], but they can be used with reciprocal verbs (formally reflexive and lexical) exclusively, to intensify or specify the reciprocal meaning; e. g: Mes baramės tarpusavyje. Jie draugauja tarpusavyje“ (Geniušienė 2007: 636t).

¹¹ Orientacijos terminas vartojamas pagal Holvoet 2009: 99.

Straipsniai / Articles

109

LORETA VAČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNĖ

with subject-expressed variants, others distinguish them syntactically and/or semantically: i.e., the object one with another¹², among themselves vs. the adverbial among one another (for example, J. Šukys, E. Valiulytė); subject-oriented one with another and predicate-oriented among themselves, among one another (cf. E. Geniušienė). It is acknowledged (J. Šukys) that the functionally reciprocal marker among one another may come close to among themselves.

Adelė Valeckienė, aptardama įvardžius Lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje (Ulvyda, red., 1965: 696; plg. Ambrazas, red., 1996: 269¹³), rašo, kad „įvardžių poros vienas... kitas [...] nurodo du vienas nuo kito atibotus neapibrėžtus daiktus ar ypatybes, taip pat daiktų ar ypatybių grupes.“ Tokiais atvejais, kai šie tarp savęs susiję įvardžiai turi skirtingų linksnių formas ir vartojami su prielinksniai, be nurodytos atskiriamosios neapibrėžiamosios reikšmės, jie dar įgauna papildomas reikšmes, išplaukiančias iš tų linksnių ir prielinksnių funkcijų. „Pavyzdžiui, šios rūšies įvardžiai, išreikšti vienas vardininko, kitas galininko linksniu, gali turėti papildomą tarpusavio ryšio reikšmę (Vienas kitą veja). [...] Jau visi rūkė, kalbėjosi vienas su kitu“ (Ulvyda, red., 1965: 697).

Albertas Rosinas (1996: 135), išsamiai aprašydamas įvardžius, atkreipia dėmesį į tai, kad „tam tikrais atvejais galima reciprokinių [vienas su kitu] ir sangrąžinių įvardžių neutralizacija. [...] Tarp + savęs gali pakeisti reciprokinių įvardžio įnagininko formą, plg.: Ten jie (...) tarp savęs ar su Ona pasišnekučiavo; Vieni pritarė, kiti negė ir ginčijosi tarp savęs. Tačiau kalbamoji neutralizacija, nors ir rodo sangrąžinių ir reciprokinių įvardžių semantinį panašumą, yra retoka.“ Paprastai vienaskaitos reciprokinių įvardžių vienas su kitu formos skaido abė, susidedančią iš dviejų elementų ir rodo tų elementų santykį. „Tačiau vienaskaitinėmis formomis skaidos ir tokios abės, kurios susideda daugiau kaip dviejų elementų. [...] visos rašto dalelės derinosi viena su kita.

Thus, semantically, the reciprocal marker among themselves may be close to the reciprocal anaphor one with another and/or the reciprocal marker among one another may be close to it. Apart from such cases of synonymy, each reciprocal marker has its own typical function. In cases where the reciprocal anaphor one with another is used (cf. sentence 5), it foregrounds the individual participants in the reciprocal situation expressed by the subject. Here, the parameter of number is relevant. What is foregrounded by reciprocals among themselves, among one another will be discussed below (see section 4). To summarize what has been said so far, it is important that the authors mentioned,

¹² Cf.: “The complements are expressed by the pronouns one another, one the other when their second component is an oblique case (sometimes with a preposition), and the first is nominative. [...] Dutė and her father avoided meeting one another” (Valiulytė in: Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 479).

¹³ Cf.: “The separate [pronouns] denote indefinite but mutually distinct and attributive things (persons, general phenomena) or qualities” (Ambrazas, ed., 1996: 269).

110

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Funkcinis reciprokinių žymeklių monadinės konstrukcijos aspektas

Apart from cases of synonymy, reciprocal markers are distinguished differently from a semantic perspective: the markers under discussion are subject-oriented (P. Bernadienė); the reciprocals one with another, among themselves are subject-oriented, whereas the reciprocal marker among one another is predicate-oriented (E. Valiulytė, J. Šukys, A. Rosinas); the reciprocal anaphor one with another is subject-oriented, while the markers among themselves, among one another are predicate-oriented (E. Geniušienė). In other words, differences of opinion are evident as to what—the subject resp. the predicate—the reciprocal markers in question foreground and specify.

Nicholas Evans, Stephen C. Levinson, Alice Gaby ir Asifa Majid (2011: 31–33), išsamiai nagrinėdami reciprokinius veiksmažodžius semantinės tipologijos aspektu, skiria penkis semantinius tarpusavio situacijos parametrus, turinčius (galinčius turėti) įtakos vienų ar kitų reciprokinių konstrukcijų vartojimui: tai (a) dalyvių skaičius (du vs. daugiau nei du); (b) dalyvių konfiguracija (an. configuration¹⁴); (c) simetrija (simetriškas vs. asimetriškas); (d) laikas (an. temporal organisation) (vienalaikis vs. sekos arba abu (t. y. nepritaikomas)), (e) situacijos, arba įvykio tipas (an. action or situation type; event-type). Kalbininkų nuomone, tipiškoje tarpusavio situacijoje, reiškiamoje, pavyzdžiui, konstrukcija Jonukas ir Onutė apsikabino vienas su kitu, dalyvauja du (Jonukas, Onutė) mutantai. Tokia monadinė konstrukcija pasakomas kompleksinis įvykis (an. complex event; a joint action or plurality of events), kurį sudaro dvi vienalaikės (tuo pačiu metu, kai Jonukas apkabino Onutę, Onutė apkabino Jonuką), simetriškos (tai, ką daro Jonukas Onutei, Onutė daro Jonukui) ir draugės (sudėtį argumentų; an. conjoined argument) (tai, ką daro Jonukas ir Onutė, jie daro kartu) propozicijos (an. two sub-events). Tarp tokių mutantų yra stipri (an. strong¹⁵), poros (an. pair¹⁶) konfiguracija. Be šių, minėtieji autoriai dar skiria grandines (an. chain¹⁷), radinę (an.

¹⁴ “The […] parameter configuration comes into operation once multiple participants are involved, since then the possible permutations of who acts on whom can also vary“ (Majid, Evans, Gaby, Levinson 2011: 31).

¹⁵ „Where all participants act on each other symmetrically the event is fully saturated“ (Majid, Evans, Gaby, Levinson 2011: 31).

¹⁶ „A and B, and likewise C and D, could be in strong symmetrical interaction, but with no interaction between the pairs“ (Majid, Evans, Gaby, Levinson 2011: 32).

¹⁷ „A could act on B who could act on C who could act on D, resulting in a linear series of events“ (Majid, Evans, Gaby, Levinson 2011: 32).

Straipsniai / Articles

111

LORETA VAĮČULYTĖ-SEMĖNĖ

radial) ¹⁸, melee (Eng. melee)¹⁹ and ring (Eng. ring)²⁰ configurations.

Nagrinėdama lietuvių kalbos reciprokinės konstrukcijas E. Geniušienė (2007: 69t) teigia, kad su leksiniais reciprokais, implikuojančiais tik du mutu- antus (žr. 6–8 sakinį) arba tik daugiau nei du (žr. 9–11 sakinius), reciprokine anafora vienas su kitu yra redundantinė ir todėl paprastai nevartojama. Su kitas leksiniais reciprokais, pavyzdžiui, bendrauti, draugauti, giminiuotis; lenktyniauti, rungtyniauti, kovoti, kariauti ir pan., vienaskaitos arba daugiskaitos vienas su kitu formos vartojamos specifinių tarsavio situacijos dalyvių skaičių (pvz.: jie draugauja vienas su kitu / vieni su kitais; dar plg. 12–13 sakinius). Vienaskai- tos arba daugiskaitos vienas su kitu iš esmės galimas ir su refleksyviniais recip- rokais, bet jie esą vartojami tik labai retais atvejais: kai būtina, t. y. norima, pabrėžti (plg. 14–16 sakinius). Reciprokiniai žymekliai tarpusavyje, tarp savęs taip pat gali pabrėžti du ir daugiau tarpusavio situacijos mutantų (pvz.: Visi siė giminuojasi tarpusavyje; Giminės retai tuokiasi tarpusavyje; Jiedvi barasi tarp savęs; *Je pasibučiuo tarp savęs; *Jie susitokė tarpusavyje; *Paukščiai buriasi (telkiasi) tarpusavyje; jie dažniausiai vartojami su refleksyviniais reciprokai, turinčiais reikšmę ’būti vienas kitą’ (barasi, pėnasi, mušasi, graužiasi) ar ’kal- bėti, šnabždėti vienas kitam’ (kalbasi, pasišnėbėjo) (Geniušienė 2007: 67; plg. 17–20 sakinius).

Thus, the Lithuanian-language evidence shows that, apart from the exceptions mentioned, the number of participants in a reciprocal situation does not affect the choice of reciprocal markers. In light of what has been briefly reviewed, the following section (see section 4) seeks to answer the question: what has greater influence, and what is (more) foregrounded by the markers in question?

6) Nature lovers learned to grow flowers not only in summer but also in winter. They went even further: at home gūlbes parovasi, built nests, and raised young. DĖKT

7) All actors eventually paired off in J. Miltinis’s studio paired off, married, and baptized one another’s children—this cannot be avoided unless it is a studio-monastery. DĖKT

¹⁸ „Sentence [The teacher and her pupils intimated one another] is ambiguous, but in one of its readings the teacher intimates each of her pupils and vice versa, but no intimation obtains between pairs of students“ (Evans, Levinson, Gaby, Majid 2011: 8).

¹⁹ „A and C could each act on D who alone acts on C, etc.“ (Majid, Evans, Gaby, Levinson 2011: 32).

²⁰ „Each participant [in: The children chased each other round in a ring] is both chased and a chaser, but there is no pair within which a symmetrical relation holds“ (Evans, Levinson, Gaby, Majid 2011: 8).

112

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Funcinis reciprokinių žymėjų monadinėse konstrukcijose aspektas

8) The crowd sipped cocktails, swayed, listened to cunning music, and quickly got drunk. DLKT

9) My courses are approaching their final days of study. I felt quite happy that they would end only in a year. But what is this? In the conservatory foyer are gathering my two dearest ones, Vytautas, Rita Kučinskaitė and... Gražina Ručytė—my long-dreamed-of ideal pianist! DLKT

10) A man sits in a yoga pose. Japanese or Chinese? And beside the window—a canvas, not just a copy: Moses rejoices in God’s laws. The mountain smolders. People gather in clusters. DLKT

11) A warm early-autumn day is dawning. Partridges emerge from clumps of browning grass; on the bare hillocks, storks are gathering. Even the grass underfoot barely glimmers—it is trampled, battered, faded. DLKT

12) On his way home, Gauss wondered whether the day would ever come when people would communicate with one another without lying. DLKT

13) That is precisely why different people-pictures cannot exist side by side, unrelated to one another, yet justifiably fight one another. DLKT

14) They burned the dead with torches, buried the cremated without grave goods, and surrounded the graves with stone circles that joined together, or buried them farther away in barrows, increasingly often interring the dead unburned and placing metal ornaments in the graves. DLKT

15) When Armando heard that the stranger was greeting him, he did the same without hesitation. “In my family, this holiday is celebrated. People greet one another, but I don’t know where this tradition comes from. Could you tell me?” he asked, bewildered. DLKT

16) Little people walk across the earth like little birds and grow. How they grow should be a concern for all of us. Yet we rush about, hoard things, tear into one another over trifles, and sometimes forget those little people. DLKT

17) Household alarm clocks chirped, old men snored, children trundled off to bed, and men and women caressed one another. Life went on. DLKT

18) Several bell-ringers sprang up, lifted the reader in their arms, went down to the ground and carried him beyond the churchyard, shouting joyfully. Others caressed one another, weeping with joy, and kissed one another, while others began a song: “A joyful day we have experienced, one we had long desired...” DLKT

19) It was chilling to read in the press that Russian aircraft had bombed their own positions too, and that tanks had fired at one another. It is also interesting that radio communications operate on the same frequencies; in other words, the Russians can listen to the Chechens, and the latter to Russian commands. DLKT

20) The 44 participants competed using the Swiss system (10 rounds). Each pair played against each other twice (cf. mutually; vs. one another), once with the white pieces and once with the black pieces. DLKT

Straipsniai / Articles

113

LORETA VAĮČULYTĖ-SEMĖNĖ

3. SOURCE AND SELECTION OF EMPIRICAL DATA

The article is based on 111 examples in which reciprocal markers one with another, one with the other, some with others, each other, among themselves, mutually, reciprocally, mutually, reciprocally are used in monadic constructions with reciprocal verbs (see Section 1), in finite or non-finite forms (participles, infinitives) of all tenses and persons.

The empirical data were collected from DLKT, most of which consists of written, often edited texts. The texts are of various genres (journalistic, fiction, non-fiction, or administrative literature). There are evidently far fewer examples of spoken language. Sentences with reciprocal verbs were selected sequentially from DLKT by entering, for example, mutually in the extended search field (the search criterion matches), or, for example, one with (the search criterion phrase), collectively, i.e. without classifying by functional styles, language varieties, or the like. Thus, the question of whether the use of certain reciprocal markers correlates with functional styles remains open. The search in DLKT yielded 7,060 instances of use with mutually, 845 instances with among themselves, 401 instances of some with others, 1,079 of one with the other, 52 instances with some with others, and 653 instances with one with another. Of these, 317 sentences with mutually, 190 sentences with among themselves, 215 sentences with some with others and 8 with some with others, 191 sentences with one with the other, and 174 sentences with one with another were selected that contained the verbs under discussion. Based on the dictionary definition of the noun tarpusais as ‘reciprocity, mutuality’²¹, DLKT was also searched for uses of the semantically related forms reciprocally, mutually, reciprocally, reciprocally. Only isolated examples were found with these reciprocal markers. Taking the above into account

²¹ Cf. DŽe: tarpusavis (1) reciprocity, mutuality: They are talking ~yje (among themselves). savitarpis (1) a connection between persons, groups, etc., mutuality, reciprocity: They got along well ~yje. LKŽ: tarpusavis noun (1) reciprocity, mutuality: We, having clasped hands, came to hold fast to mutual friendship J.Balč. During the first couple of days, the teams of our two republics met each other in the press. savitarpis noun (1) mutuality, reciprocity: Their mutual relations concerned that person Jabl. There, both men and women speak Polish among themselves Rd. They quarrel among themselves NdŽ. Those children speak to each other in that way DūnŽ. But the pride of mutuality still drives us Mair. | Reflexive verbs with a reciprocal meaning are also intransitive, since the action they express passes reciprocally from one subject to another LKGI185. abipusiškumas noun (2) BŽ305 → reciprocity: Reciprocal obligations TTŽ. abipusiškas adjective (1) mutual, reciprocal: Mutual love rš. reciprocally, adverb: The glands regulate one another reciprocally rš. savitarpiškas adjective (1) characteristic of mutual relations: A shared mutual life rš. reciprocally, adverb. Much is given reciprocally in mutual relations FT. A reciprocally unambiguous equivalent SkŽ284.

114

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Funkcinis reciprokinių žymeklių monadinėse konstrukcijose aspektas

J. This view—that when using reflexive verbs of reciprocal action, one should not overuse the reciprocal marker among themselves—as well as E. Geniušienė’s different view (see Section 2), seems to make it pertinent to consider whether this affects the use of reciprocal markers. Reflexive predicates, which account for 58.4% (646 sentences) of all the sentences under discussion, were distinguished from non-reflexive predicates, accounting for 41.6% (461 sentences). The data are distributed as shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1. Reciprocal markers in monadic constructions

Reciprocal marker | Reciprocal verb | Reflexive | Non-reflexive | Number of sentences | One with the other | 117 (61.3%) | 74 (38.7%) | 191 (100%) | One with another | 95 (54.6%) | 79 (45.4%) | 174 (100%) | Some with others | 141 (65.6%) | 74 (34.4%) | 215 (100%) | Some with others (feminine) | 3 (37.5%) | 5 (62.5%) | 8 (100%) | Among themselves | 127 (66.8%) | 63 (33.2%) | 190 (100%) | Mutually | 156 (49.2%) | 161 (50.8%) | 317 (100%) | Reciprocally | 4 (57.1%) | 3 (42.9%) | 7 (100%) | Reciprocally | – | 2 (100%) | 2 (100%) | Mutually | 3 (75%) | 1 (25%) | 4 (100%) | Reciprocally | – | 3 (100%) | 3 (100%) | Total | 646 (58.1%) | 465 (41.9%) | 111 (100%)

TABLE 2. Reciprocal markers in monadic constructions

Reciprocal marker | Reciprocal verb | Reflexive | Non-reflexive | Number of sentences | One with the other (singular and plural, masculine and feminine) | 356 (60.5%) | 232 (39.5%) | 588 (100%) | Among themselves | 127 (66.8%) | 63 (33.2%) | 190 (100%) | Mutually | 156 (49.2%) | 161 (50.8%) | 317 (100%) | Reciprocally | 4 (57.1%) | 3 (42.9%) | 7 (100%) | Reciprocally | – | 2 (100%) | 2 (100%) | Mutually | 3 (75%) | 1 (25%) | 4 (100%) | Reciprocally | – | 3 (100%) | 3 (100%) | Total | 646 (58.4%) | 465 (41.6%) | 111 (100%)

Straipsniai / Articles

115

LORETA VAČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNĖ

Combining all monadic constructions with singular and plural forms of the masculine and feminine genders one with another, we obtain the summary data in Table 2, which shows that the reciprocal marker one with another or among themselves occurs somewhat more often with reflexive verbs, while mutually occurs with non-reflexive verbs. This is hardly relevant. Other factors influence the use (choice) of reciprocal markers. On the other hand, it is clear from the table that language users choose the reciprocal marker reciprocally, mutually, mutually only in isolated cases. In other words, the manner in which the reciprocal action denoted by the predicate is expressed is rarely made salient and specified.

4. RECIPROCAL MARKERS ACCORDING TO SEMANTIC PARAMETERS

It was mentioned (see Section 2) that reciprocal markers can be semantically close: the reciprocal marker mutually may be synonymous with the marker among themselves, and the latter with the reciprocal anaphor one with another. Attention was drawn to the distributivity parameter, according to which the reciprocal anaphor one with another partitions a set consisting of two or more members and refers to its members individually.

Let us examine the following DKT sentences in terms of distributivity. For example, in sentences 21–22 the reciprocal anaphor one with another makes salient two separate (individual) participants denoted by the subject. The salience of more than two separately perceived participants denoted by the subject is evident in the preceding sentences (12–16) (see also below). In sentence 23, the reciprocal anaphor one with another makes salient the mutual relationship between two distinct groups—parents and children—each in relation to the other, while the reciprocal marker among themselves denotes the mutual relationship among the individual (separate) participants in each distinct group (parents, children) (cf. also sentence 20; see below). Looking at sentence 24, we can speak of the ambiguity of the reciprocal marker among themselves: either it is synonymous with the reciprocal anaphor one with another, or, as in sentence 25, it foregrounds the two participants denoted by the subject as a group. In a mutual relationship, the group of participants denoted by the subject is one in which the distinctness of the participants in the mutual relationship is either not salient or less salient, and the group is perceived as more closed (Eng. bounded set) (for example, a group of children); in sentences 26–27, among themselves is likewise chosen to specify and emphasize this. It is probably mutually in sentence 28 that makes salient the mutual relationship within a closed group of participants (four Benettons). If so, then the marker mutually used in sentences 29–30 can also be interpreted as semantically associated with the two participants denoted by the subject: reciprocal mutually (may) make(s) salient (and) delimit(s) a group of two participants (see below).

116

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Funkcinis reciprokinių žymeklių monadinėse konstrukcijose aspektas

Thus, the way participants denoted by the subject are perceived influences the use of reciprocal markers: the reciprocal anaphor one with another makes each participant in the reciprocal situation salient individually, while the reciprocal markers among themselves, mutually refer to all (two or more) participants as a less tightly or tightly bounded group. In other words, the distributivity parameter is relevant to the use of reciprocal markers. We might suppose that the syntactic distribution also has some influence on the use of reciprocal markers among themselves, mutually, for example, in sentences 24, 26, and 28: they occur alongside a prepositional phrase in the dative, cf.: They communicate more with one another than with others. However, on the basis of sentence 31, we must acknowledge that its influence is not essential.

21) The bustle of events breaks the silence. But then again, perhaps that is a good thing. Not because poetry and logic do not necessarily go together. Sometimes it is more meaningful to write when you are full of impressions. DKT

22) And inside a person it sometimes happens that the soul and matter struggle with one another. Espronceda once said these words: In life, a person is never whole. He has too much soul or too much body. DKT

23) There are families in which parents and children speak not only with one another, but also among themselves. DKT

24) Two shepherds, talking amicably among themselves, tell of the Savior and his Mother, or, as if competing with one another, sing of the Child and the Virgin. DKT

25) The less spouses talk among themselves (cf. with one another), the more frustration grows and a “language barrier” arises. They no longer want to be together. Complete silence prevails. DKT

26) I merely notice that those third children are like a separate part of the youth: they do not make themselves very visible anywhere; they mostly socialize not with others, but among themselves. And their interactions are much quieter, unlike those of all the others. DKT

27) At the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century, throughout Lithuania, children of landless, poor families married among themselves (cf. mutually), because social divisions were still pronounced in rural communities. Poor girls had no choice². DKT

²² Cf. the Russian data: “If, however, the predicate is predicated to denote situations with only two participants, its co-occurrence with meždu soboj apparently turns out to be awkward; cf.: *Oni pocelovalis’ (poznakomilis’, pozënilis’) meždu soboj. Elimination of such quantitative restrictions (for example, by virtue of the addition of a distributive sense) would make these combinations quite possible; cf.: Oni vse perecelovalis’ (perenakomilis’, perežенilis’) meždu soboj.“ (Knjažev 2007: 689–690).

Straipsniai / Articles

117

LORETA VAIČULYTĖ-SEMĖNĖ

28) None of the four Bentons, the firm’s founders, attended college or completed specialized studies in commerce or design. Even today they speak among themselves (cf. among themselves) and with the company’s longtime employees in the local dialect, rather than in proper Italian. DKT

29) Manė kept reassuring herself: “Relax. They’ll be coming—say anything in your own language, putting on a Mussolini face. Grimaces always help.” The Mexican couple were making a life together (? one with the other). I suspect they had once read Lorca. DKT

30) And the second one would be silent too, a weeping voice agreeing: “But where are my connections? Lord, do I have my connections?” Galapataka and the judge immersed themselves in one another, and several servants came down from the terrace. “What Kuntis is he talking about there?” one of the servants asked. “Are they avoiding the light and thinking of my connections?” DKT

31) Dividing into groups, they wandered around the surrounding churches and cells; they pulled radishes from the monastery garden, argued with the nuns showing them around and with one another.About twenty nuns, old and very young, received the guests as an inevitable trial sent by God. DKT

The importance of the parameter of divisibility for expression is also evident in descriptions of locative or temporal meanings. Jonas Kilius (1977: 45), discussing the structure of the orientational meanings²³ of cases and prepositions, points out that the relevant feature for the locative case and the preposition tarp discussed here is interiority. He argues that the locative case (for example, statinė) “denotes the interior of an indivisible landmark (if plural, of each object), excluding the exterior, whereas the orientational meaning of the preposition tarp is, as it were, hybrid—both interior and exterior at once; interior in the sense that it denotes a space bounded by a divisible landmark, and exterior in that the bounded space is outside the objects constituting the landmark” (cf. Valiulytė 1995: 7t). In the linguist’s view (Kilius 1977: 46), on the basis of the shared feature of interiority, the locative “may receive the meaning ‘between’ in context when a) the landmark—one divisible object—is expressed by a plural noun (Dovdonas appeared in the doorway; He stands between the doors); b) when the plural denotes a collection of homogeneous objects, but is in part regarded as a single whole having volume (Blue bunches of berries glowed among the leaves; Among them (the tree leaves), golden fruits gleamed)”²⁴.

E. Valiulytė (1995: 10), detalizuodama vietos raišką, polemizuoja su J. Kiliumi (1977) ir mano, kad vietos linksnių ir prielinksnių konstrukcijų priešprieša

²³ “An orientational meaning is a meaning that specifies where the subject is, was, or will be located in relation to a landmark—inside it, outside it, above it, beside it, and so on” (Kilius 1977: 40).

²⁴ Panašios nuomonės laikosi ir E. Valiulytė (1995:120; dar plg. Šukys 1998: 27): „Kai kurių daiktavardžių daugiskaita, žymi vienarūšių daiktų sankaupą, taip pat gali būti pakaitomis vartojama su prielinksniu tarp ir vietininku.“

118

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Funcinis reciprokinių žymeklių monadinėse konstrukcijose aspektas

according to the meanings ‘shared location / outside area’ is universal. Therefore, as she argues, the latter is more convenient than J. Kilius’s proposed opposition ‘inside / outside’. The basis of the opposition ‘shared location / outside area’ (Valiulytė 1995: 8) is the interior locative, which “most often denotes the location of something inside an object (the landmark), within its boundaries” (ibid.: 11), and is opposed to the tarp construction, which denotes a location bounded on two or more sides. Such a locative with an interior meaning may be synonymous with tarp + genitive: standing between the gates / at the gates (ibid.: 13, 118²⁵). In such a context, the noun gates corresponds in meaning to the compound gate-gap: “its locative can replace the forms mentioned, e.g.: [...] Markuskas left, while she remained alone in the gate-gap (/ at the gates / between the gates)” (Valiulytė 1995: 119, cf. 1998: 100t). Although “the difference between tarp the doors, gates constructions and locatives is harder to grasp, the preposition tarp nevertheless foregrounds the lateral boundaries of the spatial interval denoted by the noun (i.e. indicates divided space), whereas the locative refers only to a vertical plane, as a delimited space. In general, objects indicated by the plural locative are understood as the place they occupy (in the sense of a unified whole), whereas the prepositional tarp construction denotes a place represented as divided (birds chirp in the branches / between the branches)” (Valiulytė 1995: 121; cf. 1998: 102–104)²⁶.

J. Šukys (1998: 283), nagrinėdamas lietuvių kalbos linksnių ir prielinksnių vartoseną, atkreipia dėmesį į tai, kad „kuo daiktavardis abstraktesnis, tuo jo vietininko vietos reikšmė mažiau ryški, kartais įgijusi kitų reikšmių atspalvių“, o „abstraktesnės reikšmės vietininkais dar [...] vis dažniau nusakoma nebe tiek vieta, kiek veiksmo, reiškinio reiškimosi sritis (Linkime jums sėkmės visuose dalykuose), kokį objektą naudojamas, taikomas, buvimas kokioje nors srityje (Kalbos normos diegimas praktikoje (plg. praktiškai)). Tokie vietininkai dažnai turi ir būdo, būvio reikšmių atspalvių“. Abstrakčių daiktavardžių tarpuose, krūva, būrys ar pan. vietininkais reiškiamas veiksmo atlikimo būdas (Šukys 1998: 300t; dar žr. skirsnį 2). Čia svarbu ir tai, kad „dalis tokių būdo reikšmės vietininkų turi ir vietos ar laiko reikšmės atspalvį (reikšmių sinkretizmas), pvz.: Viešumoje (plg. Viešai) apie tai nekalbama“ (Šukys1998: 301); prielinksnio tarp konstrukcija, pavyzdžiui, sakinyje Ir visoki žiedeliai taip tarp savęs pinas reiškia objektą (Šukys 1998: 515), o polinksnis tarp – objektą su būdo atspalviu, pvz.: Atvykėliai patyluais kalbėjosi savo tarpe (t. p.: 518).

²⁵ Dar pažymėja E. Valiulytės nuomonę žr. Ulvydas, red., 1976: 72.

²⁶ Kiek vėliau E. Valiulytė (1998: 24t), išsamiai aprašydama dabartinės lietuvių kalbos sintaksinius sinonimus ir atsižvelgusi į laiko reikšmėms įvardyti vartojamus terminus, vietoj „vartoto nebelai aiškaus vietos bendrumo termino“, skiria aukščiausios pakopos semantinę opoziciją – „sutampanti / nesutampanti vieta“. Sutampančią vietą žymintys vietininkas ir tarp konstrukcija autorės skiriami kaip opoziciniai „vidus / skaidumas“ pagrindu (plg. skirtingai Valiulytė 1995: 8). Pagal slankumo reikšmes abi vietos raiškos žymi buvimo vietą.

Straipsniai / Articles

119

LORETA VAČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNĖ

On the basis of the foregoing, by analogy with the locative expressions between the gates / at the gates / in the gate-gap, we may also proceed to discuss the reciprocal markers of interest here: among themselves / one another / in one another’s midst²⁷. We could then broadly regard the examples among themselves / one another / in one another’s midst, formed on the model of locative (spatial) meanings, as circumstantial modifiers expressing the domain of an action’s meaning in (a delimited) space (cf. sentences 32–33). In terms of their expression, locative among themselves / one another / in one another’s midst could be distinguished from manner modifiers expressed by the adverbs mutually, reciprocally, in a reciprocal manner, as in sentences 34–36. Alternatively, given the functional aspect relevant here and following tradition (Ruže in: Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 504; Šukys 1998: 300), on the basis of their semantic proximity to typical manner adverbs (mutually, reciprocally, in a reciprocal manner), we could regard one another / in one another’s midst as manner modifiers. Syntactically, manner modifiers one another, in one another’s midst, mutually, reciprocally, in a reciprocal manner could then be contrasted to the object expressions one with another, among themselves. The number of the entities denoted by the subjects provides grounds for this relative distinction. As noted, the use of the reciprocal marker one another may also be motivated by it (see below).

32) The minister repeated the same thing in the spring of 1938: the Jews themselves cannot agree on the communities. “Let the Jews quarrel among themselves (cf. with one another), then it will be possible to negotiate.” DLKT

33) Why do we rebel among ourselves (cf. with one another) and constantly argue? These are trifles, the paltry nonsense of a lesser Don Quixote. DLKT

34) The Contracting Parties recommend that companies settle disputes amicably in the first instance [among themselves], by reaching a mutual agreement. DLKT

35) This kind of analysis makes it possible not only to examine these poets’ work more closely, but also to systematize some of it and try to understand how form and content interact reciprocally, how thought unfolds through formal expression. DLKT

36) Taip pat į bandymus derinti piliečių grupių siekius vadovauti ir valdyti, daugelio žmonių troškimą gyventi laisvai ir savitarpiškai nevaržomai bendrauti. DLKT

In other words, if we take the semantic aspect as our point of departure, we see that some reciprocal markers are more semantically connected (i.e. oriented) to the subject, while others are connected to the predicate expressing the reciprocal action itself. In view of this, it is useful to speak of a certain gradation among reciprocal markers: one with another > among themselves > one another > in one another’s midst > mutually / reciprocally,

²⁷ Cf. the sense of the noun tarpas given in dictionaries: ‘the circle of people connected by something’: They began quarreling and arguing among themselves. Akm. And those two will play among themselves, loving one another, embracing each other (of children) Žb. They got along well in their own circle (DŽe).

120

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Funkcinis reciprokinių žymeklių monadinėse konstrukcijose aspektas

whereas reciprocal anaphora one with another is typically oriented toward the subject itself, conceived as divisible, and makes salient each separately construed participant in the mutual situation denoted by the subject, the adverbs mutually / reciprocally / mutually are oriented toward the predicate and make salient the reciprocity of the action denoted by the predicate of mutual action; other reciprocal markers fall between one with another and mutually. Thus, the reciprocal markers under discussion reflect hierarchical differences in orientation, or in the foregrounding and specification of the subject >predicate (see also sentences 37–38). Furthermore, drawing on the aforementioned studies of place and time expression by J. Kilius and E. Valutė, we can refine the preceding point and analogously state that the meanings of the divisible properties of the mutual situation’s participants, as denoted by the subject, form the separate: unified, or individual (individual): collective (group), property (parameter) that correlates with the variation among reciprocal markers one with another > among themselves > mutually: the mutual relationship between separate participants is foregrounded by the reciprocal anaphora one with another (see sentence 39), whereas the relationship among participants within a closed or narrowly construed group, viewed as a (more) unified whole, is expressed by the reciprocal markers among themselves or mutually (see sentences 40–41 and 42, respectively). As noted, in terms of divisibility, the reciprocal marker among themselves can approach a specifier of the mutual relationship among separate participants—the reciprocal anaphora one with another (see sentence 43; see also sentence 24)—or the reciprocal marker mutually may approach it (see sentence 44; see also sentences 28–29).

37) In return, Germany ceded a larger part of Lithuania’s territory to the Russians. At that time Germany and the Soviet Union were allies: both attacked Poland, mutually agreeing (cf. agreeing mutually with one another / among themselves), established its sphere of influence and jointly redrew the map of Eastern Europe as they pleased. DLT

38) The light of consciousness is formed from numerous “pieces of information” flowing in from all areas of our psyche, and manifests itself in a whole series of “I know” statements, which complement one another (cf. *complement each other among themselves) and reveal the so-called “light of consciousness,” brighter each time, or vice versa. DLT

39) According to the chairman, there had been no cajoling or demagoguery, “but that does not mean that we could not separately consult and talk with one another” (?among ourselves;?mutually). DLT

40) Jei sakėn, kad elitas privalo formuoti visuomenės darną, vadinasi, jam [elitui] svarbu komunikuoti ir tarp savęs (plg. tarpusavyje;?vieniems su kitais), ir su visuomene. DLT

41) The first group represents the interests of the Polish and Russian minorities, the second those of the Lithuanian Government. Each group, after discussing among themselves (cf.

Straipsniai / Articles

121

LORETA VAİČULYTĖ-ŠEMENĖ

mutually) on this topic, presents its position on the issues mentioned and then tries to solve the didactic problem. DKT

42) The group mutually (cf. among themselves; one with another) agrees to discuss some difficult situation, stumbling over one another, with closed body postures, grumbling and interrupting one another. DKT

43) Humbtas was clearly indicating to Gausas to be quiet. People began to come out of the salon, curious. The bald man and woman dressed in black were whispering among themselves (cf. one with another), while a girl in a nightshirt watched them over their shoulders. DKT

44) As it seemed to me at the time, Valdas belonged to the most conceited group of former pupils of Kaunas’s “Aušra” Gymnasium. The so-called Aušra alumni socialized only among themselves (cf. mutually). When I first saw Valdas, I thought: “The young man looks quite good, but—he’s from Kaunas, and an Aušra alumnus to boot.” DKT

Thus, by way of summary, the reciprocal markers can be arranged hierarchically according to their orientation toward the subject or predicate (see 1) and the number of participants denoted by the subject (see 2), as follows:

1) Foregrounding of participants denoted by the subject > Foregrounding of the predicate’s mutual-action meaning

ONE WITH ANOTHER > AMONG THEMSELVES > MUTUALLY > MUTUALLY > MUTUALLY / RECIPROCALLY / MUTUALLY

2) Individual (separate) > collective (unified)

It will become clear that the way participants in the mutual situation are construed correlates with the choice among the reciprocal markers one with another, among themselves, and mutually; an important parameter for typologists is the configuration of the participants. For example, the preceding sentences (6–8) showed that in cases where typical monadic constructions express two symmetrical, simultaneous, plural propositions, and the two participants in the mutual situation form a strongly paired configuration, reciprocal markers are generally not used: when they are used, the reciprocal anaphora one with another specifies the mutual relationship between separately foregrounded participants, while the reciprocal markers among themselves and mutually express the relationship among participants in a (more) closed group, construed as conditionally divisible (among themselves) or unified (mutually) (cf. sentences 21–22, 24–25, and 29–30, respectively). The reciprocal markers under discussion are also used when participants form a chain (see sentences 45–46), a cluster (see sentences 47–49), or a strong configuration (see sentences 50–51). On the basis of the context of sentences such as 52–55, we can also

122

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Funkcinis reciprokinių žymeklių monadinėse konstrukcijose aspektas

we could say that among the mutants expressed by the subjects there is a strong configuration, or, more specifically, speak, for instance, of reciprocity or cohesion configurations in sentences 52 or 53–55, respectively, where the choice to use reciprocal markers depends on whether the participants in the reciprocal situation can be perceived separately or as a whole. The reciprocity configuration constrains the use of the reciprocal marker with each other. The temporal parameter is important here: with respect to time, sentence 52 expresses a reciprocal situation among three participants interpreted as a sequence: text B speaks with (the earlier) text A, then with (the later) text C; C speaks with (the earlier) B, then with text D, and so on; this is similar to the monadic construction Look, the two of them, Jonukas and Onutė, greet each other in the tale, in a reciprocal situation where, in typical (unmarked) cases, one participant comes first, that is, X greets Y, then Y greets X. This differs from, for example, general usage or a sentence with a perfect predicate, cf. People greet each other (have greeted) one another / each other, where the reciprocal markers foreground not so much time (sequence) as participants perceived separately in an indefinite number, or the act of greeting as a whole within a group of participants perceived collectively²⁸. That the sequence parameter affects the use of reciprocal markers is also evident in sentences 56–57, where the participants form a ring (see sentence 56) or radial (see sentence 57) configuration.

45) He would sit in the corner by the dining table, while Grandma, leading the greatest sorceress and explaining how letters are joined (cf. join together) one to another (cf.?with each other), would smoke “Bafra” cigarettes, which she never took from the corner of her mouth. DLKT

46) Boards and parquet flooring are made with special rubber spacers that allow the wood to “move.” During installation, these boards are joined to one another using special metal clips from underneath. This gives the floor additional flexibility, and no gaps appear between the boards. DLKT²⁹

²⁸ Cf. also sentences from DLKT: Asked whether their country would be Afghanistan, given that Pakistan had opened its airspace to the Americans, Asin replies: “Our religion forbids us to be among ourselves”; Members are obliged to spy on one another and report improper activities or overheard inappropriate remarks to their superiors. Newcomers are forbidden to speak to one another without an elder’s supervision. They are told to avoid contact with former members or critics of the cult, as well as family members hostile to the cult.

²⁹ Cf. also sentences from DLKT: The paths of Vedantists, Daoists, Stoics, Sufis and pantheists gradually converge on an objective conception of the Absolute. The paths are similar to one another (*among themselves), because they follow the same route, yet they are also different, because they lead to the maturation of human consciousness. Now we are standing in the Shiba district in front of the door to one of the love hotels. We have not gone inside yet, but it seems we certainly will. As if pasted together, the love hotels stretch along the hill for a long way.

Straipsniai / Articles

123

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNĖ

47) Green, yellow, orange. These are precisely the colors used to create combinations. Although there are fewer elements (a flower, a dot, or a small square), these colors go well with one another. DKT

48) “Well!..” Kola raised his glass. “To friendship!.. So we don’t quarrel and—most importantly!—never fight among ourselves! Even when we’re dead drunk!” They drained their glasses in one go, and Gaučys did too. It barely affected him. DKT

49) Then they changed clothes, as they were supposed to, and several of them began making a loud racket, clanking chains and ringing soldiers’ bells; they struck at one another with weapons and tools and scraped at one another, but, hopping about in a threatening manner, they surrounded the dance floor, where people stood like a still mass. DKT

50) Even deep into the night, the alarm signal does not stop ringing in your ears after being battered by words. As if the machines were talking to one another. It keeps spinning and spinning. And the thoughts of a sleepless night follow the rhythm of the alarm. DKT

51) According to her, it is important to know your color palette. Agnė said that the advantage of Benetton clothes is that they all go well together. A. Zuokienė did not conceal how difficult it is to select clothes for the store. An enormous number of styles are offered, with a very broad range of colors. DKT

52) Almanacs have a characteristic unity; they need to be read page by page, because the texts seem to speak among themselves (cf. with one another;?with each other), like a dialogue with the poems by the authors before and after them. DKT

53) The constituent parts mix with one another and disrupt the image of the whole for anyone who wants to get rid of it. DKT

54) The most memorable project was the merger of Nordea Bank Lietuva and Kredit Bank, because it was not just products that were joined: the teams of employees merged with one another as well. teams. Managing such changes is not easy, but it is very interesting. DKT

55) The data show that in all cases the mice’s lymph nodes enlarge as a result of the fungi’s effects; the organs become swollen in the area where fungal lesions form, and the organs grow together, preventing normal functioning; their weight decreases, and individual animals die. DKT

56) Sitting around the table, the children share an apple with one another (cf.?with each other; but: shared among themselves).

57) Ignas decided not to pursue the matter then, but later, when Miežūnas had chatted with the guests, when they had become better acquainted with one another (cf.?with each other). DKT

It would seem that we could also ground the use of the reciprocal anaphor *one with another* in sentence 58 in the parameters of the sequence: while walking and meeting one another along the way, the locals may greet only one another and each other (those they have met), but not among themselves. On the other hand, on the basis of sentence 59, it is appropriate to acknowledge that

124

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Funkcinis reciprokinių žymeklių monadinėse konstrukcijose aspektas

The time of the reciprocal situation described in sentence 58 could also be understood as simultaneous: while walking and meeting one another along the way, the locals may greet one another, each other, or among themselves; that is, this parameter does not apply and is less important for the choice of reciprocal markers. From the context of sentences 58–59, we might infer that the use of reciprocal anaphors is determined by the dynamism of the reciprocal situation; that is, construing the situation as dynamic limits the use of reciprocal markers that make the reciprocal relation within a closed group of participants salient (cf.: ?The sad leaves, as the wind blows, greet one another / among themselves;?They, while running, greet one another / among themselves; but The sad leaves fall and greet (greeted) one another / among themselves; They ran and greeted one another / among themselves). This is contradicted by sentences 60–62 and 63–65, in which reciprocal markers among themselves, one another and the anaphor one with another are also used with dynamic predicates. Thus, in sentences 58–59, other criteria have a greater influence on the use of reciprocal markers: one of these is the foregrounding of an ongoing reciprocal action. That the use (choice) of reciprocal markers is also influenced by how the speaker views and construes the action expressed by the verb, its processuality, is evident from the earlier sentences 45–46 and 56. Sentences 45, 52, and 56 foreground a particular sequence (the perspective of an ongoing action (process); cf. also sentence 58). The reciprocal relation between the participants in it is specified by the reciprocal anaphor one with another or the reciprocal marker among themselves. In other words, on the basis of aspectual meanings, the use of reciprocal markers is related to how the speaker evaluates (views), or can evaluate (view), the participants in the action expressed by the predicates (as individuals separately or collectively as a single whole): that is, whether the speaker, from their own perspective or point of view, can see all the participants as a closed group—as a single whole—at once. This becomes difficult when the action continues in a particular sequence and the number of participants is indefinite. Therefore, the continuative meaning in sentence 66 restricts the use of the reciprocal marker among themselves, unlike in sentences 67–68, where the subject denotes a minimal number of participants or the predicate has a perfective meaning, or, for example, in sentences with habitual or iterative predicates. The influence of continuative meaning on the possible use of reciprocal markers is also evident from comparing E. Geniušienė’s example *Birds flock together* with *Birds gathered together (in flocks)*.

58) Tur̃gelis—a shop that makes clothes, notebooks and other school supplies—tomorrow is the first of September. Dressed in their Sunday best the locals stroll about, greeting one another (cf.?among themselves), and keep casting curious glances at our trio. DLT

Straipsniai / Articles

125

LORETA VAČIULYTĖ-ŠEMENĖ

59) Something rustles nearby. Apparently, those same sad leaves leaves, as the wind blows, greet one another (cf.?among themselves) or fly off in dirty clumps. DLKT

60) The opponents no longer doubt that they will win. They openly mock our national team, scoring more and more goals against them and, as if among themselves (cf. together; vs. with one another) compete to see who will score more. DLKT

61) Her daughters, one eighteen and the other about twenty-two, would shoot glances at us. The girls seemed even to compete among themselves (cf. together) over which of them would serve us a meal or bring a cup of tea. DLKT

62) Varno’s residential building is complex. Several people have been arrested. On the evening of Christmas Day, after drinking, the strebitelai shot at one another. Deveikis shot Macelis and his sister-in-law Macelienė. The dead had come from Pagiriai. DLKT

63) Diné myths often tell of two brothers, who have been rivals since birth and fight one another or are not antagonists, but embody opposites in their own persons. In some mythologies, twin brothers act as an ambivalent being. DLKT

64) Belgians, like Americans, seem to like big, imposing cars. The worst is when, on a three-lane highway, the trailers decide to race one another. DLKT

65) As you go, pick up the child and gently rub their back against you. Six-year-old children can already manage on their own. They actively play with one another, so sometimes it seems that they no longer need their parents’ affection. But that is not true. DLKT

66) Look, the elements A, B, C and +n of the chain eventually join together (?among themselves).

67) Look, the two of them, Jonukas and Onutė, are still talking to one another (among themselves, with one another) to this day.

68) Finally, all the elements (A, B, C and D) joined together (among themselves, with one another).

In sentences 69–71, telic reciprocal verbs imply an action result, which is explicitly stated in sentences 72–74. In the latter case, a reciprocal marker is usually not used, whereas in sentences such as 69–71 its choice depends on construal. In other words, sentences 69–74 show differences in what is foregrounded: either the construal of the participants denoted by the subjects, or the result of the reciprocal action itself.

69) The components of the compound mix with one another and create an image of a whole for anyone who wants to separate themselves. DLKT

126

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Funkcinis reciprokinių žymeklių monadinėse konstrukcijose aspektas

70) The most memorable project was the merger of “Nordea bank Lietuva” and “Kredit bank,” because it was not only the products that merged: they merged with one another, as did the employees’ teams. Creating such changes is not easy, but it is very interesting. DKT

71) The data show that in all cases, as a result of the fungi’s effects, the mice’s lymph nodes enlarge, the organs become covered with a plaque in which fungal lesions form, the organs grow together, and consequently cannot function normally; their weight decreases, and individual animals die. DKT

72) Ties parduotuve susiliejo visos keturios Vorinės gatvės į vieną smagelį. DKT

73) Do you often get together in a group? DKT

74) Sport and culture have been crammed into one place, although these fields are as different as heaven and earth. DKT

Based on the minimal context of sentence 75 and comparing this sentence with sentences 6–8, semantic differences can be observed. The participants in the repeated (non-single-occurrence) reciprocal situation³⁰ in sentence 75 change: here, a typically one-off mating situation involving two individuals (cf. in sentences 6–8, ‘will mate with one another’ = A mates with B, C mates with D, and so on) is construed as iterative, that is, recurring every six months among changing groups of n participants (‘everyone mated with one another’ = A mated with B, C mated with D, and six months later A mated with F, B mated with G, and so on) (cf. sentence 76). In short, when a monadic construction denotes an atypical (in this case, repeated) reciprocal situation, a reciprocal marker may become necessary.

75) She respects and loves her husband. Right. – Giedrė. – I think so too; after all, since time immemorial, people didn’t just go running around the fields all together, and, and every six months mated with one another, and there wasn’t any such chaos... Still, everyone would find someone who suited you more or less, or so you imagine, at least. DKT³¹

76) When we get home from work [we] hug one another. DKT

Finally, it is also important that when two reciprocal markers are used in a sentence (where they can be used), one of them (the one higher in the hierarchy, to the left) is (more) subject-oriented, while the other (further to the right in the hierarchy) is oriented toward the predicate itself (cf.:

³⁰ Plačiau apie situacijos daugumą, arba kartotinumą, sąvoką žr. Plungian 2010: 205tt.

³¹ Cf. also: “I was there,” said Lizanas, “where people, men and women, old and young, undress naked on Midsummer’s Night and dance around the fire, and afterward make love with one another and kiss, and joyful songs and laughter are heard, and there is no discord or envy among them.” DKT

Straipsniai / Articles

127

LORETA VAČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNĖ

The Mexican couple are raising children among themselves, mutually / reciprocally; (= 30) Galapataka and the judge restrained each other between themselves; see also sentences 37–38). The orientation of the reciprocal marker tarpusavyje toward the predicate itself restricts the subject to the generalizing pronoun all (cf. Everything that seems to have been done is related to one another (*one with another)) or a collective singular nominative (cf. (= 29) The Mexican couple are raising children among themselves; see also sentence 42). In such cases, the marker tarpusavyje brings into focus and specifies the participants denoted by the subject as a closed group; functionally, such tarpusavyje differs from tarp savęs (see sentence 41). All this means that we must recognize that the orientation of the marker tarpusavyje, especially in cases where it is used alone in a sentence and the participants denoted by the subject are easily divisible into individual entities, (may) be reciprocal: it can be interpreted as semantically related both to the participants denoted by the subject and as having a semantic connection with the predicate itself (cf., for example, sentences 30, 46, 51, 71). In short, the reciprocal marker tarpusavyje, placed higher in the hierarchy earlier, is like a relative transition from orientation toward the subject to orientation toward the predicate.

5. GENERALIZATION

Modifiers may be used in monadic reciprocal constructions—reciprocal markers vienas su kitu, tarp savęs, tarpusavyje, savitarpyje, abipusiai, abipusiškai, savitarpiškai. Some reciprocal markers are (more) oriented toward the subject (vienas su kitu), while others are oriented toward the predicate expressing the reciprocal action itself (abipusiai / savitarpiškai). DKT data show that markers associated with the reciprocal verb itself are used only in isolated cases; that is, the manner expressing reciprocal action itself is rarely brought into focus. Reciprocal markers associated semantically with the participants denoted by the subject are used most often: they are brought into focus separately or are understood as the subject-denoted participants.

With regard to the division of participants in a reciprocal situation denoted by the subject, a separate one, or individual collective parameter is significant, correlating with the use of the reciprocal markers vienas su kitu > tarp savęs > tarpusavyje. The reciprocal anaphor vienas su kitu brings into focus each individual participant as a member of the whole expressed by the subject; the participants' reciprocal relation is not construed within a closed or perceived-as-closed group (to a greater or lesser degree), that is, within a unified whole—the reciprocal marker tarp savęs or tarpusavyje is used accordingly. Bringing the participants in the reciprocal relation into focus reflects differences in perspective, or point of view: in sentences with the reciprocal anaphor vienas su kitu, each participant in the reciprocal situation is, as it were, viewed individually,

128

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Funkcinis reciprokinių žymeklių monadinėse konstrukcijose aspektas

in sentences with tarpusavyje, the individual participant in the reciprocal situation is, as it were, pushed into the background (cf. background), that is, becomes irrelevant, and the participants are viewed as a unified whole—as a single entity.

In context, the reciprocal marker tarp savęs may approach a specification of the relation between individual participants—the reciprocal anaphor vienas su kitu—or the reciprocal marker tarpusavyje may approach it.

According to orientation, or the actualization and specification of the subject or predicate, and the division of mutants expressed by subjects, reciprocal markers are arranged hierarchically: one with another> among themselves> mutually> reciprocally> mutually / reciprocally / in mutual relation. The reciprocal mutually is a linguistically relative transition from subject orientation to predicate orientation. In addition to these parameters, possible use of reciprocal markers is also influenced by differences in the aspectual meanings of the predicate, participant configurations, the sequence parameter, and the actualization of atypical mutual situations. In such cases, use of the reciprocal mutually may be restricted.

ŠALTINIAI

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

DŽe – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas 26, vyr. red. Stasys Keinys, 7-as patais. ir papild. leid. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2012, 969 p.; elektroninis variantas, 2015. Prieiga per internetą: lkiis.lki.lt.

LKŽe – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas I–XX, 1941–2002, elektroninis variantas; red. kolegija: Gertūda Naktinė (vyr. redaktorė), Jonas Paulauskas, Rutė Petrokienė, Vytautas Vitkauskas, Jolanta Zabarskaitė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2005; atnaujinta versija, 2008. Prieiga per internetą: www.lkz.lt.

LITERATŪRA

Ambrazas Vytautas, red., 2006: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, 4 patais. leidimas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Evans Nicholas, Levinson Stephen C., Gaby Alice, Majid Asifa 2011: Introduction: Reciprocals and semantic typology. – Reciprocals and Semantic Typology, ed. by Evans Nicholas, Gaby Alice, Levinson Stephen, Majid Asifa. John Benjamins Publishing Company: Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1–28.

Straipsniai / Articles

129

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNĖ

Geniušienė Emma 2007: Reciprocal and reflexive constructions in Lithuanian (with refrences to Latvian). – Reciprocal Construction 2, ed. by Nedjalkov Vladimir P. John Benjamins Publishing Company: Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 63–672.

Haspelmath Martin 2007: Further remarks on reciprocal constructions. – Reciprocal Construction 4, ed. by Nedjalkov Vladimir P. John Benjamins Publishing Company: Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 2087–216.

Holvoet Axel 2009. Bendrosios sintaksės pagrindai. Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas.

Holvoet Axel, Judžentis Artūras 2005: Sintaksinės priklausomybės tipai: papildai ir patikslinimai. – Gramatinių funkcijų tyrimai [= Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai 3], red. Axel Holvoet, Rolandas Mikulskas. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 11–38.

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

Hurst Peter 2010: The syntax of lexical reciprocal constructions. – Proceedings of the LFG10 Conference, ed. by Butt Miriam, King Tracy Holloway, 290–310. Prieiga per internetą: http://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/15/papers/lfg10hurst.pdf

Kilius Jonas 1977: Orientacinių reiškmių struktūra lietuvių kalboje. – Kalbotyra 28(1), 40 – 49.

Knajev Jurij P. 2007: Reciprocal constructions in Russian. – Reciprocal Construction 2, ed. by Nedjalkov Vladimir P. John Benjamins Publishing Company: Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 673–707.

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

Nedjalkov Vladimir P. 2007: Overview of the research. Definitions of terms, framework, and related issues. – Reciprocal Construction 1, ed. by Nedjalkov Vladimir P. John Benjamins Publishing Company: Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 3–114.

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

130

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Funkcinis reciprokinį žymėjų monadinėse konstrukcijose aspektas

Plungian Vladim ir 2010: Gramatinių kategorijų tipologija 1. Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas.

Rosinas Albertas 1996: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos įvardžiai. Funkcija ir semantika. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Šližienė Nijolė 1994: Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių junglumo žodynas 1. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Šližienė Nijolė 1998: Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių junglumo žodynas 2(1). Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Šližienė 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.

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

Ulvidas Kazys, red., 1965: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1. Fonetika ir morfologija. Vilnius: Mintis.

Ulvidas Kazys, red., 1971: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 2. Morfologija. Vilnius: Mintis.

Ulvidas Kazys, red., 1976: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 3. Sintaksė. Vilnius: Mokslas.

Valulytė Elena 1995: Vietą nusakome įvairiai. Vilnius: Mokslo enciklopedijų leidykla.

Valulytė Elena 1998: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos sintaksiniai sinonimai. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Straipsniai / Articles

131

LORETA VAICIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ

Functional Aspect of Reciprocal Markers in Monadic Constructions

SUMMARY

Reciprocal markers used in monadic constructions with the meaning of mutual action or reciprocal verbs are analysed in the article, based on the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language (CCL). The object of the article is to discuss, focusing on the functional aspect, what is actualised and specified by one or another reciprocal marker. The study shows that a hierarchy of reciprocal markers can be distinguished according to possible segmentation of mutuas that are expressed as subject and orientation to subject resp. predicate, i.e., the actualisation and specification of the subject and predicate: one with the other > among themselves > between themselves > reciprocity > mutual / mutually / reciprocally (Lith. vienas su kitu > tarp savęs > tarpusavyje > savitarpyje > abipusiai / abipusiškai / savitarpiškai).

Reciprocal markers one with the other, among themselves, between themselves, reciprocity, mutual, mutually, reciprocally that express interrelation and actualise and specify it are modifiers. Some reciprocal markers are (more) subject-oriented (one with the other), others are more oriented to the predicate of the meaning of the mutual action itself (mutually / reciprocally). CCL data indicates that markers related to the reciprocal verb itself are used sporadically, i.e., the manner of expressing mutual action itself is rarely actualised. Reciprocal markers semantically linked with mutuas expressed as subject are used the most frequently: they actualise together or separately understood mutuas expressed as subject.

As to the segmentation of mutuas of mutual situation that are expressed as subject, significant is separate: seamless, or individual: collective (Lith. individuals: kolektyvinis) parameter that correlates with the usage of reciprocal markers one with the other > among themselves > between themselves. Reciprocal anaphora one with the other actualises every separate mutuant as a member of the whole expressed as subject; mutual relation of mutuants in a group that is regarded as more closed or closed as (more or less) indivisible, i.e., seamless, whole is actualised by reciprocal marker among themselves or between themselves respectively.

The actualisation of the participants of the mutual relation corresponds to the differences of perspective, point of view: in the sentences with a reciprocal anaphora one with the other, each participant of a mutual situation seems to be visible individually; in the sentences with between themselves, an individual mutuant participating in a mutual situation seems to be shifted to the background, i.e., becomes irrelevant and all mutuants are considered together, i.e., as a whole.

In the context reciprocal marker among themselves can get closer to a specifier of mutual relation of separate mutuants, i.e., reciprocal anaphora one with the other, or reciprocal marker between themselves can get closer to it.

132

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Funkcinis reciprokinių žymeklių monadinėse konstrukcijose aspektas

According to orientation or subject resp. predicate actualisation and specification and segmentation the mutants that are expressed as subject, reciprocal markers range hierarchically: one with the other > among themselves > between themselves > reciprocity > mutual / mutually / reciprocally. Reciprocal between themselves is like a relative transition from being subject-oriented to being predicate-oriented. Additionally, possible usage of reciprocal markers is also influenced by the differences of the meaning of predicate aspect, participle configurations, sequence parameter and actualisation of atypical mutual situations. In these cases, the usage of reciprocal between themselves is (possibly) limited.

Įteikta 2017 m. gegužės 18 d.

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lietuva

[email protected]

Straipsniai / Articles

133