Lietuvių kalbos pirminių veiksmažodžių klasių semantika tipologinių duomenų kontekste

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LIX (2008), 1 -27 The semantics of Lithuanian primary verb classes in the context of typological data! PiotraAs ARKADJEVAS Rusijos moksly akademijos Slavistikos institutas argued this article that least two It is inflectional in classes of Lithuanian primary verbs at have strong semantic motivation, and that the semantic regularities correlating with a Lithuanian verbal inflection classes are typologically significant. The largest inflectional classes, j-verbs and n/st-verbs, have clear semantic dominants. The morphosyntactic classification verbs through of grammaticalisation semantic parameters of relating event structure, such agentivity vs. to as patientivity, telicity vs. atelicity, action vs. change of state, is argued to be a fact of Universal Grammar. 0. [TITLE REMARKS Classes of word change, types of t. y. personalizatiir on of inflection, a lot of attention is devoted to the examination of morphology as an independent component of the language system, represented by a certain other i§ language equivalent of phonology, — semantics syntax cannot be ar introduced — into the problem of information,,- autonomie“ (See, for example, Carstairs 1987; Carstairs-McCarthy 1994; Plank, ed., Aronoff 1991; 1994; Miiller al., et eds., In this article 2004). This study was carried out with the help of Russian National Fund for Support of Science and using Scholarship of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences. I thank you very much Alexei Andronov, Anna Dybo, Axeliui Vaulted front, Artiru To Judzenei, Leonidas: Kulikov, Tatyana Nikolajevai, Barbarai Partee, Vladimirui Plungianun, Jekaterinai Rachlin, Yakov Testelecui, Viadimirui Toporov, Andrei Zalizniakui ir Mary Zavjalovai uz various assistance, which i8 yy received in various stages of the preparation of the article. A $10 draft text as a notification was presented In 2005, he participated in the international symposium on the identification and ir representation of action figures in Saarbrücken, as well as In August 2005 at the second Linguistic Summer School Saly Grammar Conference. Protras ARKADJEVAS the task is different, it is to show that even in o such an extremely rich complex system of ir exchange classes as the Lithuanian ir lexicon, morphological features can be reduced to a certain extent iS ju semantics. The article will examine the so-called primary verbs of Lithuanian language, those whose communicative root has no t. y. affixes, so that almost all morphological oppositions to personal forms are neutralized. I will show that the belonging of a verb to one of the two main classes of primary verbs i8 largely determines certain semantic properties, i.e., the structure of the verb. jo o ir $i peculiarities of world languages determine many verbozodiniy leksemy properties (Zr. Levin & Rappaport Hovav todél 2005), accidentally biitent This parameter has proved to be very relevant for ir the Lithuanian language, even ir ,unexpectedly* its grammar areas as verbs word distribution personification types. j In the first part of the article I briefly describe the primary Lithuanian language verb-change class system. In the second part, the semantic characteristics of two major primary verb classes are examined in detail. The third part contains typological data, specifically Similar — expressions in Georgian are analyzed. 1. PRINCIPAL LITHUANIAN VERBS The paradigmatic class system of primary verbs in Lithuanian language is distinguished by its complexity, which, in addition to the abundance of means of substitution, is due to the logical and, apparently, completely unmotivated choice of means of substitution for each individual lexem. The structure of this action-form of communication (which is traditionally considered the basic form) is root + -ti*, so that oppositions to personal forms are neutralized. Based on this Tatyana Bulygina (Bulygina 1970, 49-50; 1977, 244) concluded that the form of communication contains the least information about the personification of the verb. Most of the existing Lithuanian works on personification do not provide either a comprehensive classification of the types of primary verb variation, nor an adequate description. ju England ,,Lithuanian language grammar“ (Ambrazas, ed., 1997, 287-289) We find only a table showing the types of action-word changes in the word tree, but neither the Pirminiy veiksmazodziy klasiy semantika hierarchy of various action-word changes or their possible limitations, nor a serious attempt to determine the distribution of action-word classes is given. Alfred Senn (Senn 1966, 258-279) also presents only by stem types suklasifikuoty actionazZodziy listSus. The detailed classification in academic grammar (Ulvydas, ed., 1971, 219-235), which only takes into account the most general semantic characteristics of verbs (‘action’, ‘behavior’, etc.), cannot be considered to be sufficiently accurate either in terms of morphology or semantics, although it certainly gives a sufficiently detailed picture of the primary verb forms and the necessary diversity of the Lithuanian language (though without any generalization). T. Bulygina’s »dynamic Lithuanian personification apra’ymas« (Bulygina 1977, 238-269) also does not solve the problem of paradigmatic classes, such a task is not even raised in this work. The same can be said about the comprehensive overview of the generative phonology of the Lithuanian language by Claus Friedrich Eugen Heeschen (Heeschen 1968, 190-282). [an interesting classification of Lithuanian paradigmatic verbs is presented in the appendix to a typological article by Wolfgang U. Dressler and co-authors (Dressler et al. 2006), unfortunately without any substantive comments and with errors. The analysis of the personification system in Lithuanian and Latvian is presented in Aleksejus Andronov’s article (Andronov 2000), which criticizes the principles of description common to different grammar traditions and proposes criteria for classifying verb words that are suitable for both languages, but the classification itself is not presented in this article. In this article, the main emphasis is not on the morphological problem itself, but on the search for correlation between the morphological and semantic aspects of primary verbs in Lithuanian language. Therefore, I will discuss only the most general features of the “surface” structure of the class of lexical changes under consideration. The morphological classes of primary verbs in Lithuanian are distinguished according to the following basic parameters (it should be added that I am considering only those verbs whose root ends with a consonant, without paying attention to the class of verbs with a few and very uneven vowels or diphthongs in the stem): 1) The presence/absence of the palatalization of the root-end consonant (i.e., the suffix -j-) in the stem of the beating tense (pracr); 2) The presence/absence of palatalization of the end of the root (i.e. suffix -j-) in the present tense (prags) stem; grows, grew Piorras ARKADJEVAS 3) presence/- absence of nasal insertion/- short vowel extension in the pleural trunk; 4) presence/- absence of suffix -stprazs in the stem; 5) presence/- absence of changes in the i ~ e perrs stem; 6) presence/- absence of the short vowel change degree in the praer stem, in the case of prolonged praer and in the communicative (inr) stems; 7) presence/- absence of the degree of change of the long vowel in the stem, with short pRaEs in the stems and and. Some of the specified parameters are independent of each other, while others are subject to mutual restrictions. For example, in the four possible combinations of (1) and (2) (palatalization of the root end consonant), all four occur, although not equally often; o The presence of the insertion, suffix - or the change of i in the root of a verb eliminates the possibility of palatalization in the root; 0 The elongated degree of vowel change in the stem requires palatalization. In total, there are thirteen types of personification (excluding individual lexical units, which have only their own personalization characteristics), which are schematically presented in Table 1 (the forms of the verbs mr and the third person forms prAES and PRAET). 1 slow. Morphological class of primary Lithuanian verbs (i/e-prags = vowel change i ~ e in the root; tr-prars = short degree of vowel change in the root; il-prazr = elongated degree of vowel change in the root) @ | @ (4) (5) (6) (7) Klasé j-prazs j-pRAET | BrPRAES St-PRAES i/e-prags tr-prars (1) il-prarr = augee: | age aoa =-7 = (2) fingers: =s= & + = persa, pirso let: (3) + - ~ - 7 _ . allow, allowed (4) acts: = ae Eerie 7 3 - — anka, ako | The primary verb class of semantics 1 submission tesinys Positive qa) Q) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Klasé j-prazs j-praer n-prags st-prags i/e-prars| tr-prags il-pRaeT (5) skristi: -- + 76 7~ skrenda, skrido (6) blankti: - -- + - - - blanksta, blanko (7) nati: - - ++ -- - You, to (8) born: a + = + = = = born, gumé (9) minti: = + = = + = = miné (10) pinti: eo + = = a -+ pina, pyné QY) meaning: ++----air, certain air: (12) + + = = a + 7 pucia, pité (13) vemaz + +=--- + vemia, vome Some distinct classes form more distinct subclasses related to the above hierarchy of positions. su (This hierarchy is reflected in the order in which the symbols are ir listed in the table.) On the basis of the most verbozodziy comprising (1), (2), (3) ir (4) poZymiy can be distinguished These are the primary macroclasses of action. (In this term On the basis of the common formal poZymiy formed ta several smaller classes of variation, while not taking into account that the belonging of a lexem to a smaller class bitty is determined by some of its poZymi, i8 not related to variation su (plg. Carstairs 1987, Ch. 2)): ProTRAS ARKADJEVAS Imakroklasé (classes 1-3): verbs without palatalization in the root prarr and without insertion/adverb -stprazs in the root; There are about 30 lexems in this macroclass? ; II macroclass (grades 4-7): verbs with insertion/prefix -st and without palatalization in the root; This macroclass comprises about 270 lexems; Ill macroklasé klasés): only (8-10 actionaZodii with palatalization in the pre-trunk; This macroclass has only a little over 30 lexemy; macroklasé klasés): palatalization will lose the verbs that have past in the stems; TV (11-13 ir This macroclass is about leksemy. 380 We can see that the distinct macroclasses differ greatly in the number of lexical units they comprise: the vast majority of primary Lithuanian verbs belong to one or two macroclasses. i§ — II (intermediate/adjuvant prass strains) or IV (palatalized praes prarr ir trunks). II I will refer to the class lexems as n/st-verbs*, class j as j-verbs. In the next part of the 0 IV article, the question — of semantic motivation of both these two major classes, the subdivision of which into smaller subclasses I will allow myself to ignore, will be examined in detail. j 2. ABOUT IN LITHUANIAN LANGUAGES PRIMARY VEIKSMAZODZIU MAIN PARADIGMINIUM CLASS SEMANTINE JUSTIFICATION 2.1. [so-called notes When speaking about the semantic motivation of some grammatical phenomenon, in this case about the general semantic properties of leksemy morphologiniy klasiy, it is necessary to consider j The following aspects: 1. According to formal grammatical features iSskiriamos oppositions very rarely all tebiina One hundred percenty deducible i§ semantics, the most important For statistical purposes, a formal ir correlation of parameters is required. Tai ypaé ? The ir following are statistical data: data obtained after processing 700 a small number of Zodziy imti, compiled using lietuviy-rusy language Zodyne (Lyberis 1962). ° Note that a specific n/st-verb personification type is i’ntroduced by the verb i8 Root structures, e.g., Stang (1942, 132-133). The semantics of the primary verb class is relevant to the classification of morphological lexems, which is established on the lexical level and can be affected by analogy ir and other similarities. These are processes, obscured by semantic motivation. Here it is necessary to speak ne both about the semantic be properties common to all members of a certain formal class of the 100, and about the semantic dominant of the class. tokios 2. Su leksemy semantic meanings correlating with grammatical features are usually not visible directly ir ‘i3readable’ i8 jy ,.naivety’ Zodyninis išaiškinimas. For example, Bethés Levin ir Malkos Rappaport Hovav study (Levin & Rappaport Hovav shows 1990) that such a seemingly,,,natural* class of verb-adverbial lexicon as the motion-adverbial Zodiac is indeed heterogeneous; plg. i8 also Jelenos Paduéeva monograph (Paduéeva, 2005) va 2004), which identifies the main parameters of semantic classification of the grammar-relevant action-word lexicon. Looking at the above aspects, I will say that j The non-trivial non-random relationships between primary verbs ir and semantic morphological classes in Lithuanian language are not absolute and, like all ir generalizations of this kind, have implications. ir However, the statistical significance of the correlation is unquestionable. It should be noted that the ir j semantic parameters, which, as I will show, are responsible for the belonging of Lithuanian primary verbs to one of the two uz main macroclasses, are quite abstract and belong to the most general basic verb semantics,,struci8 tural* blocks. ir — ir — t. y. to what in recent literature is usually called _,event structure“ (English) event structure, Zr. : Butt & Geuder, eds., 1998; Rothstein, ed., Tenny 1998; & Pustejovsky, eds., Ramchand 2000; n/st-veiksmazodziy 2008). 2.2. semantic dominant n/st-veiksmazodziy class in terms of semantics is homogeneous, that is, the most independent researchers, p. j pe ir Christiano Stango pasebéjima (Stand 1966: 339), that is greater than Sios part of the group consists of intrazitive ingressive/inchoative verbs’. ir The vast majority of n/st-verbs syntaksés poZitiriu — intransitive informally possible definitionsir * Zr, also Themes (1986). Piotras ARKADJEVAS describes them as semantic passives*, i.e. verbs that denote situations independent of the subject’s will (for example, todél, that the subject is an inanimate object). The following semantic subclasses of this class can be distinguished: a) biesenos: hungry, snoring, poor, angry, etc. ; b) patient processes, which imply a change in the subject’s behaviour: act, white, two-faced, curled, buckled, buckled and many others; two more verbs, formed in the present tense with the suffix -st and with palatalization in the present tense: die and be born>; c) natural phenomena: breaking, falling, snowing; d) nekontroliuojamas zmogaus emocinés biisenos kitimas: nirsti, niurti, siusti, stulbti ir kt. ; e) movement: (1) uncontrolled: spread, slip; (2) in terms of control, undefined: kilti; (3) controlled: escape, fly, proceed; (f) other verbs not belonging to the above-mentioned classes: germinare, crescere, diventare and some others. Finally, between n/st-verbs, there are single transitive verbs: find, feel, go. The basic semantic characteristics of most n/st-verb-- small-words are the patientness and (inherent) finality of the subject, i.e. In this case, the verb is a structurally relevant component of the “transition to a new situation”. The distinction between,,inherent” and,,factual” finality of verbs is due to a certain peculiarity of the Lithuanian verb system (Holvoet, Cizik 2004), the need for,,transition and new behaviour” itself cannot normally be realized by the same lexicon as the need for,,the process leading to that behaviour”. The finality of the action is indicated by adjective derivatives, which retain the characteristics of the basic verb, e.g. akti ~ blindti, kausti ~ jkausti and many others. It is important to note that the two above mentioned n/st-action characteristics are interrelated, and that the patientness of their subject is a consequence of the need for a “(potential) change in the situation”. This becomes obvious when looking at the individual These actions are the lexems of the ZodZiy class, which can be perceived as agentives or even transitives. For example, the verb arise usually indicates an uncontrolled change of direction by the subject and is most commonly used with the 5 $1y present tense form of the verb arise, which seems to be a semantically motivated innovation, Zr. Schmalstieg (2000: 156-158). Pirminiy veiksmaZodZiy klasiy semantika dead entities. However, it is combined with a living participant in the situation. This action word acquires an additional component of meaning —,,the situation is controlled by the subject- ”; the component of meaning of,,change of situation” also remains. Transitive verbs sensi trovare can ir also be discussed in terms of their sub-signs: despite their syntactic transitiveness, these verbs represent a change in the subject's behaviour, only in one case the subject changes its inner behaviour, and in another it becomes the possessor of the object. Another important confirmation that n/st-actionmazodZiams dangas,,business change“ is dominant, gives quite abundant A subset of this macroclass that only includes verbs with prepositions. NeprieSdélinés those patios Root lexemas, when they exist, often belong to the migratory verb type. ar priesaginiam The general need of a group of words for a certain action—the process of initiation, i.e. transition, or retractiij on, according to which the action is performed. These verbs are divided into several j semantic groups, among which an important place occupy those that can be called patient verbs, for example: j involvement in j process of inner purity® (to look, to shake), the ar beginning of a different sound of speech (to speak), the beginning of the process of perception (iSkirsti), the beginning of ar emotional mental beisenas (panorti, pradžiuugti). In this group there are a lot of purely patient verbs, which do not involve any active subject: aplésti, hagyni, átnézni, etc. Thus, semantic n/st-verbmazodziy dominanté — (potential) change of the subject’s behaviour. The fact that some group actions obviously do not correspond to this semantic prototype can be explained in principle by the (synchronous) postpositional extension of the basic meaning. For example, such verbs as bréksti vis délto, which do not imply any subject and which signify natural phenomena, signify processes that lead to changes in the environment. The fact that this class includes verbs with a biesenan meaning (it is interesting that all my © Internal ir &Sorin's Stiffness biseny (internally-caused vs. externally-caused eventualities) ir B. Levin, M. Rappaport Hovav in the book (1995, sk. 3-4). Distinguished in view of this, the j situation is ar conceptualized as one whose realization depends only on the characteristics of the subject. (for example, jo from the will, if the subject is Man is a ar living being, as well as from physical other ar characteristics of the entity; for example, it can be assumed that Zvaigédes Ziba ar Zole auga dél vidinio These subjects tend to j corresponding processes, one dél that they are affected by some i8orine jéga), the condition, as such, to which the subject is ar caused by i8orine influence (e.g., a drug can only work if it is under the influence of someone, but dél its inner qualities). ne ProrRas ARKADJEVAS lizing verbs) do not have a clear semantic dominance, the belonging of some verbs to these classes, rather than to the main classes, can be considered to be semantically motivated. For example, in macroclass I we can distinguish a small group of lexems, Zymin's directed change of the living subject in the space of the presence: sésti (séda, sédo), lipti (lipa, lipo), listi (lenda, lindo). It can be assumed that the combination of such necessary components as »change of place in space« and a strong agenticity does not allow these lexems to be assigned to any major macroclass. However, it must be acknowledged that it is not possible to define the primary verbs of the Lithuanian language that do not belong to the n/st-class at least somewhat more reliably, especially considering the undeniable basic macroclass semantic motivation. In conclusion, it is necessary to draw attention to one interesting and important fact: despite the fact that even the most abundant macroclasses of primary verbs in Lithuanian can hardly be considered productive in terms of synchrony, there is no doubt that in a not very distant period of the language history they were characterized by a certain productivity. Firstly, this confirms the consistency of expressive semantics and the entering of verbs with a verbal root j into the j-class and, secondly, the fact that among n/st-verbal verbs there are lexems that by their morphological characteristics obviously belong to a higher lexical layer. Such are, for example, the action Zodiiai tolti (< tolis), seni senas), pagailti piela) some others. (< (< ir Distant verbs are an anomaly because they have a super-long syllable center (e.g., /ol/), which is already intolerable (see koré vs. karti, where the long vowel is shortened in the corresponding position). O senti type verbs are unique in that, according to the morphological rule of personification in Lithuanian language that does not have an essence, the i$ present tense stem /n/ prefix -st: last, 0 ne *sesta, as you might expect, cf. Obviously older idiomatized ir lexem know, whose present tense stem morphology positriu désningas paijsta. — These facts indicate that the n/st-class was still productive when the aforementioned morphological phenomena had already lost their historical phonetic motivation. Jdomus also has the verb word praristi: ir formally it is primary, but it is more obvious that it is made — of the morphological property of the non-elementary noun turéti. i8 < 16 Pirminiy veiksmagodziy klasiy semantika 3. TYPOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE:,,DISJECTED INTRANSITIVENES“ IN WORLD LANGUAGES 3.1. General observations For the morphological classification of primary verbs in Lithuanian, the semantic parameters identified in the previous chapters — the finality/incompleteness of the situation, or, more precisely, the presence of a component, a phrase, a “transition into a bisen” in the semantic structure of the verb, and the agenticity and opposition of the internal and external stagnation of the situation — are not the only parameters of Lithuanian language. Many studies, both based on various formal theories (see Perlmutter 1978; Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1990; 1995; 2000; Dowty 1991; Zaenen 1993; Alexiadou et al., eds., 2004 and others) and on a functional-- typological approach (see Lazard 1985; Merlan 1985; Van Valin 1990; Verhaar 1990; Mithun 1991; Sorace 2000; Donohue, Wichman, eds., 2008), convincingly show that these parameters for the morphosyntactic classification of verbs in world languages are universally relevant. For example, Annie Zaenen (1993) has shown that in Dutch, agenticity plays a decisive role in the formation of impersonal passive constructions, and the finality of 0 determines the choice of auxiliary verb in the perfect tense; The German and Romance data are analyzed in this regard in Antonella Sorace’s article (Sorace 2000), which shows that the factors of agenticity and finality play a significant role in the choice of auxiliary verbs. Marianna Mithun’s article (Mithun 1991) shows that the above-mentioned parameters largely determine the choice of the form of the free noun or of the indicative of the person in American Giabuvian languages: intransitive predicate agent argument usually is also indicated as the analogous argument of the transitive predicate, the same is true of the patient argument; In some languages, this is accompanied by the meaning of “subject-experienced change of behaviour”. In order to demonstrate that the Lithuanian language is not,,uni§a‘ in relation to the phenomenon discussed in this article, we will look at the data of the Georgian language. The semantic structure of this language is obviously related to the morphosyntactic class of verbs, and we will show that the lexical elements of this class have non-trivial similarities in Georgian and Lithuanian languages. 17 ProrRas ARKADJEVAS 3.2. Morphosyntactic actionazodiiy class in Georgian Georgian language verbsZodzio klasiy morphosyntakir sé semantics quite well iStyrinéta (Holisky 1981; Harris 1981; 1982; 1985; Hewitt 1987; Van Valin therefore 1990), I refer to the following publications, mainly — Dee Ann Holisky monograph, as well Hanso Grammar of the Guard (Vogt 1973). In the Georgian language, there are three main classes of productive verbs, which, following the tradition, I will mark with digits. Differences between Siy Klasiy manifests both in morphology (different Zodziy kaitybos — first, personal tuning — indikatoriuy sets), both in syntax when selecting the — so-called ,,second time series“ — aorist (past perfect) optative (unreal pronoun) form ir actionazZodziy argumenty linksnius. — Schematically, the differences between classes are shown in the table. 4 4 slowed. Morphosyntax of verbs in Georgian Klasé Actant form in 2. laiky series | Indicators for 3SgSbPraes, 3PISbPraes, 3PISbAor I <Sb: Erg; DO: Name> -s—-en—-es 1 <Sb: Name> -a~-an ~-nen mw <Sb: Erg> a Let's compare the examples". I classé verbs transitive, »in — the second time series“ subjects, in ergative, in nominative. 0 — (1) glex-ma da-tes-a simind-i. valstietis-erc PRV-Séti-AOR.3SG. SB griidai-vom »The farmer passes the floor.‘ bavsv-eb-ma gada-q’ar-es ky-eb-i. (2) child-pL-ErG PRV-throw-Aor.3PL.sB_ stone-pi-Nom »Children threw stones.‘ class verbs are Il ir II intransitive. — II class action © Dékoju Nino Amiridze's uz help in analyzing the media. 18 Pirminiy veiksmazodZiy klasiy semantika subject Signification of the nominative (examples (3), (4)), 0 Class III ergative — verb (examples (5), (6)): (3) c’q’al-i ga-tb-a. vanduo-Nom PRV-Siltas-AoR.38G.sB "Water with Silo. * (4) baviv-eb-i da-sxd-nen. vaikas-PL-NoM PRV-SéSti-AOR.3PL. SB,The children sat down.‘ (5) c’q’al-ma i-duy-a. water-ERG pRF-Virti-AOR.3SG. SB »Water uZviré.‘ (6) gogo-eb-ma i-tamas-es. girl-PL-ERG prF-Zaisti-AoR.3PL. SB ‘The girls are gone.’ Now let's look at the semantics of the Georgian language verb class. The vast majority of class verbs I — ,,canonical” transitive predicates, Denoting the effect of the active agent on the patient. [more interesting intransitive verb distribution j II ir Class III. Il Class That's the kind of action words! : (a) class of I transitive verbs, “passive” anti-causative correlates: ir dac’ers ,paraSys’ — daic’ereba ‘will be para’yta’; damalavs,pasléps‘ — daimaleba,pasisléps‘; gaamravalebs,padidins’ — gamravaldeba ‘padidés’ ir t. 5 (b) III class verbs with ingressive derivatives: laklakebs ,plepa’ — alaklakdeba ‘ims plepeti’; itamasobs 'zais' — atamasdeba ,ims Zaisti’; goravs stieda’ — migordeba ‘ims riedéti’ ir t. t.; (c) (non-agent) final action Significant verbs: mok’vdeba snumirs‘, daréeba 'will remain', dadgeba ‘assistos’, datbeba 'suSils' ir others. Most of the class II actionZodZiy It refers to extreme situations in which the participant experiences a change of state, usually uncontrollable. — It is interesting that This class includes actionWords denoting the process of involvement, as j well as having a situational participant ir agent. Taigi klasés II verbazodziy semantic dominant — ,,subject change* component. " Presented actionazZodziy 3 asm. vns. the form of fearful time. 19 Ill class divides j These main subclasses (In this article I deal only with those verbs of this class, which are not i8vestiniai; i&vestiné lexemes, such as nameVocal derivatives with the meaning,behave like X‘, for example, art’ist’obs,behave like an artist‘, fully correspond to the following semantic concept): (1),,expressive’ verbs; (2) judging actions; (3) action words denoting natural phenomena. Thus, already at the level of the most general characteristics of Georgian verbs of III class, there are similarities with intransitive j-verbs of Lithuanian. »Expressive* Class III acting substances in turn break down i The following subclasses: (a) verbs, which denote sound emission: bzuk’unebs,zvimbnebs ,Zliumbti‘, zrialebs ,brasketi‘, laklakebs ,plepéti‘, sisinebs ,Snypsti‘, grgviti‘, bubunavs,griaudeti‘, zmuis,mukti‘, c’k’muis,- verkSlenti‘, rak’unobs,belsti‘, xorxocebs,kwatoti‘, etc. ; (b) Verbs, meaning Svítéjima: bdyvrialebs,Zibeti‘, bré’q’vialebs,zibseti‘, varvarebs,liepsnoti‘, k’ask’asebs Svyteti‘, rialebs ’zibséti’, ’binnavs’, ’zéréti’, etc. ; (c) verbs, Denoting movement in place: babanebs,virpéti- ‘, bibinebs wavy (approx. Zole)‘, taxtaxebs,- trateti‘, ivt’ivebs,pliduriuoti‘, panckalebs,- dauzytis (about Sirdj)‘, prixialebs,plazdeti‘, borgavs,vartytis‘, ckmut’avs,- bla3kytis‘, trtis,virpeti‘ and others. ; (d) verbs of movement: bobyavs Sliauzti‘, barbacebs,- svirduliuoti- ‘, laslasebs,vilktis‘, parpatebs,- plasnoti‘, q’ialebs,svyrinéti‘, etc. ; (e) verbs not included in classes (a)-(d): tkrialebs,plisti‘ (about i§ Zaizda tekontj krauja), partipurtebs,kuistis‘, Sxeps,taSkyti‘, c’vetavs,la8éti‘, etc. Thus, when comparing the lexical composition of “expressive” verbs in Georgian and Lithuanian, we can see both essential similarities and interesting differences. In both languages, the large ir The,,expressive“ part of the verb consists of the lexical, semantic processes having a perceptible effect, e.g., squealing, — shining, vibrating, etc. ir actionazoids. However, in Lithuanian the greater This actionZodziy part is agentive can be associated only with a living ir personified subject, while in georginy language there su is no such ar restriction, very much ir 3rd class action hero In winter, when exposed to i8orés jégai leaves, ir stones and other objects emitted sounds. 20 Pirminiy veiksmazodziy klasiy semantika »Non-expressive* verbs of class III are also semantically heterogeneous. They include: (a) action verbs of movement: goravs,riedéti‘, srialebs Slizti (about a snake)‘, xt’is Sokinéti- ‘, curavs,plaukti, plaukioti, ciuozti‘, etc. ; (b) verbs denoting dynamic natural phenomena: grgvinavs (about a storm)‘, elavs (about a storm)‘, tovs,sniga‘, kris,pucia véjas‘, c’vims slyja‘, etc. ; (c) some verbs that do not belong to any group: asp’arezobs wwarzytis‘, brazobs, angry‘, duys, boil (about water)‘, tamasobs, play‘, musaobs, work‘, pikrobs, think‘, ckarobs, hurry‘, cek’vavs Sokti‘ and some others. Thus, as the semantic dominant of Georgian verbs of class II we could indicate an incomplete process, usually — agent (Subject — a living being or nature), and if it is not agent, it has a perceptible effect. All this leads to the conclusion that, apart from the obvious differences, there is an obvious and quite large similarity between the classes of verbs in the Georgian and Lithuanian languages — both in terms of the most general semantic characteristics and the lexical content (for example, in both languages there are very distinct “expressive” verbs; In both languages, verbs that denote the processes of internal inertia and those that denote the involvement of the processes of internal inertia fall into the same class). These similarities are very non-trivial and non-random and cannot be explained by either genetic or area-geographic factors. Thus, the similarities found in Georgian and Lithuanian reflect the universal tendencies of lexical organization, which are common to human language in general and which differ in different languages in different ways. 4. CONCLUDING REMARKS I hope that in this article I have succeeded in showing that, firstly, at least one important fragment of the Lithuanian language primary verb class system requires strong semantic motivation and, secondly, semantic meanings correlating with the morphological class of the verb in Lithuanian language are relevant in terms of typology and related to what is usually somewhat relatively called,,universal grammar- “. I will briefly repeat the main findings of this study. 21 Protras ARKADJEVAS Two of the most abundant classes of primary verbs in Lithuanian language — j-verbs (with palatalization of the root-end consonant in the present and past tense) and n/st-verbs (with a nasal insertion or suffix - in the present tense) — have remarkable semantic dominants. n/st-verb nucleus —predicates, Denoting a potential or real change in the state of the subject or a final process leading to such a change. The $j prototype corresponds to the vast majority of n/st-functions, as well as to the numerous divalent lexems of Sios class. I8 The first light of the small homogeneous j-verb class includes both transitive verbs, the vast majority of which correspond to the transitive prototype mo (active influence of the controlling agent on the situation heavily affected and uncontrollable change of behaviour suffering patient), both intransitive actions, which is most important that they mean an incomplete process caused by the subject's will or its internal characteristics. The above correlations between semantics and morphological macroclasses of primary verbs show a high degree of statistical significance (Zr. 3 table) probably ir arose due to the appropriate semantic stress. The latter assumption also confirms the existence of a considerable number of both jand n/st-verbs that do not directly belong to the oldest lexical layers. The typeology of the story is not unique. More precisely, universals are two semantic parameters —agentism ~ patientism, finality ~ interminability, action ~ change of action — in other words, the signs that classify the possible types of situations that can be lexicalized in the verb words of the world language. ~ ~ O ,,pavirsiné’ The realization of these features depends on the — particular language and on the area of grammar in which they are expressed. In this — paper this was demonstrated by comparing the lexical composition of Lithuanian verb classes with the semantic dominants of Georgian morphosyntactic verb classes, in which semantic factors, as bitty similar to Lithuanian ones, firstly affect the syntactic level. To conclude, it is ir necessary to remind once again that the very fact of the semantic motivation of the primary verb morphological class of the ir Lithuanian language, and, moreover, the j typological non-unicity of this phenomenon is far from accidental, testifies that the lexical and grammatical organization of natural languages of different origin, geographical location is determined by universal semantic parameters. Aor —aorist, po —direct object, exc —ergative, Inr —common, nom —nominative, pt —plural, prars —present tense, prart —bit-time tense, prr —perfect tense, prv —preverb, sp —subject, sc —singular. Atexiapou, A., ANAGNostopouLou ir ir 22 Pirminiy veiksmazodziy klasiy semantika E. & M. Everaert, eds., The 2004: Unaccusativity Puzzle. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Amprazas, V., ed., 1997: Lithuanian Grammar. Vilnius: Baltos lankos. Anpronov, A. 2000: Some remarks on the system of Lithuanian and Latvian conjugation. Linguistica Baltica 8, 35-47. Aronorr, M. 1994: Morphology by Itself. Stems and Inflectional Classes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MITPress. Butyeina, T. V. [Bymiruna, T. B.] 1970: Mopdbonormueckaa crpykTypa Ci10Ba B COBPeMeEHHOM JIMTOBCKOM A3bIKe (B Item TIMCbMeHHOI dopme). In: B. M. 2KupmyxcKnit, H. JI. Apyrionosa, pey., Mopdosoeureckaa cmpykmypa ci106a 6 uHdOeeponetickux a3bikax. Mocksa: Hayxa, 7-70. Butyeina, T. V. [Byspiruna, T. B.] 1977: MpoGremet meopuu mopdostoeureckux Modest. Mocksa: Hey, hey, hey. Burr, M. & W. Geuper, eds., 1998: The Projection of Arguments. Lexical and Compositional Factors. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Carstairs, A. 1987: Allomorphy in Inflection. London: Croom Helm. Carstairs-McCartuy, A. 1994: Inflection classes, gender, and Principle of contrast. Language 70, 737-788. Dononur, M. & S. WicuMan, eds., 2008: The Typology of Semantic Alignment Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bae PrioTRAS ARKADJEVAS Dowty, D. R. 1991: Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67, Dressier, W. 547-619. U., M. Kinani-Scuocn, L. Pesrat, N. GAGARINA & M. POécHTRAGER 2006: On the typology of inflection class systems. Folia Linguistica 40, 51-74. Harris, A. C. 1981: Georgian Syntax. A Study in Relational Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harris, A. C. 1982: Georgian and the unaccusative hypothesis. Language 58, Harnis, A. C. 1985: Diachronic Syntax: The Kartvelian Case. (Syntax and Semantics 18) New York etc: Academic Press. Hasprmatu, 290-306. M. 1993: More the typology on inchoative/causative verb alternaof . Comrir & M. Pouinsky, eds., Causatives and Transitivity. Amsterdam, tions. In: Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 87-120. Heescuen, C. F. E. 1968: Introduction to the basic problems of generative phonology with special regard to Lithuanian phonology. Bonn: Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität. Houisky, D. A. 1981: Aspect and Georgian Medial Verbs. New York: Garland. Howvoer, A. & V. Craik 2004: Types of activity pressure. In: A. Houvoer & L. SEMENIENE, red., Gramatiniy kategorijy tyrimai (Lietuviy kalbos gramatikos darbai, 2). Vilnius: Lietuviy kalbos institutas, 141-162. Hopper, P. J. & S. A. Thomson 1980: Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56, 251-299. Lazarp, G. 1985: Anti-impersonal verbs, transitivity continuum and the notion transitivity. of In: H. Seer & G. BrerrscuNetper, eds., Language Invariants and Mental Operations. Tiibingen: Narr, 115-123. Levin, B, & M. Rappaport Hovav 1990: The lexical semantics verbs of motion: of The perspective from unaccusativity. In: I. M. Roca, ed., Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 247-269. 24 First verb Levin, B. & M. Rappaport Hovav 1995: Unaccusativity. At the Syntax lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Levin, B. & M. Rappaport Hovav 2000: Classifying single argument verbs. In: P. Coopmans, M. Everaert & J. Grimsuaw, eds., Lexical Specification and Insertion. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 269-304. Levin, B. & M. Rappaport Hovav 2005: Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyseris, A. 1962: Lietuviy-rusy kalby Zodynas. Vilnius: State Political ir and Scientific Literary Publishers. Mer.an, F. 1985: Split intransitivity: Functional oppositions in intransitive inflection. In: J. NicHois & A. Woopsury, eds., Grammar Inside and Outside the Clause. Approaches to Theory from the Field. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 324-362. Mirnun, M. 1991: Active/agentive case marking and its motivations. Language 67, 510-546. Mutter, G., L. GunKet & G. Zironun, eds., Explorations 2004: in Nominal Inflection. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Nass, A. 2007: Prototypical Transitivity. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. NepJatkov, V. P. & G. G. Si'nickiy [B. II. 1998-1999 Heyamkos, T. T. Cunbunykuit] 1969: Tunonorus mopdosormueckoro mM seKcH4¥ecKoro Kay3aTnpos. In: A. A. Xouogosny, peg., Tunostozua Kay3amuenix kKoncmpyxkuul. JIlenmurpay: Hayxa, 20-50. Papuceva, E. V. [E. B. Magyyesa] 2004: JJunamuke a KCuxu-like 6 mobile modem. Mocksa: ASbIKH C1aBAHCKMX KILLER TYPE. Pertmurter, D. M. 1978: Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative hypothesis. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 4, 157-189. PLank, F., ed., Paradigms. 1991: The Economy of Inflection. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 25