Lietuvių kalbos argumentų raiškos alternacijos ir aplikacinės gramatikos priemonės joms aiškinti

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LVII (2007), 17 -44 Lietuviy kalbos argumenty raikos alternatnacir ijos aplikinés gramatikos priemonės joms aiskinti In memory of Sebastian Saumianus (191 6-2007) Lietuviy kalbos institutas KrisTINA LENARTAITE This article deals with the notion of alternation in the domain of argument realisation or diathesis. A working definition is offered, and a survey is given of the most characteristic instances of this phenomenon in Lithuanian. A number of important approaches to this subject, including those offered the in tradition of Lithuanian grammar, are discussed. Finally, a new approach to Lithuanian alternations and their position in the Lithuanian language system is proposed within the framework of Applicative Grammar. Different diatheses of Su words realized in the same action have been studied by Lithuanian and foreign linguists for a ir decade. ne If in recent works the subject matter has a universally recognized name is sought one jvairiy ir ne The possibility of interpretation of this phenomenon is discussed only fragmentarily in Lithuanian studies, alongside other syntax, syntax semantics, lexical semantics and semantic problems. ar Dad This article is intended to ir provide a summary of Zymesniems ‘Lietuviy language verbazodziy junguma tyrinejanéios ir mainly arguments alternation cases mentioned N. The phenomenon discussed in the works of Sliziené is often interpreted, called ir differently ir according to the needs of the research: in one place the variation of the subject or direct object realization allowed in some verbs is called subjectification ir objectification (plg. The main focus of this thesis is on the 17 Kristina LENARTAITE cases of argumenty speech alternance in Lithuanian language and some problems arising from the interpretation of this problem: firstly, the aim is to define the content of the problem, distinguish and discuss more pronounced types of argumenty speech alternance; The aim of this thesis is to introduce the student to another alternative construction of expression mechanism and to find the place of the subject in the linguistic system. and IS ro%iy kelmaidio will grow a great honeymoon; Motina u&uese stalq (su) baltutélaite staltiese and Motina u&tiesé ant stalo baltutélaite staltiese) (Sliziené 1980: 95-101), elsewhere, in cases of object syllable alternance, the ability of the same verb to perform different semantic functions or different semantic interpretation of the same situation is emphasized, from which the different syntactic use of the verb depends (Sliziené 1980: 95-101). 1978: 117); due to different semantic interpretation of the same situation, there are sentences in which two very closely related meanings have differently realized arguments, called periphrases (Sliziene 1994: 50-51); Cases of alteration of the subject's speech are called conversion periphrases, and their significant differences are related only to differences in the verb's syntactic valence, i.e. the participants of the situation in both cases are equally interpreted semantically, different positions are determined by the fact that the nominative in one sentence corresponds to one argument of the predicate, and in the other to another. Such a conversional periphrastic relationship is close to the active and passive constructional relationship (see cliffs covered shores and shores covered cliffs) (Sliziené 1994: 52). The driving of object expression is interpreted by A. Holvoet as an alternative possibility of choosing a secondary theme that is dramaticated by the layered actual division (cf. gave books to the students: awarded books to the students; filled tea cups: filled tea cups) (Holvoet 2003: 86-87). A. Drukteinis argues that in such constructions as kloti Siaudus ant stogo kloti Siaudais stogq, the need for the verb to change its locative is neutralized by the argument that the verb moves closer to the action and its expression changes. And the action-subject need has changed due to the addition of an additional semantic component - a holistic semantic, which indicates that the action relates to the whole thing or that the thing is completely encompassed by the action. By adding a holistic set, the action-Zodiné lexem becomes a generalizing lexem without regard to the corresponding set, so that in such constructions between the action-Zodiné lexemy (together with its dependent components) a private opposition relationship is formed — the generalizing lexem being able to change in a more specific construction of the latter (by acquiring the corresponding meaning) (Drukteinis 1985: 56-58, 128-129). Furthermore, in the case of alternating structures in relation to each other: one of them directly representing the roles of the situation, and the other showing a different change in the variety of the predicate and the whole structure of the sentence, the structures can be considered as one basic, the other ~ iSvestine (the semantic functions of the structural arguments are also divided accordingly) (Drukteinis sudarytojo pasirinkta situacijos dalyviy santykiy interpretacija (perspektyva). Dél 2007: 27, 12-14). 18 Alternatives in the development of Lithuanian language arguments 2. REISKINIO SAMPRATA, APREPTIS IR PAVADINIMAS The absence of a study of the origin of the term in question in the system of Lithuanian language in Siam is also evidenced by the fact that not only did not want to name the proper term for their Siamese language, but also the international alternative name encompassing various types of variation of expression was only recently used in Lithuanian works (see Drukteinis 2007: 13). Judging by the use of the term in the works of foreign linguists, it is obvious that it is understood differently: in a broader and narrower sense. First of all, therefore, the content of the phenomenon must be defined: its most distinctive features must be determined, and according to this, the various cases of expression must be attributed to it or distinguished from it. 2.1. Perhaps the most prominent characteristic of alternating constructions in Lithuanian and other languages is the para /periphrasticity: the alternative constructions of the investigated diathesis are to be considered even as equivalent from the point of view of logic* (assertive correctness) (e.g., if it is true that the Varnénai invaded Sermuksnj, then it is true that Sermuksnis invaded Varnénai, and if it is true that Sermuksnis invaded Varnénai, then it is true that the Varnénai invaded Sermuksnj, i.e., the equivalence of two predicative structures is established: R(x, y) ~ R‘(y, x)). Not always sufficiently clear and constructively significant additional nuances (In this position many researchers distinguish so-called locative alternances, where often the meaning of a single construction acquires an additional (holistic action/impact of the whole) meaning), in addition, the pairs of constructions attributed to many alternances have the same lexical substance. The position of the investigated construction para / perifrasticity and its evaluation also depends on the theoretical model chosen for the analysis of the problem. The evaluation of another, perhaps the most important aspect of the case in question — the role of the verb with which the corresponding constructions are formed in the process of the emergence of the alternating constructions and its use (the same or two different) — depends on the grammatical concept, which in turn also has to be considered in the context of the question of constructional perifrastapkibo Sermuksnj ir b. Sermuksnis apkibo varnénais predikato loginé reikSmé — tranziics. ? Logic need here is not confused with grammatical (structural) meaning: structurally alternating construction needs always different, e.g. in sentences a. varnenai tyvus predicate: the initial ta8kas of the action is varnenai, and the final path —Sermukunis, b sentence predicate in logic is considered a conversion of a sentence transitive predicate, then both sentences predicates structural needs are different: a —transitive predicate, b —intransitive. 19 KristINA LENARTAITE Therefore, it is necessary to compare different theoretical models for the j ripple aspects. Along with other arguments ir about the significance of syntax and ir syntax semantics, theories that examine expression alternatives can be divided into those j that give preference to the analysis of structural rules, and those that ir are primarily oriented to the needs and rules of j construction. jy IS The first most cited studies of the representir atives of transformational relational M. grammar, Baker, D. R. Dowty ir R. S. Jackendoff- 's works*. Summarizing the results of recent studies, the arguments for the alternance of expressions and other related These features: alternating action verbs teigiama have one ir ta country The active passive construction relationship established in the ir transformation grammar is also applied to the dative and locative alternances in English: the alternating verb has only one argument in the syntax, the second argument is realized by the transformation being the first. In relational grammar, the active passive, dative and locative alternation projekcija relations as a basis with the i8vestinémy are defined through the rules of the grammar function as primitive i8vedama i8 substitution. ir — ir (rules include predicate arguments grammatiy functions kitima, but the ne predicate itself). M. The starting point of Baker’s model of neotransformative phenomenological analysis is the assumption that dative alternances in other languages are thematic paraphrases, ir jy atitikmenys t. y. full of ta meaning. Si alternuojandiy konstrukciju savybé grindziama teta priskyrimo vienovés hipoteze (Uniformity of of Theta Assignment Hypothesis, UTAH): thematic relationships between identical elements are represented by identical structural relationships ty between elements at the depth structure level, so both constructions are assigned identical depth syntactic — structures. Morphosyntax plays an important role here: in some languages, an applicative morpheme is attached to one of the alternating verb constructions ir (e.g., éigeva 18 (chichewa) language irafiksas) allowing additional argument, daZniausiai purpose (goal) or benefit, realized as a direct object. The shortcomings of this theoretical model: it is not clear how thematic periphrasticism is assessed, it should be precisely — defined by what means the semantic relationship between the action of the word and the argument is determined for two sentences; if the theta hypothesis can be ir jo applied to some alternative cases ir (e.g., dative alternances), the locative alternances, for which significant differences are recognized in many studies, are not thought to be explained in this way. Anot D. R. In English, the choice of the subject object ir depends on the arguments that can be assigned to the prototypical role of the ir agent patient: the argument that has the most prototypical role of the agent is chosen by the subject, the one that can be assigned to the most prototypical o role of the patient. — If one argument né does not have enough poZymiy to be univariate when assigned to an object, varying arguments are allowed. ar R. S. Jackendoff claims one ir ta the same lexical semantic representation allows two different syntactic realizations. According to him, alternations are possible because apskritai in the representation of lexical semantics a certain position with regard to the realization of the argument is optional. Zymeta (Levin & Rappaport Hovav 2005: 196-205). 20 Lietuviy kalbos argumenty rai8kos alternacijos meaning in both cases; alternances based on rules that define the occurrence of two morphosyntactical realizations, in addition, one variant of expression is often affirmed to be the basic one — so the second is considered to be a transformation of the first. These theoretical models tend to ignore the differences in meaning that are typical of alternating constructions: a construct that is constructed by means of syntactic transformation is said to be meaningless — since the differences in meaning that arise from the transformation are of a different nature: they involve not the lexical action of the word content, but rather aspects of the meaning of the part of the sentence, such as the appropriation of the quantifier or the assignment of the focus (cf. Levin & Rappaport Hovav 2005: 196-207). Thus, according to this position, the alternance of constructive para /periphrasticism is acknowledged, but not explored more extensively, in the context of grammatical concepts that identify meaning changes, of which the most prominent works belong to B. Levin and M. Rappaport Hovav, S. Pinker, A. Goldberg and W. Croft, as well as the mentioned studies of S. Iwata and M. Fried. These researchers argue that the differences in pronunciation explain and influence them. ‘One of the first attempts in this direction to address the localitive alternations is the study of B. Levin and M. Rappaport (also classified as a so-called lexical rule model, as is the S, Pinker analysis). In this case, the systematic alternating construction of meaning variation is a positive reflection of the different lexical semantic representations, in which case properly designed symbolization rules can be adapted to combine lexical semantic representations with correct argument realization models. The localitive alternance type is given a corresponding lexical semantic representation (a. load: [X CAUSE [Y TO COME TO BE AT Z] /LOAD] b. load: [[X CAUSE [Z TO COME TO BE IN STATE]] BY MEANS OF [X CAUSE [Y TO COME TO BE AT Z]] /LOAD)), where the variant with the prepositional with construction (b) is a continuation of the localitive variant (a), or otherwise, the takeover of the with variant as the basis of the localitive variant so that the main demu of the localitive variant becomes the subordinate demu of the with variant. The construction can be executed only in this direction (only i8 locative, not vice versa). All this in part seems intuitively perceived, close to paraphrasing, varianty santyk}. The Pinker model we have just discussed is very similar. In addition to the locative Cia, 1r datability and causative alternances are studied. The relationship between lexical semantic representation and syntactic expression of separate pairs of constructions is also governed by the rules of derivation (the verb whose semantic structure core ‘X causes Y to move into /onto 2’ is converted into a new verb whose semantic structure core is ‘X causes Z to change state by means of moving Y into /onto it’), only that, unlike in the B. Levin and M. Rappaport model, the derivation of constructions is possible in both directions, depending on which construction variant’s argument can replace the only predicate complementing element (although this test is not always reliable). In A. Goldberg’s study, the verb is perceived as a combination of its minimal meaning and profiled arguments (i.e., only mandatory semantic roles of the predicate- ’s satellite) and is called a “verb”. 21 Kristina LENARTAITE on the basis of the significant differences in alternating constructions. Thus, the aspect of constructional para / periphrasticity is also significant: in view of this, the differences in constructional meaning and the relationship between them are defined. The main focus of Gia is on object alternances (the most frequently mentioned cases are dative-locative alternances) ir ir In this post, we try to maintain the basic semantic unifiobjectivity. Mechanisms are created to explain alternating constructions, allowing more than one argument to alternatively satisfy the definition of semantic objectivity. Thus, regarding the first eye-catching aspect of the alternating construction — para /perifrasticity — it can be said: if the significant differences between the constructions are recognized, the theoretical model is constructed in this direction. This aspect is used in the study as the necessary differences between the constructions, the assumption of their appearance and ir the basis for the investigation of the relationship, if the direction of structural analysis is observed. The relationship between the constructions is examined as a basis with the iSvestine, para /perifrasticity is used by means of the introduction of one alternating construction into the other transformation and for the 0 demonstration of the structure of the common depth of both constructions. ir i§ Whichever ir theoretical concept is chosen for the study of ja alterations, para periphrasticity is considered / (root), then the minimum Si requirement is integrated with the correspondij ng argumenty structure construction in the byte that This process involves merging verb arguments and positions in the ir construction. Argumenty alternacyos occur when the verb can be combined with more than one construction. su Not a lot of my research community su A. Goldberg- 's position indicates S. Iwata, by assigning to the alternating locative constructions a common highest lexical level (Lexical Head Level Meaning), comprises different phrases that are realized in individual pords constructions. Level "Meaning- ". But essential A. Goldberg ir S. Iwatos theory difference ~ verb vaidmuo: A. In the Goldberg model, the action word does not determine the structure of the sentence, since the necessary aspects are assigned to the action word itself, ne This position, in Iwata's S. investigation, is central to the meaning of action. — ji perceived as a filmori8ka scene, the integration of o action in the construction j is based on semantic appropriateness. W. Croft believes that in many alternaciyy constructions argumenty encompass the jy same action ta Saknj (combination of the minimum ir action word values and the profiliuoty ir arguments) the same event type, but different du action word,,profiles* (Levin & Rappaport Hovav 2005: 205-216; Iwata 2005: 355-403) M. Fried subject alterations aigkina as poZidrio ta8ku (viewpoint) based subject selection, from the perception and conceptualization priklausantj of the spoken event. Differences in regular morphosyntactic coding aiSkinami are determined by different configurations of the respective semantic roles in certain types of scenes (Fried 2005: 475-512). 22 Alternative expressions of arguments in Lithuanian language are an important feature of this phenomenon. In addition, the use of this sub-sign in the study of pragmatic aspects of alternance (e.g., thematic-- remic structure) is undoubted, but the position in this article is that it is more important to start the study from the revelation of the mechanisms of expression fixed in the linguistic system, although a detailed model of the study of argumentative alternance in Lithuanian language will require in the future to understand the aspect of the occurrence of the analyzed phenomenon and its function in the linguistic system. Another important question is the role of the word in this process. Its evaluation also depends on the theoretical model: on the one hand, the decisive role of the verb in the process of the emergence and differentiation of alternances is recognized (almost all the studies focusing on their constructional differences, see 4 i8naga), elsewhere the role is narrowed jo (plg. A. Goldberg's position in 4 iSnaSo) or not discussed further (cf. 3 i8naSa). The assessment of the need for the verb in the alternative construction is similarly divided: in one place it is said that it is the same in both pords, in another two different and agreeing as the basis with the iSvestine. The method of analysis used in this paper is largely an application of the model of Universal Applicative Grammar by S. Saumianas. In presenting an appraisal of the role of the verb in the alternative constructions of applied grammar, it is important to distinguish between genotypic and phenotypic grammar. The genotypic sub-level consists of functional du kalbiniy units — predicates, — terms (satellites of the predicate — arguments and circumstantial terms), modifiers — and operators. Phenotypic grammar includes syntactic units — morphemes and words — and is related to them in terms of order of ordering and morphological features. The rules of genotypic grammar should be considered as invariant to the possibility of their realization in phenotypic grammar. Genotypic grammar rules are intended to interpret universal linguistic realities (Shaumyan 1987: 97). Argumentative syllable alternation is a phenomenon that is present in many languages, and its basic types (e.g. subject syllable alternation or locative syllable alternation) have analogous counterparts in different languages. Therefore, in order to properly identify the linguistic development processes related to this phenomenon and not to get lost in the multitude of phenotypic variations realized in different languages, the argument of evolutionary alternance must first define the rules of the genotypic level and only then investigate how they fit with the phenotypic phenomena of a particular language. The following are the principles of applicative grammar in relation to the present question: 1) the change 23 Kristina LENARTAITE of the grammatical status of a term (a predicate conjunction) is to be considered as a consequence of the change of the predicate; the predicate change defines the predicate change rules®, which must be adapted to the predicate when the predicate is applied to terms; 2) a sentence with changed grammatical relations can be realized independently of a sentence with unchanged grammatical relations, e.g. a passive sentence can be realized by applying the passive predicate directly to its terms, rather than transforming the active sentence into the passive (Shaumyan 1987: 272). The second proposition means that passive constructions in the active sense and other similar expressions are not considered i8vedic in the sense as it is done in transformation or relational grammar (see 3 i8naSq), i.e. if the predicate P,, representing the iS sentence, by applying the corresponding rules of predicate change, is the i8vedic predicate P.,, then the sentence with the changed predicate (P,) is to be considered as i8vedic by the realiser with the unchanged predicate (P,) only insofar as the structure of the i8vedic sentence is represented by the predicate P, and it is transferred to the structure represented by the i8vedic predicate (P,). The bitness of the predicate structure condition in the diathesis of alternances is illustrated by such cases, attributable from alternances, e.g. : (1) a. It separated the mésq from the bony. b. She separated the bones from the flesh. (2) a. They atplésé the child from the mother. b. They atplés moting from the child. Here the structure of the predicate remains unchanged — in two sentences the predicate opens equal positions for arguments and circumstantial terms. 2.2. Another important simas — konstrukcijy pory leksiné sudétis. Minint $j rei8kinj dazniausiai turiaspect of defining the concept of argumenty alternancy is the case of identical lexical content, thus B. Levin's diathesis of argumenty alternances can be compared to a broader sense of argumenty variation possibility of the whole®, thus aiming at i§ functionality of the argumenty. Section 3.2. ©Plg. B. Levin, in classifying English verbs on the basis of the relationship between their syntactic behaviour and their meaning, assigns to syntactic alterations, or diatheses, 24 Lietuviy kalbos argumenty rai8kos alternacijos all the differences in the syntactic behaviour of a word to determine the differences in its meaning. Most of the English examples attributed to diathesis alternances, in Lithuanian language even such assumption is not made —mat are realized by different verb-based lexems (or different jy forms), e.g.: a. ir b. the meat is easily cut; a child broke a. a cup ir b. a cup of soda; tas a. Suo kandZioja people ir b. tas He's getting sick. The case of total transformation called alternance does not change the Core of the sentence, i. e. argumenty, the semantic structure of the predicate, but only introduces an additional element to the periphery of the sentence, e.g.: witch transformed o the element is to be considered as optional, and if j it is not the result of the changed a. expression, it jj is substituted varle ir b. ragana is princo jj paverté varle. Bet kuris periferijoje realizuojamas by the predicate. j The position of the argument of the heart, jo that is, the realization or non-realisation of the predicate of the heart does not change, therefore it is not attributable to the alternance case. This article takes the position that argumentative expression alternations are primarily defined as the fixed predicate argumentative expression models in universal language systems. (t. y. as genotypic grammar subunits), and any periphery-- belonging predicate satellite (circumstantial term) variation of expression, not affecting jo arguments, is a function of phenotypic grammar (the morphosyntactic level of a particular language) - On this basis, it is determined ir that only the arguments of the predicate are considered alternatives (t. y. realizuojamy subjects, objects ir indirect objects) expression cases. However, some aspects of the question of alternations need to be clarified: it is not entirely 1) appropriate to call the alteration of the arc of the expression arc of the expression, - since the changes of the expression ne include only the arguments of the predicate, which realized very few permissible cases of variation of the expression of the argument, therefore She patentedka ir different lexical constructions, e.g.: medial alternance (Middle Alternating): a. Butcher cuts the meat; b. The meat cuts easily; causative inchoative alternance / (Caused/Inchoative Alternating): a. Janet broke the cup; b. The cup broke; alternance of unspecified object (Unspecified Object Alternating): a. Mike ate the cake; b. Mike ate; alternance of bad characteristics of the agent (Characteristic Property of Agent Alternating): a. That dog bites people; b. That dog bites; total transformation alternation (transitive) (Total Transformation Alternance (transitive)): a. The whitch turned him into a frog; b. The witch turned him from prince into frog; Sir. a ir (Levin 1993: 25-26, 27-30, 33, 39, 57-58). 7 Dél layered sentence structures Core, predicate semantics represent essential arguments, ir peripheral elements (non-arguments) terms still Zr. Van Valin, LaPolla (1997: 25-31). 25 Kristina LENARTAITE modifikatoriy) as well as the operator and operand’- ’s relationship between them. 3.1. Thus, the following are the basic principles of applicative grammar, which are also applied to interpret the researched language. One of the fundamental features of the language system here is the principle of functional superposition, which creates a hierarchy of primary and secondary functions of signs and phonemes. This principle is widely applied to the phenotypic level (phonology, morphology and syntax). »In the context of changing the significance or function of a sign or phoneme B, the sign or phonemeA is applied by superposition so that B is used as the accommodating and A as the bilayer <B SUP A>. As a result of the superposition, a derivation relation of the function is created by such a bid that B becomes the functional derivative or alternant of A. The sign or phoneme B acquires a secondary meaning or function, which is “adding* to its primary meaning a context-independent meaning or function” (Shaumyan 2006: 131). (Here and elsewhere my iSversta —K. L.) In order to establish the universal processes of zuotas gramatikos autonomijos leksikono atZvilgiu désnis, kurj reprezengrammar, two abstraction processes are idealized: 1) the structure of the sentence is abstracted from it uZpildanéiy Zodziy; 2) the structure of the sentence is abstracted from its straightforward representation. Thus, the cijos. Universalioje sintaksinéje struktiiroje skiriamos keturios pagrindinés essential, universal elements of syntax functions remain: predicates, terms (predicate arguments and circumstantial terms), terms modifiers and predicate modifiers. On the phenotypic level, these functions are assigned to four classes of words: verbs — predicate function, nouns — termy, adverbs — termy modifikatoriy, adverbs — predicate modifikatoriy. Each class of words in the language, in addition to its primary syntactic function, 2 These relations are determined by the order of joining of the word combinations (word combination is perceived similarly as a set of words together with a structural combination): “If the word combination is insufficient and must be supplemented by other word combinations, such a word combination is called an operator and it joins one or more word combinations, called operands, to form a new word combination, called the resultant” (Shaumyan 2006: 213). 32 Lietuviu kalbos argumenty raiSkos alternaciyjos may have secondary ir effects. Functional superposition is a process where the secondary function The ant primary function is ir added, thus creating a new two-layered function. The new function is a combinatiir on of primary and secondary. Po superpositions Zodis (,,superposed“) has both — ir primines, ir antrinés - functions poZymiy. For example, the word white primary function is a bit thermo modifier, as in the sentence White Sunelis vizgina uodegq. O Right in the sentence White is good, black bad o it already performs a thermo function. Thus, in the second case, the binomial undergoes the superposition of the noun, so the syntactic function of the binomial merges with the syntactic function of the su noun. In the sentence Yesterday I as was walking in the ir garden suddenly I see — Jonas The word I see structuring needs is perceived as bit time. Thus, the function of the present time is the combined su function of the past time. In the sentence John is a driver The word driver in the compound is driver has a secondary, predicative, function which, 8iam ZodZiui connecting su operator is, superposition bid was ‘uzZdéta’ on the jo original (thermo) functions. These are examples of syntax superposition. In morphology, the mechanism of superposition operates in the process of derivation: only references Words turi primary syntactic functions, o i8vestiniai ZodZiai have only secondary, superposition byidu i8vestas pamatiniy i ZodZiy function, e.g. : Zodis Zalias is nei8vestinis has primary thermo ir modifier function, Zalumas is derivative made by adding the o corresponding iSorinj noun jo Zymiklj'* (-um-as) on the ir base ZodzZio prefix modifier function - termo — ,,by adding* thermo function thus — obtains double function of the lead thermo né modifier termas. The superposition — mechanism works ir ir "ZdZiy reik'miy derivatsiya ploshchad'i, plg. ZodzZio Zalias primary requiem ,,that color”, superposition bid ,,uzZdedant* This need has not Zodzio experienced the primary need, "denied, not accustomed", iSvedama Zodzio Zalia's secondary meaning is,,unexperienced, unknowing; — young" this is a metaphorical way of transferring meaning, the word Zalias antriné reik'mé ir ZodZio unexperienced primary connects them in a synonymoo us relationship, both word The green meanings are connected by the relation of polysemy. 3.2. Investigated arguments perkaitos rei8kinj S. Saumianas also ai- © Syntax function superposition may not produce any isotonic "Zymiklio, plg.: ne matau akmens akmens ir sieną". 33 Kristina LENARTAITE kina superposition operation and finds it a place next to other transformation’* based syntactical reSkiniy (e.g., passivation). In defining the rules of superposition governing §j rei8kinj, it is necessary to discuss the hierarchy of syntactic terms applied to the predicate, or in other words the applicative hierarchy (Applicative Hierarchy). Similarly to relational grammar, the syntactic or simply grammatical functions (see Holvoet, Mikulskas 2005: 7) are conventionally denoted as follows: 1 subject, 2 direct object, 3 indirect object, Q circumstantial term (only in applical grammar, unlike in relational grammar, the subject and direct object are not considered as elements signifying grammatical relations, but as members of the binary relationship created by the dual predicate). Syntactic terms in the hierarchy are represented as follows: [fl >2>3]>Q ¥4 Passive constructions are considered active conversions in the grammar discussed, but their occurrence and relationship to each other are interpreted differently than in the transformative or relational grammar: $. Isomorphism of the active and the corresponding passive components of the basic component of the construction (isomorphism is not to be confused with equivalence) is determined by Saumiano — the relation between the active predicate and the subject of the construction is isomorphic to the passive circumstantial term of the predicate. ir (where) corresponds to the ratio of the assets of the construction entity); the predicate is the minimal sentence representing the main element of the sentence and is a predicate, so in applied grammar not the constructive relation (active and passive: R(x, y) and R'(y, x)) is called a conversion, but if the predicate of the active sentence (the basic predicate), by applying to it the abstract conversion operator, is introduced a conversion predicate, in which the passive predicate is further constructed (i.e. the conversion predicate is introduced into the basic predicate, but not vice versa; passive predicate is not a conversion predicate, but only derived from a conversion predicate, which in turn is derived from a base predicate); Therefore, if it is possible to talk about the transformation or conversion of active—passive constructions, it is only on the structural level of the predicates of these constructions, since passive constructions are to be considered as being generated independently of the corresponding actives, passive constructions can only be reduced to the corresponding actives (Desclés, Guentchéva, Shaumyan 1985: 22-24; Shaumyan 2006: 234-235; see also notes in section 2.1). +8 $i The hierarchy follows from the désniy of sentence formation.,,Sakin forms its components daliy binariniy kombinatsii hierarchy“ —so: 1),if X is the operator that joins with the term Y to form the sentence Z, then X is the intransitive predicate, and Y is the subject; 2) if X is an operator, which connects with the term Y, in order to form an intranzitivy predicate Z, then X is a transitive predicate, and Y is a direct object; 3) if X is an operator that connects with term Y in order to form transitive predicate Z, then X is a transitive predicate, 0 Y is its indirect object; 4) if X is an operator that joins a phrase Y to form a phrase Z of the same type as Y, then X is an attribute of Y” (Shaumyan 2006: 228-232). 34 Lietuviy kalbos argumenty rai8kos alternacijos Parentheses separate the terms of the predicate, the members of the rém of the predicate. 3-tia is defined in relation to 2, because the rank of 2 (functional position of the whole of the sentence) is more broadly realized in the transitive, ditransitive sentence, 3-only in the -2 ditransitive; ir however, 2 is ir Zymét with respect to 1, o because 1 is realized in both intransitive, transitive and ditransitive sentences; 0 Q is a symbol in relation to the predicate rém, which has a broader rank: the predicate rém is realized in all sentences, 0 Q — not in all. So diateze sakinio A transformacija i sakinj B —nustato These rules: 1. If 3 is identified with 2, then 2 must undergo a Q superposition: <3 SUP 2> —<2 SUPQ> 2. If 2 is identified with 1, then 1 must undergo Q superposition: <2 SUP 1> —<1 SUP Q> If 3 is identified with 1, then 1 must undergo Q superposition: <3 SUP 1> —<1 SUPQ> In short, if the term A of the sentence is realized as the term B of the higher order, then the term B will be realized as the circumstantial term (Shaumyan 2006: 235-236). The first rule includes one case of the object expression transformation and the action/effect recipient expression transformation (cf. 12ab), cf.: and the object, (18) a. b. Mother (ap)muturiuoja child's scarf. (18a) in the sentence, the arguments of the predicate perform direct functions: mama -1, skarelé —2, vaikas —3, 0 (18b) in the sentence dél, the arguments of the superposition experienced acquire secondary double-level functions: patiria superpozícija, — — 3 2 2Q, o 1-1 superposition (i.e. zero superposition’®), p.g. : (18) b. mama scarlet child <1 SUP 1> <2 SUP 3> <3 SUP 2> Other cases of transformation of the object expression include the semantic function of the circumstantial term, in the most general sense performing the action/influence, “© The transformation must not necessarily change the function of the term of each sentence. The situation where the thermo function is the same as the subject's mother in sentences 18a and 18b is called a zero superposition. 35 Kristina LENARTAITE Raigkos kitima (Zr. 8 psl. ), along S. Saumiano nustatytosios taisyklės should be supplemented by one more: If identified Q this must su 2, undergo 2 superposition: Q <Q SUP 2> — <2SUPQ> (19) a. The girls are buying j gels. b. The girls were holding their wallets full. (19a) in the sentence predicate argumenty ir circumstantial termy primeness functions are Sios: girls — 1, gelling - 2, pancreas — Q, 0 In 19b the superpositipo on results in the following secondary functions, cf.: (19) b. girls gels in the cashier <1SUP1> <2SUPQ> <QSUP2> Second S. Saumiano's rule is only suitable for the ne subject-object syllable ir recasting, but not for the passivation ir process. This is evidenced by The commonality of these functions ir indicates the position of the arguments in the language system. (20) a. He's a pig. b. Pigs aplipo parSeliais. c. The pig was covered with Seliy / covered with Sely. Tik (20a) in the sentence are realized the functions of the prime argumenty: parSeliai — 1, o whey - 2. (20b) in the sentence kiaulé acquires secondary function <2 SUP 1> ir dél becomes to a promoted subject j position, parseliai get o an antring function <1 SUP Q> ir are lowered by j the circumferential thermo position. (20a) the passive counterpart is: (20c), which occurs under the same superposition rule, cf. : (20) c. parSeliai in pigs <1 SUP Q> <2, SUP 1> The type of entity expression conversion also needs to be defined by a separate rule: If identified Q must undergo su 1, tai 1 superposition: Q <Q SUP 1> > <1 SUP Q> (21) a. Mushrooms sprouted in the bowl. 36 Lietuviy kalbos argumenty rai’kos alternacijos b. The forest grew like a mushroom. (22) a. Kitchens are double éesnakas. b. Virtuve dvoké éesnaku. These types of sentences (21b) and (22b) are precisely c. Virtuvéje dvoké cesnaku. affected by the operation of the 3rd rule. It is important to note that in (21a) sentence the subject (gryby) is not typical, but it can also be explained by superposition: the verb pridygo is a derivative of i8 dygo, thus, in relation to the basic Word pridygo can have only a secondary function, which by means of superposition is,,added’’ to the primary function of the dygo, therefore the required argument of the predicate pridygo is realized not in the nominative, but in the genitive verb — 0 this is already the formally necessary function of the secondary argument. Signifier: i.e. the noun fungi Gia realized by the genitive has a secondary, subject, function, e.g.: in the forest mushrooms sprout and in the forest there sprouted fungi. The grammatical function of the subject (gryby) of the (21a) sentence in the (21b) sentence has changed —by means of superposition it has been,,added* to* the grammatical function of the object, although this is not explained by any external indicators. (22c) the sentence is transformed by the second function of the circumstantial term (Q) (the function of the circumstantial term éesnaku remains unchanged — i.e. it undergoes zero superposition) for the two terms of the superposition of the sentence: (22) c. virtuvé €esnakas <<QSUP1>SUPQ> <<1SUPQ> SUPQ> The third rule of superposition applied by S. Saumiano applies to the dative alterations of English to transform passive constructions”’. In Lithuanian language this rule can be applied at least in the following cases: a. Seimininké davé Suneliui édalo and b. Sunelis Seimininkés yra duotas édalo'*, Here in the second (b) sentence the thermo Sunelis antriné function is <3 SUP 1>, and the thermo Seimininké -<1 SUP Q>, the thermo édalas function does not change, i. e. it is 1” plg.: a. John handed the scarf to Mary; b. John handed Mary the scarf; c. Mary was handed the scarf by John. In the first (a) sentence, the arguments perform primary functions. John -1, scarf ~ 2, Mary -3, the second (b) sentence is transformed according to the first rule -<1 SUP 1> <2 SUP Q> <3 SUP 2>, 0 the third (c) is transformed i8 the second (b) according to the third $. The following rules are used: < <1 SUP 1> SUP Q> <<2 SUP Q> SUP Q> <<3 SUP 2> SUP 1> (Shaumyan 2006: 235-236). ‘*Plg. Sunelis siandie tebéra did not give anything (Jablonskis 1997: 140). 37 Kristina LENARTAITE undergo zero superposition—<2 SUP 2>. Taéiau dél the so-called indirect object of the position of the subject, it is not necessary to assign it i8skirtinés function argument in the conversion process — In this case, the most important is the position of the subject of the term performing the indirect object function, like any other term / circumstantial term (cf. 20b, 21b, 22b), rather than the grammatical function of the indirect object itself. pamatiné Be therefore, the example under consideration is not a case of alternance, but of passivation —argumenty raika perkaitai near the realm —. All discussed rules include dviejy termy — ir The subject / object, the ir circumstantial term — the change of position, and in all the poésies the initial point becomes the promotion of the latter to the position of the subject or direct object, and it follows the argument, the subject performing the grammatical function of the object, the demotion to the position of the ar circumstantial term. However, it seems that j the course of events must not necessarily take place only in this order, because the effect of argumenty transformation includes the unchangeable case when only the circumstantial term of one argument changes (cases of transformation of the place of action/influar ence and the direct object, cf. 13ab, 14ab), e.g. : (23) a. The child swam across the river. b. The child swam over the river. (24) a. A boy kicks the ball. b. The boy kicks the ball. (23a) in the sentence dél the derivative verb perplauké acquires the secondary transitive predicate — function in relation to the primary - intransitive predicate plauké, sodél typical,,aprócébinés“ meaning noun upé, performing the circumstantial subject function in relation to the primary predicate ir (plg. to swim in the river, river), becomes possible to realize as a direct object’® so by superposition — the noun upé is realized in secondary <Q The SUP 2> function. (23b) in the sentence of po the superposition i§ upé argument is lowered circumstantial i term, its function is o already < <Q SUP 2> SUP Q>. Be therefore, (23b) sentence is obviously excessive information. »° Anot A. The syntactic status of the su key, in the ar constructions of the direction of scrolling differently realized elements of the crying words is unchanged ir This type of compounds are not attributable to objective relationships (Drukteinis 1985: 59) However, the objectiveness of the river is ir evidenced by the passivation test, cf. river was crossed by a child, two-layered o content can be scanned by superposition operation. 38 Lietuviy kalbos argumenty rai’kos alternacijos Similarly as in the (23a) proposition by means of derivation, only in the (24b) proposition without any iSoriniy indicator the intransitive predicate is realized as a secondary function of the transitive predicate, and its argument — the former circumstantial term — is realized as a secondary function of the direct object —<Q SUP 2>. In this and other cases of transformation, the dual function of the transformation direction and the transformed construction of the predicate and argument (and/or circumstantial term) can be demonstrated by the fact that the transformed construction implies at least part of the untransformed information”, but not the other way around, e.g.: kaisyti kasas (19b) —,,when something is transformed into cash”; 20b) „dél parSeliy (abundant) sprinkling the pig to become covered with them”; cross a river (23b) —,,while crossing a river, cross it (to swim)*; cross a river (23a) means ‘cross a river by sailing’; kick the ball (24b) —,,to hit the ball with the foot so as to force it to move“. 3.3. It is also important to return to the question of the predicate role in the transformations. In some overheated cases (see 20ab, 23ab) the function of the primary transitive predicate is superimposed by the function of the secondary intransitive predicate. This is also the case in all cases of passivation. Thus, in such constructions, the change of the predicate itself’’, 2 B. Levin, M. Rappaport Hovav, and S. Pinker, in their model of lexical rules, based the direction of the alternance on the direction of the interpretation (see 3 i8nada), while S. Iwata’s negation of the predicate structure and its meaningful transformation in the case of the locative alternance, arguing that some actionazodies allow only one interpretation, is to be considered in a broader argument in the context of the interpretation of the predicate and its environment, and in resolving the assumptions of the possibility of the corresponding realization / non-realization, but not in examining the mechanism of interpretation itself (Iwata 2005: 356-361). 2 In the formal aspect of the passivation process, the destruction of the transitiveness is accomplished by means of an unspecified term, which, after applying the conversion operator to the predicate of the 18 basic (active) construction of the transitive- -binary predicate, results in a conversion predicate (see 14 i8na8a), which is still binary, and only when the conversion predicate is joined with the unspecified term as a result of the latter’s union, a single intransitive passive predicate is obtained. Thus, one function of the unspecified term i8 is the conversion of the conversion predicate into a single passive predicate. Other meanings of an unspecified term are: 1) it has the syntactic function of a secondary term (i.e. a direct object); 2) its meaning is,,the place of the agent’’ (i.e. it refers to any agent, it can specify context, pragmatic situation or lexical information of the predicate- ’s meaning); 3) it is a Zero Signification, i.e., it is not understood in any way (Desclés, Guentchéva, Shaumyan 1985: 14, 55). It is not yet clear how the unfulfilled position of the direct object should be formally marked in cases of transitive transformation of the variable predicate. 39 Kristina LeNARTAITE determining the realization of some of its arguments and/or circumstantial terms by other secondary functions is obvious. Cases of invariant predicate transitivity transformation are explained by the existence in the language system of defined predicate structures and their realization in several ways: by the basic predicate and the positions opened in its structure, by the primary positions opened in the predicate structure for arguments and/or circumstantial terms. The predicate always inherits the structure of the base and by superposition funkcijas turintiems argumentams bei i8vestiniu predikatu ir jo struktiroje merges it with the modified predicate structure created by any of the transformation modes (or various other possible combinations of them — eventually all operations are merged into the two base — or the rank of the argument's circumstantial term is raised or lowered). Thus, the structure of the predicate is transformed from the base, but the substructures are not transformed from each other, they can only be evoked through their predicates, and the transformed structure can be distinguished (reduced) from the base, since the latter is implied by the transformed one. This can be demonstrated by the example of §j: (25) a. The hunters put the sacks on the pit. b. The / hunters cover the pit with sacks. This sentence pair of arguments is not attributable to the translation of the sentence, because analogous processes Gia are realized by the ne ta same, but different actionZodinémis lexemas. The predicate apdeda of the second (b) sentence is iSvestas i§ the predicate deda of the first sentence: thus the derivative apdeda has a secondary function in relation to the ir base word deda, the morphological derivation marker is the prefix ap-, the meaning of the predicate verb is indicated by the semantic decryption of apdeéti o rivacijos — ,,baby ant ka ko i8 all-round”. On the level of abstract grammatical functions, the structure of the basic predicate is combined by means of superposition with one of the language su structure i8 fixed arguments of the secondary predicate function expression models (i.e. ir jy combinations), on o the morphosyntactic level the secondary functions of the i8vestine predicate zymj arguments (and circumstantial terms) are realized by corresponding conjugated prepositional ar / ir constructions. It is obvious that only predicates are connected by atveju derivative relations, constructions are connected through their predicate relations, and if o the structure of the transformed predicate can be distinguished (reduced) baseline (plg. apdet duobe Saying ,,child 40 Lithuanian language argumenty syllable alternances Sakas ant duobés taip, kad duobé biity visa apdéta“), but this does not mean that when realizing the construction of the i8vestine predicate, the intermediate operation of realization of the construction of the basic predicate is necessary, the second sentence can be expressed independently of the first. The — exact sequence of all the discussed is important not only for both constructional relationships aiSkanti, but for procediiros ir ju producing a specific sentence in a specific context: when it is necessary to create a sentence predicate ne apdéti, it is not necessary to remember the past iSvesta déti. su i8 The case under ir consideration other similarIt functionally corresponds to the argument of ir the word perception from it separated dél formal morphological level pozymiy (morphological derivation Zymiklio). Argumenty perkaitos reiSkiniuose predicate change, ir argumenty ir jo (and / ar circumstantial terms) in relation to analogous only to the discussed case processes, ka only actionazZodinéje lexem iSoriSkai in no way neiSreikSti, so it is correct to be structurtiiry pairs realized acting markers ir su (e. g. 25ab) jtraukti j argumenty resolution conversion periphery (in some languages, e.g. tiéeva (chichewa) language, argumenty for alternations analogiSki processes can be realized only dél irafikso joining to actionazZodinés lexemas (plg. 3 i8naSa); In ir German, the expression of the argument that plays the role of the locative is realized by joining the verb with the affix be-, e.g. : She said, Colour an the Wall ,,she sprayed daZus on the wall“ ir She discussed the Wall with Colour ,,it's a pure wall (with) dyes’ (Michaelis, Ruppenhofer 2001: 12)). Dél analogi8ky procesy porés sakiniy ir realizuojamy aktualiosios daidos skirtumy argumenty perkaitos reiSkinio vietos kalbos sistemoje ieSkotina Salia passivation” phenomenon (plg. 20abc). After more detailed arguments, it is possible to define semantic functions (especially pragmatic) field research, Sis rei8kinys (or at least some cases) explained functions that belong to the jo category of peripheral expression. ri8ies Arguments for transformation expression processes aiScanning the assumptions of only a part of the appropriate construction pair of applied grammar tools i$ atsiradimo (about them, context, be decides only changed argumenty i§ functiony), In this article remained undiscussed many argumenty transformair tion cases realized actual division differences, that, less important is be ne A. Holvoet argues that the category of the verb also exists as a grammatical form of the actual part: the construct of the passive verb that allows nothing to be said about the verb, but focuses on the object that becomes the subject of the o sentence. j (Holvoet 2003: 87; dar plg. "Steel on the edge of the ice" (in Swedish). 1 41