Dėl daiktavardinėmis „kaip“ konstrukcijomis reiškiamos antrinės predikacijos pobūdžio

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LVII (2007), 123 – 160 Remarks Remarks On the nature of secondary predication expressed by nominal as constructions 0. The article “Nominal as-constructions as an analytical marker of predicative marking” by Loreta Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė, published in the fifty-sixth issue of the journal Acta Linguistica Lithuanica, significantly supplements the still rather sparse Lithuanian publications on secondary predication. This publication marks another step forward in modernizing the conceptual basis of Lithuanian grammar. As the article’s title itself already indicates, the author was primarily concerned with establishing the priorities for the morphosyntactic marking of secondary predicates. Analysis of Lithuanian data showed that adverbial meanings are most often marked by predicative as constructions with a noun phrase (hereafter as + NP – R. M.), and that the most characteristic use of this analytic form is to mark the reason for a subject or object’s involvement in the predication of the sentence as a whole. Predicative complements, by contrast, are more typically marked by the instrumental case. These conclusions confirm the hierarchies of predicate marking and of their integration within the scope of the main (i.e. verbal-phrase) predication, developed by Hentschel (2005, 2007) and cited in the article. Ultimately, all this helps the article’s author formulate an important empirical conclusion: the less a secondary predicate is integrated into the main predication, the more it tends to be marked analytically, in the case at hand by the as + NP construction. Before conducting the empirical study, however, the article’s author also had some theoretical work to do: she had to reformulate, in terms of a unified concept of secondary predication, phenomena that previous descriptions of Lithuanian grammar had variously called simple or causal appositives, nominal parts of the predicate or predicative attributes, comparative (identity) constructions, or adverbials. Some theoretical aspects of secondary predication caught the attention of the author of these remarks as he read the article. But more on that in due course. 0.1. The inconsistent treatment of the constructions in question in Lithuanian grammar works was due in part to the fact that, traditionally, they are discussed in different parts of the description devoted to distinct grammatical functions (i.e. the so-called parts of the sentence). Drawing on the latest studies of secondary predication, the article’s author critically 123 Pastabos assesses this Lithuanian tradition, revealing a certain inadequacy in the concepts used to describe as + NP constructions and the undesirable syncretism in grammatical categorization that arises partly as a result, whereby essentially different grammatical phenomena are insufficiently clearly articulated and are subsumed under a single concept. For example, “comparative (identity) construction” becomes such an ambiguously defined concept in The Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian (Ambrazas, ed., 2006). The article’s author aptly observes that the Grammar uses this concept to describe as + NP constructions that in fact express no comparison at all: the nature of the predication expressed by the constructions in question is essentially no different in sentences such as Old Pikčiurnienė was renowned throughout the region AS A GOOD OLD WOMAN and in sentences such as He arrived in the capital AS AN ENVOY, although the Grammar’s authors deny only the latter a comparative meaning and call them predicative attributes. In fact, in all such sentences the as + NP constructions express secondary predication (hence the term secondary predicates); syntactically, they are related to the main predicate through complementation or modification, and semantically, also to one of its arguments. This distinguishes these constructions from comparative as + NP constructions, which, although they too express additional (or secondary) predication, function in the sentence as (usually manner) adverbials and merely modify the main predicate, without being oriented toward specifying any of its arguments. 0.2. In describing non-comparative as + NP constructions in terms of secondary predication, the article’s author excludes from her subsequent study both traditionally termed appositives, whose predication, in her view, is expressed not at the sentence level but at the noun-phrase level, and as + NP constructions with a comparative function, for which the traditional term adverbials is more appropriate than secondary predicates. The article discusses in turn the syntactic relations of predicative as + NP constructions1 and their grammatical functions in the sentence. These constructions are linked to the sentence’s predicate verb either by a complementation relation—in which case they are described as obligatory (secondary) predicates—or by a modification relation—in which case they are called free (secondary) predicates. The latter are further divided according to their degree of integration into the main predication of the sentence into depictives and 1 Following Lithuanian grammatical tradition, the constructions in question should be said to have a “double syntactic relation”: agreement with the subject or object noun and government or adjunction with the predicate verb. The shortcomings of the concept of “double syntactic relation” have been discussed repeatedly in recent years; see Holvoet (2005: 157–161); also Holvoet, Judžentis (2005: 29, footnote 27); Holvoet, Tamulionienė (2005: 123, footnote 7). 124 Pastabos circumstantial predicatives (English circumstantials). Essentially, the same approach to the syntax of secondary predicatives and their grammatical functions is adopted in the third volume of Studies in Lithuanian Grammar, where these questions are discussed in a separate article (Holvoet, Tamulionienė 2005: 117–137). With regard to free secondary predicatives, it is observed there that although all of them are linked to the sentence verb by a modifying relation, some are semantically more oriented toward one of the main predicate’s arguments (and are thus included within the scope of the main predication), whereas others are oriented toward the event denoted by that predicate itself. In the latter case, predicatives functionally approach adverbial modifiers expressed by adverbs, whose predication merely supplements the main predication of the sentence but is not an integral part of it. The fact that some adverbial modifiers expressed by adverbs essentially characterize not the action itself but one of its participants (cf. Jonas virto aukštielninkai; Duris nudaužė žaliai), allows the authors of the aforementioned article to argue that there is a whole range of transitional cases between typical free secondary predicatives and typical verbal adverbial modifiers. The author of the article also essentially endorses this idea, observing that kaip + NP constructions functioning as free predicatives likewise form a scale according to their degree of inclusion in the main predication of the sentence. However, the specific nature of the constructions under discussion allows her to articulate the anchor points of this scale somewhat differently. At one end of the scale are the so-called depictives. These are essentially restrictive-function kaip + NP constructions, which specify in what respect one or another participant in a verbal relation is included in the predication expressed by the verb, thereby delimiting the scope of that predication. At the other end of the scale are the so-called circumstantial predicatives. These are kaip + NP constructions that typically state the reason or purpose, and less often the condition or time, of the subject’s or object’s inclusion within the scope of the predication of the sentence as a whole. Typical depictives differ from typical circumstantial predicatives not only in their semantics but also in their grammatical properties. For example, only the former fall within the scope of negation of the main predicate, which indicates their close connection with the verb phrase. The latter, by contrast, are more closely related to the content of the proposition expressed by the sentence as a whole. Comparative kaip + NP constructions that typically modify manner of action are also essentially related only to the sentence verb. Like depictives, they fall within the scope of predicate negation, although, unlike depictives, they are not semantically associated with any one of its arguments. 0.3. In several places, the author endorses the idea expressed in the literature that sentences with free secondary predicatives in fact express two predications, one of which, the secondary one, is subordinated to the main predication in terms of tense and modality. This makes it possible to speak of the relative independence of predications expressed by such predicatives 125 Pastabos in this respect. In this respect, obligatory secondary predicatives are more closely integrated into the semantic structure of the main verb, which makes it possible to speak of the complex nature of the predication expressed by the latter (cf. Holvoet, Tamulionienė 2005: 130). Clearly, only predicates of a certain meaning require a secondary predicative as their complement. With regard to kaip + NP constructions, the most typical in this respect are the so-called perception verbs, such as suprasti, interpretuoti, apibūdinti, and so on. Typically, the predicative complements of these verbs perform a restrictive function with respect to the main predication of the sentence, much like depictives. In contrast to the authors of the aforementioned article in Studies in Lithuanian Grammar (cf. Holvoet, Tamulionienė 2005: 133–136), the author of the article also tends to classify so-called function verbs, such as dirbti, tarnauti, figūruoti, among others, as predicates requiring complements. The complements of these verbs can be expressed not only by a kaip + NP construction but also by the instrumental case of the relevant noun, cf. Dvare jis tarnavo kaip samdinys / samdiniu. I must indeed agree with the author’s view that the verbs dirbti and dirbti kuo / kaip kas differ considerably in their semantic (valency) properties. Extending this idea, we could even argue that the valency properties of the verbs in question (their requirement for complementation) follow from the more general meaning of the construction ANOM FUNKCIONUOJA KAIP BNOM (BIN, VIETOJE BGEN, UŽ (PER) BACC). The empirical fact that predicative complements in Lithuanian are typically expressed by instrumental forms of nouns also strongly supports the author’s choice here. While essentially agreeing with the theoretical account of secondary predicatives in the article, briefly summarized here, I would nevertheless like to raise a couple of points for discussion concerning some of the author’s positions. 1.0. In several places in the article, the author argues that there are no strict boundaries between the grammatical functions expressed by predicative kaip + NP constructions. This view of grammatical functions as “gradual” categories seems to be borne out by the findings of the empirical study, which the author presents at the end of the article in the form of the aforementioned hierarchies. It is difficult to agree without qualification with this theoretical position on the nature of grammatical categories. First, it should be noted that the boundaries of scientific categorization are drawn unambiguously, so the boundaries of grammatical categories (in this case, grammatical functions) are also strictly defined and should not be confused with empirically established facts about their expression. The latter partly reflect various asymmetries in linguistic encoding, but are also partly determined by the researcher’s subjective judgments. Let us discuss these matters in turn. 1.1. In general, the aforementioned asymmetries in linguistic encoding are due to the fact that a limited set of linguistic means of expression can be used in a language to express 126 Pastabos An essentially unlimited number of meanings, including grammatical ones, is possible. In the specific case under discussion, one should speak of the marking, by a limited number of morphosyntactic means, of linguistic meanings capable of being encompassed by various grammatical functions. In prototypical cases that reflect the conventions of a language and can also be established empirically, individual grammatical functions are expressed by the morphosyntactic means characteristic of them. These prototypical cases are relied upon in defining grammatical functions. However, even a motivated definition is aprioristic in nature. No linguistic analysis is possible without sharply distinguished grammatical categories. The possibility, often encountered in language, of alternative analyses (and alternative interpretations) of some complex structure merely confirms the existence of boundaries between grammatical categories. From linguistic practice we also know of so-called “intermediate cases,” in which grammatical functions are expressed by morphosyntactic means not characteristic of them. Often, even such non-standard cases of expression are arranged into prototypicality scales through empirical research, and various hierarchies are constructed; but in this way one can only get a feel for so-called prototype effects (for criticism of their identification with the structure of a logical category, see Lakoff 1987: 136–152), which should not be directly associated with the boundaries drawn between grammatical categories. 1.2. Prototypical cases of the expression of grammatical functions are important not only because they motivate the definitions of these categories and thus indirectly assist in the linguistic analysis of a complex linguistic structure—the sentence—but also because one or another prototype of grammatical expression is undoubtedly relied upon in semantically interpreting that sentence, that is, in assigning it specific semantic content. In cognitive grammar, the interpretation of a complex linguistic structure is understood as one or another way of conceptualizing it. More specifically, understanding the semantic content conveyed by a sentence depends first and foremost on how that sentence’s structure is conceptualized. The path taken by the comprehender depends both on external factors (primarily context) and on internal ones. The latter are associated with the possibilities for semantic extension and combinatorics (semantic integration) of the structural units that make up the sentence. It is precisely these factors, associated with the sentence’s internal structure, that give rise to the “inadequate” expression of grammatical functions which, if conventionalized, open the way to an alternative reading of that sentence. Let us now examine some more prominent cases of non-typical expression of grammatical functions and try to discern the internal reasons for such expression. 1.2.1. In discussions of the functional convergence or “kinship” of free secondary predicatives and adjuncts, one often encounters participant-oriented adjuncts (cf. Holvoet, Tamulionienė 2005: 121–127 and references therein), cf. participant-oriented: 127 Pastabos (1) The girl ran around the yard, happy. (2) The girl ran happily around the yard. Comparing these examples, we can say that in the first, the secondary predication (a free secondary predicative), semantically oriented toward the sentence subject noun mergaitė ‘girl’, is expressed typically—by the adjectival form linksma ‘happy’, which agrees with that noun in number, gender, and case. In the second example, however, secondary predication with essentially the same content is expressed atypically—by an adverb which, owing to its inherent morphosyntactic properties, cannot indicate the direction of its semantic relation to the participant in the profiled situation (usually assumed to be the same as in the first example). As we know, manner adverbs prototypically modify the action itself. If we yield to the suggestion of this prototype, we will readily conceptualize the second sentence such that the adverb primarily (or exclusively) indicates the manner in which the action is performed. Indeed, it is easy to imagine that if mergaitė is happy while running, then her running itself is happy too—that is, she runs happily. It is easy to see that the semantic basis for such a linguistic “recoding” of secondary predication is provided by the metonymic transfer of the predicated property: a property characteristic of the subject noun is naturally attributed also to the action performed by its referent. This metonymic transfer of a “nominal” property to the verb also seems to depend on the semantics of the verb itself; for example, the adverb linksmai ‘happily’ sounds particularly natural with some verbs, cf. Mergaitė linksmai strak­sėjo ant šaligatvio. ‘The girl skipped happily along the sidewalk.’ Thus, some unusual cases of the expression of grammatical functions can also be explained through metonymy, without treating their linguistic encoding (or marking) as anomalous. This theoretical position is all the more acceptable if we adopt the view that free secondary predicatives, like adjuncts, are related to the sentence verb by a modification relation. Through the metonymic transfer discussed above, a verb modifier expressing secondary predication in the sentence is conceptually reoriented from one grammatical function to another. Another prototype of formal expression is naturally selected to register this change in conceptual relations. 1.2.2. The so-called resultatives are perhaps most closely related to the predication expressed by the verb. When they occur with perfective verbs, they denote the state of the subject or object affected by the action, cf. privažiavo pilnas kiemas; pripylė stiklinę sklidiną. ‘They drove up, and the yard was full; they filled the glass to the brim.’ Unfortunately, the expression of resultative predication by adjectives is rare in Lithuanian. Nor should we be surprised that, in our language (unlike Latvian), the use of corresponding adverbs has become generalized for this function, given the already-mentioned close connection between resultative meaning and the course of a dynamically unfolding action. Some adverbs used more regularly with this meaning have even acquired a grammatical 128 Pastabos the function of an aspectual marker—they indicate that the action of the verb they modify is carried out to completion, cf. strangled to death, undressed completely, etc. (cf. Holvoet, Tamulionienė 2005: 125, footnote 8). Since resultatives are unmarked in the kaip + DF constructions discussed in the article, as the author observes, I will not discuss them further. 1.2.3. Let us turn to examples closer to the kaip + DF constructions discussed in the article. The construction in question can express not only free or obligatory secondary predicates, but also manner adjuncts with a comparative function. The choice of interpretation may be determined not only by external contextual factors, as we shall see later, but also by matters of the sentence’s internal structure, cf.: (3) He approached me standing at attention like a cadet corps student. (4) I believed that your concern for my passion would not be rhetorical, that you would sincerely, as a scientist guided by an experimenter’s curiosity, turn me into your medium, as you promised. (Example adapted from Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė 2007: 95.) In these sentences, the kaip + DF constructions occurring alongside the verb modifiers standing at attention and sincerely are more likely to be understood as comparative manner adjuncts that specify them than as secondary predicates expressing the cause of the action. The latter interpretation is possible only if the perceiver knows that the sentence subjects are in fact a scientist and a cadet corps student, respectively—in other words, if the kaip + DF constructions in these examples are assigned the property of factivity. The fact that factivity is not characteristic of constructions with a comparative function will be discussed below. 1.2.4. As a result of processes of semantic extension, several grammatical categories may be expressible by the same morphosyntactic form. For example, the instrumental meaning of the noun’s instrumental case can readily be extended metaphorically to a manner adjunct or a secondary predicate with a restrictive function. It is therefore unsurprising that several grammatical functions in a language may share the same morphosyntactic expression, cf.: (5) The boy broke the window with a stone. (6) The unfortunate man fell from the roof like a stone. (7) As a child, my father worked for farmers as a shepherd. For the same reason, the same grammatical function may be expressed by various morphosyntactic means, cf.: worked as a shepherd, like a shepherd, as a shepherd, 129 Pastabos instead of a shepherd. Thus, either distinct grammatical functions derived from the same semantic stem retain the same morphosyntactic expression, or, when a more general grammatical category emerges through the convergence of more specific grammatical meanings, it inherits the entire set of means of expression. In either case, a certain syncretism or variation in the expression of grammatical functions does not indicate that there are no clear boundaries between them, since grammatical categories are defined primarily semantically. Of course, because several grammatical categories share a semantic basis, or because morphosyntactic markers borrowed from another grammatical category entail undesirable implications, certain practical difficulties may arise in grammatical analysis. A conventional decision may then have to be made. 1.2.4.1. When analyzing particular examples, it can sometimes be difficult to decide which category—obligatory complements or depictives—secondary predicatives should be assigned to. In both cases, secondary predications, by subcategorizing one of the participants in the profiled event, perform a restrictive function with respect to the primary predication; cf.: (8) I like Čiurlionis as a painter. (Example from Holvoet, Tamulionienė 2005: 133.) (9) He arrived in the capital as an envoy. (Example from Ambrazas, ed., 2006: 627.) The verb arrived, in sentence (9) does not, it seems, belong to the perception or functioning predicates that require a nominal complement, and the construction as an envoy here could be regarded as a free secondary predicative—a depictive—modifying the verb. Let us try to expand the secondary predication it expresses into a linking clause subordinated to the primary predication in tense and modality; cf. He arrived in the capital while serving as an envoy. But this standard explication of secondary predication does not convey the full content expressed by sentence (9). The following seems much more precise: He arrived in the capital to serve (i.e. to function!) as an envoy. This explication shows that it is appropriate to interpret the verb in sentence (9) as a complex predicate whose component includes an implied verb of functioning. Analyzing the predication expressed in this sentence in this way, we must acknowledge that the construction as an envoy is a complement of the verb arrived (an obligatory secondary predicative). Moreover, comparing the sentences given above, another difference in their semantic structure stands out. In sentence (8), the depictive as a painter, which indicates the respect in which the primary predication (expressed by the verb like) is restricted, typically refers to the subcategory of the individual regarded as his 130 Pastabos essence: Čiurlionis as a painter (artist) and Čiurlionis as a composer (musician) are two professional categories that define this person’s identity. For this reason, the restrictive nature of the depictive can also be emphasized by appropriate lexical means; cf. I like Čiurlionis, but only as a painter. Probably because in sentence (9) the professional category assigned to the individual (he) by the noun envoy in the as construction is not considered part of his identity, we cannot emphasize the construction’s restrictive nature here by similar lexical means (at least not without distorting the meaning of the sentence); cf.? He arrived in the capital, but only as an envoy. This test may prove useful in the practical task of distinguishing free from obligatory secondary predicatives. 1.2.4.2. When an as + DF construction that performs a restrictive function by subcategorizing one of the actants assigns that actant a category atypical of it, it may be difficult to decide whether the secondary predication expressed by the construction is closer to the grammatical function of a depictive or that of a comparative manner adjunct; cf.: (10) Burdock roots can be eaten raw as a salad. Young leaves are also used as a vegetable. (Example adapted from Vaičiulytė-Semenienė 2007: 95.) It is not customary to use burdock as food, so the parts of this plant assigned through secondary predication to food categories—salads or vegetables—do not in fact become such. In the context of these sentences, because of their “unreality,” the categories in question come functionally very close to nouns that serve as the standard of comparison in comparative constructions, whose predication likewise lacks factuality (cf. Burdock roots can be eaten raw as a salad / instead of a salad and Burdock roots can be eaten raw like / as if they were a salad.). Despite this dangerous proximity to the function of comparative adjuncts, the restrictive nature of as + DF constructions in the sentences under discussion can still be recognized, and they may legitimately be regarded as depictives. This is possible only if the boundaries of this grammatical function (i.e. its semantic definition) are clearly understood. 1.2.5. Thus, when interpreting a sentence with atypical morphosyntactic expression determined by various processes of semantic extension, or when one has to choose among its conventional conceptualizations, one cannot do without grammatical categories that are prototype-based but have clear boundaries. If these categories gradually merged into one another, i.e. had no clear boundaries, as empirical studies supposedly show, then no work of conceptualizing linguistic structure or analyzing it would be possible. In fact, the results of such studies merely show general tendencies in linguistic encoding. 1.3. Finally, I would like to comment at greater length on one typical case in which grammatical 131 Pastabos the difficulties of analysis are caused by external factors, that is, essentially by the lack of a broader context. At the end of the article (p. 93), the author expresses the view that there is no strict boundary between as + NP constructions functioning as manner adjuncts, that is, first-level modifiers, and those functioning as free predicatives. Indeed, in practice it may often be difficult to distinguish these grammatical functions, especially if utterances are analyzed in isolation from their broader context. However, this in no way disproves the fact that there is a theoretical basis for distinguishing these categories (as is also clearly demonstrated by the possibility of reading the sentences cited below in two ways). It is claimed that, syntactically, both as + NP constructions categorized as manner adjuncts and those regarded as secondary (free) predicatives are linked to the main sentence predicate by a modification relation. However, theoretically speaking, the manner in which the main predication is modified must essentially differ in the two cases; otherwise, there is no basis for distinguishing the two grammatical functions of adjuncts and free secondary predicatives. In theory (that is, ideally), as + NP adjuncts modify the verb’s action directly (specifying its manner), whereas secondary (free) predicatives in analogous constructions do so indirectly: by subcategorizing one of the participants in the verbal relation through their predicate noun, they indicate the respect in which that participant is involved in the main predication or, in other words, narrow the scope of that predication in a particular respect (modify its profile). Hence their restrictive function, to which we must first attend when seeking the functional motivation (raison d’être) of free secondary predicatives. We could, of course, argue that as + NP constructions used to modify manner of action do so not directly, like adverbs, but by expressing comparison. Moreover, we could also discern comparison in the semantics of predicative as + NP constructions: after all, the prerequisite for any cognitive categorization operation is the comparison of a selected entity with a certain (comparison) standard (Langacker 1987: 91). Although this latter observation explains why the same construction is selected in language for different grammatical functions, synchronically speaking, comparison is overtly chosen as a means of modifying the action (manner) only in the first case, whereas in the case of predicatives comparison can be isolated (posited) only at the cognitive level, as a prerequisite for subcategorizing one of the arguments (associated with the restrictive function of the main predication). On the other hand, we could say that the as + NP constructions that modify manner of action through comparison (like manner adverbs) also subcategorize that action, but the difference is that the comparison standard selected here is not the referent of their noun, as in the case of argument subcategorization, but rather an action typically associated with that referent. 132 Pastabos The latter fact points to another, more general feature of how comparative constructions function: the predication expressed by the verb in the proposition they imply is not subordinated to the main predication; the duration of that verb’s action does not depend on the duration of the main verb’s action; moreover, the implied action is not necessarily simultaneous with the actual one. It should also be noted that this implied proposition is often nonfactive because, as a comparison standard, it is usually formed on the basis of generic statements or metaphors, which, owing to their epistemic nature, are nonfactive in principle; cf. examples (8) and (41) cited in the article: Like a flame, nasturtiums bloomed = Nasturtiums bloomed the way a FLAME BURNS; Here we were welcomed as honored guests—with an orchestra and songs = We were welcomed here the way honored guests ARE WELCOMED (although we were not or did not feel like honored guests)—with an orchestra and songs. Meanwhile, the implied (“latent”) verbal connections of free secondary predicatives seem always to be FACTIVE. It could not be otherwise, since the existence of the act subcategories selected to realize the restrictive function (marked by the noun in the as construction) is presupposed—they are no less real than the existence of the act being subcategorized. Indeed, it is precisely because of their factivity that these constructions can also acquire an adverbial meaning of cause. Emphasizing the factivity of the (secondary) predication expressed by the constructions under discussion through contextual or textual cues (for example, by placing it in topic position) also resolves the supposed issue of there being no boundary between the categories mentioned; cf. As honored guests, we were welcomed with an orchestra and songs. – in this sentence, the as + NP construction can only be understood as an adverbial causal predicative. 1.3.1. All these considerations make clear that all secondary as + NP predicatives share the expression of respect, or a restrictive function with respect to the main predication, which at sentence level may additionally acquire some adverbial meaning (usually causal) (as we shall see later, this shift in meaning of the constructions under discussion is accompanied, in the case of a restrictive interpretation, by the elevation into the sentence profile of a proposition that is presupposed to be factive). Comparative manner adjuncts would seem most likely to be confused with depictives of restrictive function: both grammatical functions are realized in similar ways—through subcategorization. And although, as we have seen, the scopes of the predications associated with the comparison standards selected for this purpose differ in principle, in the absence of broader context they may be insufficiently defined, especially if the context provides no clearer indications as + NP construction for a factive interpretation of its “latent” connection. 2.0. Another observation also concerns the boundaries between grammatical functions. The article sets aside adjacent as + NP constructions, treating them as appositives, that is, 133 Pastabos essentially as attributes. It is argued that in such constructions (cf. Jonas, (as) a caring son, always helps his parents; p. 81, footnote 19), predication is expressed at a level below that of the sentence, thereby also acknowledging that the so-called apposition together with the word it modifies forms a single noun phrase. While not denying the close semantic connection between some as + DF constructions and a single (adjacent) nominal argument of the sentence predicate (or, put differently, the specifying function they perform with respect to it), and not denying the very grammatical category of apposition, it must nevertheless be noted that, in the cases under discussion, classifying as + DF constructions as part of the argument noun phrase is problematic. The claim that such constructions involve “downgraded predication” is therefore problematic as well. The claim that predication is expressed at a lower level (that of the noun phrase) is more convincing in the case of the so-called attributive use of appositions, cf. A caring son, Jonas always helps his parents—in this case, there is no doubt that the “attribute” a caring son of the noun Jonas forms a single noun phrase with it. What stronger arguments might there be against readily classifying the as + DF constructions under discussion as appositions? Let us first look for them in the article itself. First, both the Lithuanian authors cited in the article (Žukauskaitė 1961: 269; Balkevičius 1963: 182) and the foreign author (Flaate 1999: 10) recognize a restrictive function, with respect to the main predication, for some so-called as + DF appositions (the latter author even calls them “adjacent nominal as-predicatives” (German: adjazente substantivische als-Prädikative)). In this respect they are no different from the depictives discussed below (cf. The professor welcomes the coming academic year for the first time as a Knight of the Order of Gediminas; pp. 83, 88–89). Second, more than one Lithuanian author cited in the article (Žukauskaitė 1961: 270; Balkevičius, loc. cit.) acknowledges that, in many cases, the as + DF constructions in question—the “appositions”—are connected to the predicate of the sentence by causal (or purposive) relations. Thus, in modern terms, such “appositions” are syntactically linked by a modifying relation to the sentence verb (or rather to the sentence itself—R. M.). Moreover, as the authors mentioned above note, causal (or other) links to the predicate are not characteristic of appositions without the connective as (if this is true, then the substitution operation used to argue for the “appositional” status of the as + DF constructions under discussion would be invalid). For this reason, there seems to be no reason why adjacent as + DF constructions with such meanings could not be discussed alongside other adverbial predicatives (the Balkevičius cited in the article also regards appositions with as as “certain circumstances”; cf. also the aforementioned characterization by Flaate). Third, the literature cited in the article identifies as a criterion for distinguishing “appositional” from predicative as + DF constructions their position 134 Pastabos in the syntactic sequence—a criterion that, it seems, cannot be reliably applied (at least not in Lithuanian). Such constructions often occur in the sentence directly between the subject (object) and the predicate, and it is unclear which of them they are closer to, cf. They drove the sister’s daughter Veronė, as an orphan, home (p. 76). Fourth, the article acknowledges that, as in the case of free predicatives, “at the level of the noun phrase, too, there is [a latent—R. M.] copular relation between the attribute (appositive) and the word it modifies” (p. 81, footnote 19). It follows that in sentences with so-called kaip + NP appositives, as in sentences with free predicatives, two simultaneous predications are in fact expressed, one (secondary) being subordinated to the other (main) in terms of tense and modality, cf. Jonas, as a caring son, always helps his parents → Jonas, being a caring son, always helps his parents → Since Jonas is a caring son, he always helps his parents. Thus, the “appositional” kaip + NP constructions under discussion, like other circumstantial predicatives (especially causal ones), can readily be expanded into circumstantial subordinate clauses whose subject is coreferential with one of the nominal arguments of the main-clause predicate. This seems difficult to do with free predicatives that express a relation to the predication (restrictive ones) (cf. I like Čiurlionis very much as a painter (≈ I like Čiurlionis, as a painter, very much), but?I like Čiurlionis very much. He is (was) a painter), because their “latent” copula is merely presupposed and does not enter into the sentence profile (predication in the narrow sense) (cf. Holvoet, Tamulionienė 2005: 134). Furthermore, this fact clearly shows that circumstantial secondary predicatives modify the sentence as a whole rather than its verb. Finally, fifth, at least causal adjacent kaip + NP constructions cannot be assigned to the argument noun phrase because of an empirical fact, supported in the article by the hierarchy established by Hentschel (2006: 172): COMPLEMENT < DEPICTIVE < CIRCUMSTANTIAL TEMPORAL PREDICATIVE < CIRCUMSTANTIAL CONDITIONAL PREDICATIVE < CIRCUMSTANTIAL CAUSAL PREDICATIVE, according to which circumstantial causal predicatives are the least integrated of all secondary predicatives into the main predication—or, in the article’s terminology, into the verb phrase. It is well known that one way in which secondary predication is integrated into the main predication is through specification of the main predicate’s argument (subcategorization of the referent of its noun). It seems that causal predicatives are linked to one of the predicate’s nominal arguments only by the aforementioned coreferentiality of the subject of the propositions they imply with that argument; it is harder to discern a specification relation here, and this relegates the circumstantial meaning to the background. Thus, despite its adjacent position, it is difficult to regard a circumstantial kaip + NP construction as part of an argument noun phrase. 135 Pastabos 2.1. We can obtain further arguments for why constructions of kaip + DF adjacent to a noun cannot be considered appositions only by investigating the limits of the predication expressed by representatives of this grammatical category (adjacent noun phrases), the functional motivation for their use in a sentence, and possible syntactic relations with the predicate verb. In Lithuanian linguistics, an apposition is generally regarded as a nominal modifier with a distinctive function: it provides an additional, secondary name for the entity denoted by the word it modifies (Labutis 2002: 329). It is observed that appositions most commonly describe persons (Ambrazas, ed., 2006: 257), and so the word they modify is usually a proper noun. By treating an apposition as a modifier, one also acknowledges that it is linked to the word it modifies by a subordinating relation (Morkūnas, comp., 1999: 500) and forms a single phrase with it. Since the view that agreement is a means of expressing syntactic relations has become established in Lithuanian linguistics², it is unsurprising that some linguists attribute dual syntactic relations to the apposition: supposedly, the appositional noun is linked to the word it modifies (a subject or object noun) by agreement, and to the predicate verb by government (cf. Sirtautas, Grenda 1988: 55). Balkevičius (1963: 176; 1998: 37–38) does not recognize agreement between an apposition and the word it modifies. In his view, the matching case forms of the two nouns are determined by the same syntactic relation with the predicate verb: both are governed by it. More recently, Lithuanian authors have also referred to the apposition as apositional construction. In the Encyclopedia of the Lithuanian Language (Morkūnas, comp., 1999: 500), this term appears to be given only as an international equivalent of *priedėlis*, not as a name for a special syntactic relation. The aforementioned Balkevičius understands the concept of apposition too broadly, as ‘a second antecedent of the same denotatum, indicating what its modifier is’ (1998: 37). Discussing essentially only predicative (copular) appositional constructions³, he treats a word and its apposition as merely a separate instance of the expression of such constructions (ibid., 38). As we shall see below, a similar view of a two-noun appositional phrase as a reduced copular relative clause (postulated only in deep structure) was endorsed in the 1970s by some representatives of generative grammar. This generative perspective seems also familiar to Sirtautas and Grenda (1988: 101), who claim that “an apposition is probably 2 Only the authors of Works on Lithuanian Grammar reject treating agreement as a means of expressing syntactic dependency (cf. Holvoet, Judžentis 2003: 17). 3 Pasak Balkevičiaus (1998: 102), „APK [apozicijų predikatines konstrukcijas – R. M.] sudaro bazinis veiksmažodis ir du tarpusavyje koreliuoti antecedentai, kurie, įvardydami tą patį denotatą, vienas kitam yra apozicija“. 136 Pastabos the result of the loss of predication in a compound nominal predicate, a “demotion” in rank.” Since Balkevičius does not consider the matching forms of an apposition and the word it modifies to be agreement (he proposes calling it correlation, as does Labutis (1994 II: 91; 2002: 328), or selection), but continues to regard agreement as the expression of a syntactic subordination relation, he is left, in the absence of another basis for establishing a syntactic relation between such nouns, to conclude that an “appositional cluster” does not form a phrase (Balkevičius 1998: 37–38). Of course, when noun apposition is understood in this way, there is no point in speaking of its head, even though in many cases it can readily be identified intuitively. Identifying the head of an apposition on the basis of syntactic representation makes it possible to speak of the endocentricity of the noun phrase4, a property also characteristic of a modifying (traditionally, attributive) phrase. Thus, at least some nominal appositional constituents are nevertheless linked by a relation of subordination, and therefore belong to the same phrase. 2.1.1. Lithuanian literature on appositions devotes considerable attention to describing their semantic types (cf. Sirtautas, Grenda 1988: 102–103; Labutis 2002: 331–333); it also discusses their structure (non-expanded vs. expanded), position in the sentence (before or after the word they modify, or at the end of the sentence), and punctuation; appositions’ sentence functions (adding to or specifying the information expressed by the word they modify) are briefly mentioned, and some more problematic cases of distinguishing appositions from the words they modify are discussed. The concept of apposition as understood in the West is not examined in Lithuanian linguistics on the basis of *priedėliai* (at least judging from the principal descriptions of Lithuanian grammar). The nature of the constituents’ reference and the differences in that reference, which are important to the conception of apposition as a special syntactic relation, have not been discussed. What does the coreferentiality of a noun and its apposition, often cited in linguistic literature, mean? How is the nature of apposition affected by the relation between specific vs. nonspecific reference of its constituents, and how are these matters connected with the definiteness vs. indefiniteness of a noun phrase? To what extent does the nature of a noun phrase’s reference depend on the type of sentence predicate? How do the syntactic relations of one type of appositive—the *priedėlis*—with other sentence elements depend on the functional motivation for its use? Without raising these questions and attempting to answer them, the description of *priedėlis* as a grammatical category can only be superficial and contradictory. It is therefore unsurprising that the phrases discussed as nouns with appositions are, in essence, names for compound concepts denoting the very same referentresident doctor, trainee teacher, road engineer, priest professor, 4 Apie šį Bloomfieldo terminą trumpai žr. Matthews (1997: 114). 137 Pastabos beržas svyruoklis ir pan. (plg. Labutis 2002: 331–332), arba daiktavardžių samplaikos tėvas motina,tėvai‘, vyrai moterys,žmonės‘, rankos kojos,galūnės‘ ir pan. (plg. Ambrazas, red., 2006: 557), kurie veikiau priskirtini žodžių darybos sferai. Tradiciškai Vakarų lingvistikoje skiriami glaudžiosios ir laisvosios apozicijos atvejai lietuvių autorių neaptariami. Paprastai laisvajai apozicijai priskiriamas semantiniu bei intonaciniu savarankiškumu pasižymintis priedėlis lietuvių kalbininkus iki šiol tedomino skyrybos požiūriu. Teigiant, kad „priedėlis ir jo pažymimasis žodis abu yra daiktavardžiai, žymintys tą patį realios tikrovės daiktą ar reiškinį“ (Balkevičius 1963: 177), apytikriai užčiuopiamas minėtasis esminis apozicijos požymis – jos dėmenų koreferentiškumas, bet neskiriant dėmesio tų dėmenų referencijos specifikai daroma pernelyg plati išvada dėl jų sintaksinio lygiavertiškumo, esą priedėlis, lygiai kaip ir jo pažymimasis žodis, galįs sakinyje atstoti visą daiktavardinį junginį (plg. Balkevičius 1963: 176; Morkūnas, par., 1999: 500). Tuo tarpu toks teiginys, kaip vėliau matysime, be išlygų galioja tik tais laisvosios apozicijos atvejais, kai abu jos dėmenys turi specifinę referenciją. Visuose lietuvių kalbos gramatikos aprašuose po daiktavardžio einančios kaip + DF konstrukcijos laikomos priedėliais. Nors ne vieno lietuvių autoriaus (be minėtų Žukauskaitės ir Balkevičiaus, dar plg. Sirtautas, Grenda 1988: 104) seniai yra pastebėtas tokių „priedėlių“ funkcinis artimumas aplinkybėms, tačiau nesiryžta jų apibūdinti antrinės predikacijos terminais. Tuo tarpu, kaip vėliau matysime, kiek išsamesnė priedėlių sintaksės analizė rodo, kad laisvaisiais antriniais predikatyvais pagrįstai galėtų būti laikomi ir kai kurie „tikrieji“ (t. y. be kaip) priedėliai. To, kas pasakyta, pakanka išvadai, kad lietuvių kalbotyroje įsitvirtinusi priedėlio samprata nėra adekvati šių pastabų analizės uždaviniams: nėra pakankamai apibrėžti nei šios gramatinės kategorijos atstovų sintaksinis rangas, nei jų reiškiamos predikacijos orientacija bei aprėptis. Todėl toliau tai, kas tradiciškai vadinama pažymimuoju priedėlio ir daiktavardžio junginiu, mėginsiu pateikti ir analizuoti kaip daiktavardinę apoziciją, remdamasis vakarietiška šio termino samprata. Kur reikia vartosiu ir tradicinį priedėlio terminą. 2.2. The defining external feature of nominal apposition as a syntactic category is the coreferentiality of its constituents. In other words, both nouns in an apposition (more precisely, noun phrases) denote the same entity, although they often refer to it in different ways (their modes of reference differ) (cf. Taylor 2002: 235). Traditionally, apposition is divided into close (or restrictive) and loose (or non-restrictive) types (cf. Burton-Roberts 1975: 391). The constituents of close apposition form an intonational unit (cf. the poet Maironis, the neighbor, a shoemaker), while the constituents of loose apposition are intonationally and often semantically independent (cf. Valdas Adamkus, 138 Pastabos President of the Republic of Lithuania; author of the national anthem of the Republic of Lithuania, Vincas Kudirka; Putinas, the poet) (cf. Van Langendonck 2007: 126). 2.2.1. Prototypical close apposition consists of a proper noun and a common noun that subcategorizes it and usually precedes that proper noun; cf.: (11) The linguist Kazimieras Būga was born in 1879. That the nominal apposition in this example forms a single intonational unit is shown by the emphatic (logically stressed) pronunciation of its second constituent; cf. The linguist Kazimieras Būga was born in 1879. With respect to reference, the constituents of this apposition are clearly unequal. As we know, only a proper name is an inherently definite and thus specific-referring noun phrase. Therefore, it can replace the entire appositional phrase without loss; cf. Kazimieras Būga was born in 1879. By contrast, the definiteness and referential status of the common noun in this apposition are not so clear. It can replace the whole appositional phrase (contrary to what is sometimes claimed) only under special contextual circumstances, when it is clear which linguist is being referred to. Thus, at the very least, its reference is not specific. Linguistic literature discusses the definiteness of such common-noun appositives on the basis of article-bearing languages, in which they are often used with the definite article; cf. English the singer Robeson, the lawyer Wright, but also singer Robeson, lawyer Wright. However, the use of the definite article in an article-bearing language is not always associated with the presupposition that the referent of the noun phrase it determines is uniquely identifiable; cf. the core of an apple = an apple core. One constituent of close apposition (in the prototypical case, the common noun) always indicates the referent category of the other constituent (the proper noun)—a class of professional, social, or other affiliation—in other words, it subcategorizes it. We could say that its referent is instantiated not in reality but in typological space5. Thus, the noun in close apposition corresponding to the traditional appositive does not have specific reference, but is definite in a certain sense. We may call this kind of definiteness TYPOLOGICAL. In the English examples above, the content of the definiteness description conveyed by the definite article consists of the presupposition that the referent of the proper noun belongs to a particular category. 5 The first to note the distinction between the use of definite descriptions in what is known as attributive and referential senses was Donnellan (1966). His example Smith’s murderer is insane, widely discussed in the linguistic literature, illustrates precisely the possibility of interpreting the referent of the subject noun phrase in this sentence in two ways: as a type (of Smith’s murderer) or as an instantiation of that type (a specific person). 139 Pastabos 2.2.2. That the disposition of the constituents toward specific vs. nonspecific reference is a constraint characterizing close apposition is also shown by the fact that such apposition does not tolerate two definite, specific-referring noun phrases; cf.: (12) The works of Adam Mickiewicz, the most famous bard of Polish Romanticism, strongly influenced Lithuanian poets of the nineteenth century as well. (13) ?The works of the most famous bard of Polish Romanticism, Adam Mickiewicz, strongly influenced Lithuanian poets of the nineteenth century as well. The uniqueness of the referent of the noun phrase the most famous bard of Polish Romanticism in these examples is implied by our knowledge of nineteenth-century literature and formally marked by the superlative definite (traditionally, pronominal) form of the adjective6. We see that this definite noun phrase can occur together with a coreferential proper name only as a constituent of loose apposition. The reference of the appositive noun in close apposition can be restricted even radically, for example by modifying it with a possessive pronoun; however, as long as the referent of that noun is not uniquely identifiable (specific), the apposition in question remains possible; cf.: (14) He rushed into the barn, and my teacher Strazdas with the frightened Papievis. (example from Labutis 2002: 328–329). Although possessive pronouns are often called determiners of definite noun phrases, in Lithuanian they can be associated with a definiteness description only under favorable contextual or epistemic circumstances, when the uniqueness of the noun phrase’s referent is perceived without qualification (cf. Holvoet, Tamulionienė 2006: 24). For example, there is no guarantee that the referent of the predicate noun phrase in the equative sentence Strazdas is my teacher is a uniquely identifiable individual, that is, my only teacher, since I may have more than one teacher. Therefore, with respect to reference, there seems to be no fundamental difference between this equative sentence and its ascriptive counterpart Strazdas is a teacher, a distinction that is often emphasized (cf. Holvoet, Čižik-Prokaševa 2005: 79). On the other hand, in the sentence My teacher is Strazdas, the referent of the same noun phrase in subject position will always be understood as the unique individual who teaches me. 6 For the contribution of the meanings of comparative and superlative adjective morphemes to the formation of definiteness in a modified noun phrase, see Mikulskas (2006: 48–49). 140 Pastabos When the unique reference of a noun phrase modified by a possessive pronoun is implied by the relevant idealized cognitive model (ICM), such a possessive construction cannot occur in close apposition with a proper noun, cf.: (15) My husband likes potato pancakes. (16) (My) Antanas likes potato pancakes. (17) ?My husband Antanas likes potato pancakes. Sentence (17) sounds odd because the FAMILY ICM familiar to us, in which a woman has only one husband, supports the specific reference of the phrase my husband. 2.2.3. Kadangi glaudžiosios apozicijos priedėlinio daiktavardžio apibrėžtumas nėra vieno lygmens su jo partnerio apibrėžtumu, tai tokio daiktavardinio junginio asimetrija yra akivaizdi ir gramatiškai reikšminga. Ši asimetrija skatina pabandyti kalbamus apozicinius junginius aprašant neišskirti jų iš kitų modifikavimo ir komplementavimo ryšiais grindžiamų daiktavardinių junginių. Transformacinės generatyvinės gramatikos atstovų (plg. Burton-Roberts 1975: 397–405) mėginta glaudžiąsias apozicijas aprašyti kaip modifikavimo atvejus, priedėlio, kaip modifikatoriaus, statusą grindžiant jo derivacija iš presuponuojamo restriktyvinio santykinio sakinio (plg. Kalbininkas Kazimieras Būga gimė 1879 metais < Kazimieras Būga, kuris buvo kalbininkas, gimė 1879 metais). Kad glaudžiosios apozicijos atvejai pagrįstai gali būti laikomi modifikaciniais junginiais, rodo ir akivaizdus jų endocentriškumas – vienas, paprastai specifinės referencijos apozicinio junginio daiktavardis sintaksiškai gali atstovauti visam junginiui. Pavyzdžiui, nagrinėjamame pavyzdyje toksai yra apozicijos kalbininkas Kazimieras Būga tikrinis vardas – jis vienareikšmiškai ir yra pagrindinis daiktavardinio junginio dėmuo (angl. head). O pirmasis apozityvas (kalbininkas), kaip jau buvo minėta, sakinyje gali atstoti visą junginį tik ypatingomis konteksto aplinkybėmis, kai anaforos saitais jis susiejamas su Kazimiero Būgos asmeniu, t. y. kai aišku, apie kurį kalbininką kalbama. Glaudžiosios apozicijos endocentrinis pobūdis leidžia dar aiškiau matyti jos dėmenų santykio vadinamąją S / P (savarankiškas / priklausomas) asimetriją, kuri būdinga ir modifikavimo ryšiu siejamiems junginiams. Sudėtinių struktūrų sudarymą grindžianti S / P asimetrija čia pirmiausia suprastina kaip dėmenų santykinis konceptualusis savarankiškumas ar priklausomumas. Modifikavimo atveju vieną iš tam tikrą santykį profiliuojančio (tad konceptualiai priklausomo) dėmens substruktūrų semantiškai patikslina (elaboruoja) kitas, konceptualiai savarankiškas (ir paprastai semantiškai turiningesnis) dėmuo. Abu kalbamos apozicijos dėmenys – daiktavardžiai – paprastai žymi daiktą, ne 141 Pastabos a relation (except for kinship terms and names of certain social roles, as well as some other cases), but the categories they express are not on the same level either in terms of abstractness or cognitive prominence (on three-level cognitive categories, see Ungerer, Schmid 1996: 60–113). In a prototypical case of close apposition, the proper name (Kazimieras Būga), without referring to a specific individual, also conveys through its form that individual’s basic (middle-level) category (HUMAN, MAN). We can reasonably assume that the other member of the apposition (the appositive), by indicating a category of the individual lower than the basic one (for example, their profession), semantically specifies it, much like the noun cake specifies the category FOOD, schematically implied by the adjective delicious in the prototypical modification construction delicious cake. In this (limited) respect, the proper name is conceptually dependent on the common noun that semantically specifies (complements) it. But if we first consider the primary, deictic function of the proper name, that is, its reference to a specific individual, then we can regard as the conceptually dependent constituent, which requires a complement to specify (in fact, define) the reference of the entity it denotes, the appositive that names the individual’s subcategory (LINGUIST). As we see, without such a complement, the noun in the appositive cannot function in the current discourse space. The complement-like nature of the inherently definite constituent in a noun apposition is clearly illustrated by examples such as: (18) The fact that the earth is flat is obvious to everyone. (19) The thought that he could have done it is unbearable. Here, because of their excessively general (categorical) meaning, the nouns fact and thought could not function as sentence subjects on their own, without their complements (that the earth is flat and that he could have done it), cf.: (20)?The fact is obvious to everyone. (21)?The thought is unbearable. These appositional complements have specific reference: as nominalizations of entire (finite) clauses, they have inherited their definiteness (the presupposition of a unique situation) from those clauses and are therefore considered full-fledged noun phrases (Langacker 1991: 34–35; 148–149). Structurally, an apposition whose one constituent is a nominalization of propositional origin is comparable to a prototypical case of close apposition whose one constituent is a proper noun (Heyvaert 2003: 213–221). The structural properties of close apposition have recently even been considered a criterion for defining proper nouns (Van Langendonck 2007: 125– 142 Pastabos 143). Thus, in describing the syntactic relations between the constituents of close apposition, we can make do with the usual notions of complementation and modification. The appositive in such an apposition, which expresses the presupposition of the categorical membership of the coreferential constituent, itself requires a complement—a noun of specific reference—that defines its referent7. In terms of syntactic representation, the latter is to be regarded as the head constituent of the appositional phrase, and the appositive as its modifier8. 2.2.4. In discussing the asymmetric nature of reference in the constituents of close apposition, and the mutual syntactic relations between them determined by this asymmetry, I drew on the prototypical model in which a common noun that subcategorizes a proper noun precedes it in the apposition. The functional motivation for using such ordinary appositions in discourse is usually not very pronounced, and we could reasonably call them unmarked cases of close apposition. Indeed, one might think that a proper name can often, by itself, ensure the unique identification of its referent in discourse and therefore does not require further specification of reference. The fact that the common-noun constituents in prototypical close appositions carry no special communicative weight is iconically reflected in their also lacking logical stress in the phrase: usually only the proper-name constituent is pronounced with emphatic intonation, cf.: (22) Now the poet Aidas Marčėnas will speak. 7 Using the familiar theoretical constructs of cognitive grammar, we can define a subcategorizing appositive in close apposition more precisely, as an appositive of a relational nature with a particular valence structure. The landmark of the relation it profiles is a referent instantiated in the typological space of categories, while its trajector is a coreferential noun understood only abstractly, subject to a single semantic constraint—that of specific reference. This latter substructure of the appositive is semantically specified (elaborated) by its appositional partner, a noun denoting a uniquely identifiable referent. 8 Drawing mainly on examples from languages in which noun-phrase modification is possible only through apposition, typological literature includes attempts to describe one of the appositives as a syntactically unintegrated modifier. It is claimed that such an “appositional modifier” performs the same semantic functions in a noun phrase as its integrated counterpart (cf. Rijkhoff 2002: 22–23). However, in Lithuanian this description could apply, at most, to a constituent of loose apposition. As we have seen, close apposition allows us to discern some kind of conceptual dependency relation between its constituents, which also motivates their syntactic dependency (i.e. a relation of modification, on the one hand, and complementation, on the other). Thus, if we define a syntactic relation in terms of dependency, “syntactically unintegrated modifier” is contradictio in adjecto. 143 Pastabos We could reasonably assume that appositives in appositions such as the example in (22) play no essential role in identifying the referent of a proper name: like fixed epithets, which indicate a name-bearer’s familiar subcategory to the participants in the communicative act, they make the referent’s identification almost automatic. In some cases, however, an appositive’s role in indicating the categorical membership of a proper name’s referent may be more significant, especially in written language. For the same proper name may have more than one bearer, making it unclear to a broader group of addressees (readers) which person is meant when the name is mentioned in speech (text), cf.: (23) We drove past the mathematician Kubilius’s ancestral home. (Example from Labutis 2002: 329.) There are many people in Lithuania with the surname Kubilius, and unless the referent’s profession is specified by the corresponding appositive, the addressee (reader) may be unsure which Kubilius—mathematician, literary figure, politician, or someone else—is being referred to (written about) here. 2.2.5. The use of appositives in close apposition in speech may be associated with communicative purposes other than identifying the referent. The function performed by such appositives in a sentence may be similar to the restrictive function of as + common-noun depictives: through the secondary predication they express, the main predication of the sentence is narrowed in the desired direction, cf.: (24) For most Lithuanians, Maironis as a priest is less familiar than Maironis as a poet. (25) For most Lithuanians, the priest Maironis is less familiar than the poet Maironis. (26) For most Lithuanians, Maironis the priest is less familiar than Maironis the poet. It is clear that the purpose of the appositives in close apposition in sentences (25) and (26) is not to facilitate identification of the referent of the name Maironis—he is already known to everyone. The appositives priest and poet narrow and shape the designatum of the name Maironis (i.e. the person as a particular cultural phenomenon) in accordance with communicative purposes: as with the corresponding depictives in sentence (24), they express the respects in which the predication expressed by the main verb (is familiar) holds. The functional motivation and additional communicative weight of the appositives in these examples are also evident from the apposition’s intonational contour, which is the reverse of the usual one, cf.: poet Maironis, Maironis poet. Such cases of close apposition can reasonably be 144 Pastabos we can call marked (the markedness effect in the last example is even more pronounced because of the postposed position of the appositive). 2.2.6. Less commonly, close apposition is formed by two common nouns. It is often noted in the literature that it is not always clear which constituent of such an apposition is the head (the modified element) and which modifies it (the modifier). In general, the same requirement concerning the distribution of specific vs. nonspecific reference among the constituents applies to these atypical cases of close apposition. The designator of a uniquely identifiable referent represents the entire appositional phrase in the sentence and becomes its head. The first position in the apposition is often cited as a formal distinguishing feature of the head, intuitively allowing us to infer what the sentence is really about, cf. my neighbour the doctor, English my neighbour the doctor. Indeed, in such phrases specific reference is typically (i.e. in unmarked cases) borne by the first noun phrase—it is also the head of the apposition, while the definiteness of the second phrase (although marked explicitly in the English example by the article) is merely typological. In other words, the logic underlying the formation of close apposition in the example given rests on the usual presupposition conveyed by the ascriptive sentence My neighbour is a doctor, rather than the equative sentence That doctor is my neighbour. When we have the full sentence before us, it is easier to say which appositional constituent’s designatum is the target of the proposition, cf.: (27) Behind his daughter’s head, the father, a Samogitian, was becoming incomprehensible to the Aukštaitian. (Example from Labutis 2002: 331.) It is clear, after all, that the statement in this sentence is about the father, not the Samogitian! 2.2.7. The functional motivation for close apposition of two common nouns may also be related not only to facilitating the identification of a referent, but also to expressing an additional predication in relation to the main predication of the sentence, cf.: (28) My neighbour, a doctor, often does not spend the night at home. In this example, the head of the close apposition is the noun phrase my neighbour, which has specific reference, while the appositive is the second constituent, interpreted nonspecifically and probably pronounced here with emphatic intonation⁹ my neighbour doctor. The logical stress on the second appositional constituent fa- 9 The intonational contour of close apposition is primarily related to communicative intentions: when deciding which constituent of a phrase should be considered the appositive, we cannot rely on intonation alone, cf.: I know the neighbour (i.e. the one who lives nearby) a doctor, he will help you. In interpreting this sentence, specific reference (but not necessarily iden- 145 Pastabos …and its additional communicative weight. Indeed, the functional motivation for such an appositive may be associated not only with refining the reference of the first element, but also with the expression of secondary predication. In the case under discussion, we could argue that the appositive (gydytojas ‘doctor’) implicitly also conveys the reason for the action performed by the sentence’s agent—the neighbor often does not spend the night at home because his profession is that of a doctor, which is usually inseparable from emergency calls and night shifts. The likelihood of such an implication is, of course, closely linked to the meaning of the main predicate (in fact, the “insertion” of such an appositive into the sentence is often motivated by the main predication). It is easy to provide an example in which different meanings of the sentence predicates lead to different interpretations of the same appositive, cf.: (29) My neighbor the shoemaker walks around in shoes full of holes. (30) My neighbor the shoemaker won a trip to Spain in a lottery. In the first example, the functional motivation for the appositive in the close apposition is probably associated with the expression of secondary predication—that of concession: the neighbor walks around in shoes full of holes, although, being a shoemaker, he could easily repair them. In the second example, the reasons for providing additional information about the referent of the noun phrase my neighbor (that he is a shoemaker) are not so clear; they may simply be associated with making it easier to identify the referent of the first element. 2.2.8. The examples of close apposition discussed above show that the motivation for their formation (the use of appositives) may in many cases be associated with an additional restrictive or circumstantial function in relation to the main sentence predication. Functionally, the appositives in such appositions are very similar to the predicatives of free secondary as + NP constructions, namely depictives and circumstantial predicatives. The difference is that the secondary predication expressed by appositives can only be implied from the meaning of the sentence as a whole, whereas in the latter case it is expressed explicitly by appropriate constructions (cf. My neighbor, as a doctor, often does not spend the night at home). However, the implicit nature of the additionally expressed predication is not the reason why the appositives in question cannot be called secondary predicatives. First and foremost, we cannot do so for structural reasons—the appositive in a close apposition, together with the head it modifies …definiteness) is assigned to the second appositive, which is pronounced here with sentence stress. It is this element that represents the entire appositional phrase in the sentence, while the preceding appositive (neighbor) indicates its subcategory as the head. The functional motivation for creating the close-apposition phrase in this example is associated with narrowing the denotation of the object noun (doctor). 146 Pastabos …represents the same argument of the main predicate and is therefore syntactically part of the complement of the predicating verb: it would be rather difficult to regard such an appositive also as a modifier of that verb. 2.2.9. Probably owing to the partial overlap of the functions mentioned above, the view has also become established in Lithuanian linguistics that as + NP constructions should likewise be considered appositives. This view would seem to be supported by a certain ontological kinship between appositives in close apposition and corresponding as + NP constructions. Indeed, the use of such appositives is primarily based on a presupposition of a factual copular proposition concerning the categorical membership of the referent of the head (which, as we have seen, is indicated in English by the definite article of the appositive noun phrase). The use of appositives in close apposition is based on such a presupposition even when they implicitly restrict the scope of the main sentence predication, that is, when they have a restrictive function in relation to that predication. It is only when a circumstantial meaning is additionally predicated that, through its interaction with the main predication, this proposition is raised from presupposition to sentence level and becomes part of the sentence’s profile (predication in the narrow sense). In other words, the reason for the action expressed by the sentence predicate, or some other circumstance, can be implied from an appositive only if the factual proposition in question is not merely presupposed but is readily understood as an integral part of the sentence’s meaning. Recall that the restrictive functions of depictives in as + NP constructions also rest on a presupposition of a factual copular proposition that subcategorizes the referent of a noun denoting one of the predicate’s arguments (as we saw when discussing the example I like Čiurlionis very much as a painter, it is difficult to expand its secondary predicative (as a painter) into an appropriate copular clause without distorting the sentence’s meaning). Only when such a factual proposition is not presupposed but implied by the predication expressed by the sentence as a whole is a “circumstantial” interpretation of the predicative constructions in question also possible10. The fact that the factual copular proposition supporting this interpretation belongs to the sentence’s profile is also shown by how readily it can be made explicit; cf. My neighbor, as a doctor, often does not spend the night at home → My neighbor, being a doctor, often does not spend the night at home → My neighbor often does not spend the night at home because (he) is a doctor. Nevertheless, the choice to describe the as + NP constructions under discussion as free modifiers of the verb phrase 10 Strictly speaking, only the circumstantial secondary predicatives of as + NP constructions are subordinate to (dependent on) the main predicate with respect to time and modality. The depictives of the corresponding constructions are independent in this respect because of their presuppositional nature: the time of the predication they express merely coincides with (or overlaps with) that of the main predicate. 147 Pastabos secondary predicatives, it seems, leave no possibility of treating some cases of these constructions differently—as appendages of “degraded predication.” This description would apply only to close appositional adjuncts, whereas as + NP constructions that are syntactically independent of the argument noun phrase cannot be assigned to them. 2.3. What remains is to discuss free appositional adjuncts and consider what links them to the predicatives of secondary as + NP constructions. As already mentioned, free appositional noun constructions differ from the corresponding close appositional phrases in the semantic and intonational independence of their constituents. Ordinarily (i.e., in unmarked cases), the second appositive, set off by commas, may be called a free appositional adjunct. Formally speaking, only adjuncts of this kind can be compared with the corresponding predicatives of secondary as + NP constructions, cf.: (31) Paulius Galaunė, the ideologue of the “Ars” group, was also fiercely attacked by critics of Lithuanian modernism. (32) Paulius Galaunė, as the ideologue of the “Ars” group, was also fiercely attacked by critics of Lithuanian modernism. We will see later to what extent free appositional adjuncts can be compared with the predicatives of the constructions under discussion in terms of semantic functions. For now, it would be useful to examine more closely the reference and syntax of the constituents of free appositions. 2.3.1. In theory, a free apposition consists of two noun phrases that are referentially independent and are used together, for specific communicative purposes, to refer to the same entity. For example, in sentence (12), discussed earlier (and reproduced below as (33)), both appositives are noun phrases with definite, specific reference, capable of functioning independently in discourse as well, cf.: (33) The work of Adam Mickiewicz, the most famous bard of Polish Romanticism, had a strong influence on nineteenth-century Lithuanian poets as well. (34) Adam Mickiewicz was widely known in nineteenth-century Lithuania. The work of the most famous bard of Polish Romanticism had a strong influence on the Lithuanian poets of that time as well. One of the noun phrases constituting a free apposition is most often also a proper name, while the other is a coreferential common noun phrase that supplements or revises its semantic characterization. The latter, by increasing the [referential specificity] of the noun phrase introduced into the current discourse space, is usually a proper name or another deictically 148 Pastabos the informativeness of the word used (for example, a pronoun), and facilitates the identification of its referent during the communicative act. In fact, only this corrective function allows one of the constituents of a free apposition to be called an appositive. The functional and structural connection between such free appositives and genuine corrections has long been noted (cf. Burton-Roberts 1975: 410–411). Moreover, in a free apposition, a common noun phrase can also perform the function of supplementing or correcting information that helps identify the referent with respect to another common phrase; or, in an atypical case, a proper name can correct the semantic specification of a common phrase and help identify its referent, cf.: (35) The soldiers, the deceased’s comrades-in-arms, ready to carry out the coffin, entered the hall in two rows. (36) The people of Žemaitukai called their old parish priest, the priest Adomas Šlepavičius. (example adapted from Labutis 2002: 330.) In the first example, the corrective nature of the appositive can be emphasized by moving it to the end of the sentence, cf. The soldiers, ready to carry out the coffin, entered the hall in two rows—the deceased’s comrades-in-arms. 2.3.2. In the view of some researchers, the free-apposition examples discussed above are the ones that should be considered apposition in the true sense of the term. Only in the case of such apposition do the two adjacent noun phrases, by virtue of their identical reference, relate in the same way to the sentence verb, and, moreover, do so without forming a single noun phrase. We would say that the two noun phrases share the same verb-complement position. As we will see later, not all instances of free apposition satisfy the criterion of identical reference between constituents. Therefore, to distinguish true apposition from such cases, generative-oriented scholars have applied tests of constituent interchangeability and separation, the insertion of a so-called apposition marker (APP-marker), and others. These tests are based on the assumption that true apposition arises from two independent sentences that do not coincide in deep structure (Burton-Roberts 1975: 405–419). Although both noun phrases in true apposition are usually definite, the necessary condition for such apposition is that both appositives have specific reference. And this does not always coincide with the description of definiteness vs. indefiniteness. For example, in article-based English, a noun phrase with an indefinite article may refer either to a specific or to a non-specific, uniquely unidentifiable (freely selectable) referent (Langacker 1991: 103–107), while, as we have seen, the use of the definite article is likewise not always connected with the presupposition that the noun’s referent is uniquely identifiable. Thus both constituents of true 149 Pastabos apposition can be indefinite nouns, but both must necessarily refer to a specific referent, cf.: (37) Some teacher, a rather young woman with fair hair, read the examination questions to the school-leavers. All the previously mentioned tests for true apposition can be applied to this sentence, cf.: (38) A rather young woman with fair hair, some teacher, read the essay topics to the school-leavers. (39) A rather young woman with fair hair read the essay topics to the school-leavers. (40) Some teacher read the essay topics to the school-leavers. (41) Some teacher, that is, a rather young woman with fair hair, read the essay topics to the school-leavers. Thus, in example (37), both appositives are independent noun phrases, although they are associated with the same referent, which is interpreted here as indefinite. The functional motivation of such appositives, like that of their definite counterparts, can generally be characterized as the refinement of nominal reference; therefore, they are not associated with the expression of secondary predication. Since no syntactic relations link adjacent noun phrases that have specific reference, their apposition would be more accurately described as a sequence of nouns (or two nouns) rather than as a noun phrase. 2.3.3. Noun phrases separated from a coreferential constituent11 by intonation (and commas) may also lack specific reference. Although such cases are not always distinguished from free appositions, it is reasonable to assume that the functional motivation for inserting adjacent noun phrases into a sentence is generally related here to the circumstances of the main predication, cf.: (42) Juozas, a diligent student, always prepares carefully for lectures. In this example, the intonationally set-off noun phrase a diligent student can readily be interpreted as a free predicative adjunct expressing the cause of the sentence’s action (cf. the paraphrase of this sentence: Juozas, being a diligent student, always prepares carefully for lectures, which clearly shows that the circumstantial meaning in question is inseparable from the predication of the sentence as a whole). It is precisely because of the nonspecific reference 11 For convenience, I will use the term “constituent,” although, strictly speaking, it is justified only in the case of close apposition, whereas in the case of loose apposition, such a designation of the appositive can only be provisional. 150 Pastabos the adjacent noun phrase also acquires the property of predicativity, that is, the ability to express secondary predication. The latter, as in the cases of close apposition discussed earlier, is realized indirectly, through the subcategorization of the specific-reference argument noun phrase. That the referent of the noun phrase a diligent student is not a uniquely identified individual can readily be shown by explicating the syllogism on which the proposition of sentence (42) is based; cf.: (43) A diligent student always prepares carefully for lectures (a generic statement serving as a premise). (44) Juozas is a diligent student (a fact). (45) (Therefore, it is no surprise that Juozas always prepares carefully for lectures (conclusion). This explication shows that the causal relation established between the propositions expressed by sentences (45) and (44) (which form the profile of sentence (42)) rests on a generic statement implied by the shared body of knowledge, which is expressed here by sentence (43). We see that it is only in the typological space that the referent of the predicative noun phrase in the factual linking sentence (44), as well as the referent of the same phrase functioning as the subject of the generic sentence (43), is instantiated. 2.3.4. Clearly, owing to their intonational independence (which, incidentally, is grammatically significant here), the nonspecific-reference noun phrases just discussed cannot be treated as constituents of a close-apposition noun phrase, but neither can they be classified as “true” apposition. Since such syntactically relatively independent adjacent noun phrases generally express circumstantial meanings, there is nothing to prevent us from treating them as free secondary predicates modifying the main predication of the sentence. This analysis is supported by the fact that the noun phrases in question can readily be converted, without loss of meaning, into the corresponding as + NP constructions; cf. Juozas, as a diligent student, always prepares carefully for lectures. The naturalness of such conversion, and the essentially identical nature of the additional predication expressed, suggests that adjacent noun phrases inserted to modify the main predication of a sentence also provided the basis for the emergence of the constructions under discussion. The essential contribution of the word as to the grammatical function of these constructions could be explained as an explicit indication that the noun phrase following it should be interpreted as a modifier of the sentence’s verb. However, as we have seen, this interpretation of an adjacent noun phrase is possible even without this explicit indication: its semantic basis is laid by the interaction between the meanings of that phrase and the main predicate in the sentence. 151 Pastabos 2.3.5. I would like to conclude the second observation by returning to where I began. The thoughts developed above, with which I attempted to characterize the rather unclear and contentious category of apposition in Lithuanian linguistics by drawing on stricter terms of apposition, might seem to suggest that the only way to treat at least some cases of kaip + DF constructions as appositives expressing “downgraded predication” is to allow as appositives also the genetically related adjacent noun phrases with nonspecific reference. Preliminary empirical facts indicate that such phrases, inserted into a sentence alongside a nominal complement of one of its verbs, are functionally oriented from the outset toward modifying the predication expressed by that verb. We could regard the noun phrases in question as appositives, or supplementary appositions, only if more extensive empirical investigation led us to conclude, on the basis of their functional motivation, the opposite: that the predication they express is inherently oriented not toward modifying the main predicate, but toward modifying the noun phrase denoting its argument, with which it forms a single noun phrase. The arguments supporting this decision would have to be sufficiently strong to allow us to ignore the intonational independence of such an appositive. We would then have to assume that, only in some cases, these “unintegrated modifiers,” like restrictive appositives, are also used for purposes of secondary predication. From an evolutionary perspective, one cannot readily equate kaip + DF constructions with the corresponding adjacent noun phrases, owing to one seemingly formal but grammatically significant element of these constructions: their initial word, kaip. It is precisely this word that finally formalizes the “reorientation” of the noun phrase in question toward modifying the main sentential predication, and it can reasonably be regarded as the grammatical axis of the constructions examined in this article. But essentially the same point is already made in the article’s title, where the noun constructions in question are referred to as an analytic marker of predicative marking. LITERATŪRA AMBRAZAS, V., red., 2006: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. BALKEVIČIUS, J. 1963: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos sintaksė. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. BALKEVIČIUS, J. 1998: Lietuvių kalbos predikatinių konstrukcijų sintaksė. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. 152 Pastabos Burton-Roberts, N. 1975: Nominal Apposition. Foundations of Language 13, 391–419. Donnellan, K. S. 1966: Reference and Definite Descriptions. Philosophical Review 75, 281–304. Flaate, I. 1999: PRO-blematische als-Prädikative im Deutschen. In: Nordlyd: Tromsø University Working Papers on Language and Linguistics 27, 1–23. Hentschel, G. 2005: Morphosyntaktische Markierung sekundärer Prädikate. (Rankraštis.) Hentschel, G. 2006: Zur Klassifikation sekundärer Prädikate am Beispiel von als-Phrasen des Deutschen und jako-Phrasen des Polnischen. In: Slavistische Linguistik, 2005, München (spaudoje). Heyvaert, L. 2003: A Cognitive-Functional Approach to Nominalization in English. Berlin–New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Holvoet, A. 2005: Dėl sintaksinių ryšių skirstymo. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 52, 157–161. Holvoet, A., Čižik-Prokaševa, V. 2005: Papildiniai ir aplinkybės. In: Holvoet & Mikulskas, red., 2005, 65–92. Holvoet, A., Judžentis, A. 2003: Sintaksinių ryšių tipai. In: Holvoet & Judžentis, red., 2003, 11–35. Holvoet, A., Judžentis, A. 2005: Sintaksinės priklausomybės tipai: papildymai ir patikslinimai. In: Holvoet & Mikulskas, red., 2005, 11–38. Holvoet, A., Judžentis, A., red., 2003: Sintaksinių ryšių tyrimai. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. (Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai, 1.) Holvoet, A., Mikulskas, R., red., 2005: Gramatinių funkcijų tyrimai. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. (Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai, 3.) Holvoet, A., Mikulskas, R., red., 2006: Daiktavardinio junginio tyrimai. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. (Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai, 4.) Holvoet, A., Tamulioniene, A. 2005: Antriniai predikatyvai. In: Holvoet & Mikulskas, red., 2005, 117–137. 153 Pastabos Holvoet, A., Tamulioniene, A. 2006: Apibrėžtumo kategorija. In: Holvoet & Mikulskas, red., 2006, 11–32. Kazlauskas, J., Laigonaitė, A., Urbutis, V., red., 1961: Dabartinė lietuvių kalba. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. Labutis, V. 1994: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė 2. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Labutis, V. 2002: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė. Trečiasis papildytas leidimas. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Lakoff, G. 1987: Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago–London: University of Chicago Press. Langacker, R. W. 1987: Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Langacker, R. W. 1991: Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2, Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Matthews, P. H. 1997: The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford–New York: Oxford University Press. Mikuls kas, R. 2006: Apibrėžiamųjų būdvardžių aprašo perspektyva. In: Holvoet & Mikulskas, red., 2006, 33–65. Morkūnas K., par., 1999: Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Rijkhoff, J. 2002: The Noun Phrase. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sirtautas, V., Grenda, Č. 1988: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė. Vilnius: Mokslas. Taylor, J. R. 2002: Cognitive Grammar. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press. Ungerer, F, Schmid, H.-J. 1996: An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Longman. Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė, L. 2007: Daiktavardinės kaip konstrukcijos kaip analitinis predikatyvų žymėjimo rodiklis. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 56, 73–101. 154 Pastabos Van Langendonck, W. 2007: Theory and Typology of Proper Names. Berlin–New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Žukauskaitė, J. 1961: Kaip vartojimas jungiamuoju žodžiu ir jungtuku. In: Kazlauskas, Laigonaitė & Urbutis, red., 1961, 217–278. Rolandas Mikulskas Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lietuva 14 mažmožis Keisti yra dabar tarmių tekstų žodynėliai. Šitaip sakau susipažinęs su A. Leskauskaitės Kučinų krašto tekstų (2006) knygos žodynėliu (p. 401–425). Visi juk žinome, kad tarmės, šnektos dabar egzistuoja greta bendrinės kalbos (mokykla, radijas, televizija, valdžios raštinės), dvikalbystės (net daugiakalbystės), žargono (slengo) – jaunimo, mokinių, raštinių darbuotojų šneka. Mokslui, žodžių etimologijai, tarmių istorijai svarbiausia yra paveldėtoji leksika, o naujovės įdomios tik sociologiškai. Tarptautinių žodžių iškraipos yra laikinos, įsigilinus nebebūna nei tokių faktų, kaip anālīzas, garnizōnas, fabrikė, kantōra (1!), karasėlė (2), liminādas, litināntas,leitenantas‘, narvas,nervas‘, pilstukas, rādija, šakmātai, šoferis, šoferiauti, šoferiukas (kokie negirdėti dzūkiški žodžiai!), triperis (?), vitirinōrius,veterinaras‘ (dėl nekirčiuotų e redukcijos). Kučinų kraštas buvo Béržnyko (autorės paverstu Béržininkais) visiškai sulenkėjusios, kovojusios prieš Lietuvą parapijos dalis, tai tų skolinių daug, jie dabar net pajuokiami, stribų ir kitokių veikėjų (ypač prekybininkų) išplatinti: bajávas, -à, blestvà (tekste blæ.stva – 158 p., vadinasi, pakartotas svetimas žodis), basanõškė (tekste basanõšku – p. 366), burtākas (Lp, Drsk girdėta, jaunimo bordà.kas!), cielkà (2),nekaltybę išlaikiusi mergina‘ (tekste cielkos, p. 388, vėl pakartotas svetima kalba žodis – autorės sulietuvinamas), bufàikė,vatinė‘, dačà (?) (Švendubrės dvikalbių dá.čà), davái,nagį‘, dūryti,kvailinti‘ (iš prezidento Brazausko rinkimų kampanijos), centrafūga (!), fáinas,puikus‘, lapkà (tekste lá.pka, p. 262 – vadinasi, grynas svetimas žodis), načiálnykas (grynai rusiškas žodis), paslòvica (!),patarle‘, põdlas,niekšingas‘, pratìbნას,šleikštus, priešingas‘, tužõlas,sunkus‘, zakõnas,įstatymas‘, zastãvas (iš lenkų sargybos) ir t. t. Jau latvių didysis mokslininkas J. Endzelīnas recenzijoje apie K. Būgos LKŽ pirmuosius sąsiuvinius yra mokęs, kad daugiakalbių žmonių var- 155