Dėl daiktavardinėmis „kaip“ konstrukcijomis reiškiamos antrinės predikacijos pobūdžio

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LVII (2007), 123 -160 Remarks Remarks On the use of nouns as constructions in secondary predicates 0. In the Fifth Hundred and Sixth issue of the Journal Acta Linguistica Lithuanica The article of Loreta Vaiciulytés-- Seménienė,- Object as a construction as an analytical indicator of predicative characterization* significantly supplements the so far scarce Lithuanian publications on secondary predication issues. This publication is another step forward in the modernization of the conceptual basis of Lithuanian grammar. As the title of the article suggests, the author first of all had to determine the priorities of secondary predicative morphosyntactic syntax. The analysis of the Lithuanian language data showed that most often predicative as with noun phrase (hereinafter as + DF -R. M.) constructions are used to indicate circumstantial needs, 0 the most useful in this analytical form to indicate the inclusion of the subject or object and the predication of the whole sentence. For predicative complements, on the contrary, the use of the noun's vowel is more suitable. These conclusions are confirmed by the cited in the article Hentscheli (2005, 2007) constructed predicative (t. y. actionZodinés frazés) of the predicate apreptj hierarchy. All this helps the author of the article to formulate one important conclusion of the empirical method: the less the secondary predicate is involved in the main predicate, the more the predicate is inclined to the secondary predicate. jj Zyméti analysts, in this case as - + DF construction. However, before carrying out empirical research, the author of the article had to do a certain theoretical work —to reformulate in uniform terms of secondary predication what in the previous definitions of Lithuanian grammar was called differently: ordinary or pronoun prepositions, noun parts of a dialect or dialect signs, comparative (identity) constructions or circumstances. Some theoretical aspects of secondary predication in the reading of the article and drawn Siy notesby the author démesj. But about this i3 eilés. 0.1. The uneven treatment of spoken constructions in Lithuanian grammar works is partly due to the fact that they are traditionally discussed in different sections, which are dedicated to separate grammatical functions (i.e. so-called sentence parts). Based on recent works on secondary predication, the author of the article 123 This Lithuanian tradition, revealing a certain inadequacy in the use of + DF constructions for description, and the resulting undesirable syncretism of grammatical categorization, when different grammatical expressions are not sufficiently clearly articulated and attempted to be described in one way. For example, such a vague definition of the grammatical character of the present Lithuanian language (Ambrazas, ed., 2006) becomes a,,comparative (identity) construction“. The author of the article rightly observes that this characteristic of the constructions described as + DF in the Grammar does not really mean any comparison: the predicate subordination in spoken constructions in such sentences as The Old Picciurniené was famous in the whole neighborhood Karp was good in sopure and in such sentences as He arrived in the capital when the past i8 is not different in any way, although only for the latter the authors of the Grammar do not recognise the comparative meaning and call them narrative signs. In all such sentences, I8 truths are used as + DF constructions, as they require a secondary predicate (i8 Cia and antriniy predicative term), syntactically are related to the main predicate (complementation or modification relationship), 0 semantically and with one of its arguments. In that these constructions differ from comparative as + DF constructions, which, although also signify additional (or secondary) predication, only modify the main predicate in the sentence (usually by the circumstances) but are not oriented to the specification of any of its arguments. 0.2. By defining the non-comparable as + DF constructions in terms of secondary predicative, the author of the article further distances herself from both the traditionally called prepositions, which, in her opinion, require predication not at the sentence level, but at the level of the noun compound, and from the comparative function as + DF constructions, for which the traditional circumstantial term is more suitable than the secondary predicative term. The article i§ eilés discusses predicative as + DF construction syntax relations’ and jy grammatical function in the sentence. These constructions are connected with the verb of the predicate of the sentence either by a complementation relationship — then they are defined as beat (secondary) predicates — or by a modification relationship — then we speak of free (secondary) predicates. The latter according to the degree of inclusion in the main predication of the sentence are further divided into deceptive and ‘ Following the Lithuanian grammar tradition, the constructs in question should be identified as having a,,double syntactic relationship“ of combination with the subject or object noun and control or Sliejimas with the taric verb. About the faulty nature of the “double syntactic connection” has been written more than once recently, cf. Bolvoet (2005: 157-161); also Holvoet, Judzentis (2005: 29, 27 i§naSa); Holvoet, Tamulioniené (2005: 123, 7 i8naSa). 124 "Predicate circumstances". In essence, this approach to secondary predicative syntax and grammatical functions is also followed in the third volume of the Lithuanian language grammar work, where these issues are discussed in a separate article (Holvoet, Tamulioniene 2005: 117-137). Regarding the free secondary predicates, it is stated that although all of them are related to the verbs of the sentence in terms of modification, some of them are semantically more oriented to one of the arguments of the main predicate (in this way they are involved in the interpretation of the main predicate), others — to the event itself marked by that predicate. In the latter case, the predicates functionally approach the circumstances expressed by the adverbs, in which the predicate only supplements the main predicate of the sentence, but is not its constituent part. The fact that some of the circumstances and the essence of the adverbs do not describe the action itself, but one of its participants (e.g. Jonas virto aukstielninkai, Duris nudazé Žaliai), allows the authors of the aforementioned article to say that between the typical free secondary predicates and the typical action-verbal circumstances there is a transitional case of the whole sentence. The author of the article agrees with this idea, stating that constructions with free predicates such as + DF also form a certain scale according to the degree of inclusion in the main predication of the sentence. However, the specificity of the construction allowed her to articulate the supporting points of this scale somewhat differently. At one end of the scale are the so-called deceptives. These are essentially restrictive functions like +DF constructions, which tell in which respect one or another participant of the verb relationship is involved in the predicate expressed by the verb, and thus limit the apprehension of this predicate. At the other end of the scale are the so-called circumstantial predicates. These are those as + DF constructions, which usually say the subject or object of the inclusion and the predicate of the whole sentence aprepti part or purpose, less often condition, time. Typical despectives differ from typical circumstantial predicates not only in their semantics, but also in their grammatical characteristics. For example, only the first ones fall into the predicate negation of the main sentence, which indicates their close connection with the verb phrase. The latter, on the other hand, are more related to the content of the whole proposition expressed by the sentence. Normally, comparative constructs that modify the action like + DF are also essentially related only to the verb of the sentence. Like deceptives, they fall under the predicate negation apprehension, although, unlike Sie, semantic things are not related to any of its arguments. 0.3 In several places in the article the author supports the opinion expressed in the literature that in sentences with free secondary predicates two predicates are actually meant, one of which, the secondary, is subordinate to the main predicate in terms of time and modality. This allows us to talk about relationships with such predicates 125 Remarks Required predicates are independent. In this case, the binomial secondary predicates are more integrated into the semantic structure of the principal verb, and therefore we can talk about the complexity of the predicate of the latter (see Holvoet, Tamulioniené 2005: 130). It is obvious that only predicates of a certain meaning require a secondary predicate as their complement. Talking about how + DF constructions, the most common of which are the so-called perception, or perception, actionWords such as understand, interpret, summarize ir t. t. Normally The predicative complements of these verbs perform a restrictive function in relation to the predicate of the main sentence, similarly to the descriptors. To the supplementation required by the predicate of the article authoré, toSingai than mentioned Authors of the article on Lithuanian language grammar work (plg. Holvoet, Tamulioniené 2005: 133-136), tends to include the so-called functioning verbs, such as work, serve, figure, etc. These verb complements can be used not only as +DF construction, but ir to noun noun, plg. He served as a mercenary. In fact, I have to agree with the author’s suggestion that the verbs to work and to work with something/- as something differ significantly in their semantic (valentine) properties. Pratesdami So we could even say that the valentinés spoken verbosodziy characteristics (complementation requirement) are derived from more general constructions i8 ANoM FUNCTIONAL HOW BNoM (BIN, VIETNAM BGEN, UZ (PER) Bacc) reik8més. The author's choice of the article is significantly supported by the empirical fact that ir predicative complements in Lithuanian language can be defined as noun joiners. I8 esmés sutikdamas su For the briefly referred theoretical definition of the secondary predicate in the article under discussion, I would like to make a couple of discussional remarks regarding some of the author’s positions. 1.0. Ne in one place of the article explains the idea that between predicative as + DF constructions reigkiamy gramatiniy functions nesa griezty fish. Such positirj j grammatical functions as ,,gradual“ categories are confirmed ir by empirical facts, which are presented by the authors at the end of the article in the form of the above-mentioned hierarchy. Su such a theoretical proposition dél gramatiniy kategorijy pobidzio difficult iSlygy agree. First of all, it be should be noted that the boundaries of scientific categorization are defined unambiguously, so the boundaries of grammatical category ir (grammatical function) are strictly defined — unmistakably with empirically determined facts of expression. The latter partly ir reflect various inconsistencies of linguistic jy coding, but partly are determined by i8 the subjective decision of the researcher. i8 ir Let's discuss i§ these ir things later. 1.1. The minor inconsistencies of linguistic coding, in general, are due to the fact that a limited number of linguistic means of expression can be used in a language. In the particular case, we should talk about a limited number of morphosyntactic means that can i 126 Note: unlimited number of values, including ju ir be used to express linguistic meaning by means of various grammatical functions. In prototypical cases reflecting the convention of language, which can be determined empirically, individual grammatical functions are expressed by ir appropriate morphosyntactic means. These prototypical cases are ir used to define grammatical functions. However, a ir reasoned definition is a priori subordinate. Be There is no linguistic analysis of the strictly distinct grammatical categories. Frequently used in language for alternative analysis of a component structure (and alternative interpretation) possibility only confirms the existence of the limits of grammatiy kategorijy. I§ linguist and practitioner We know about the ir so-called,,intermediate cases”, when grammatical functions are expressed by morphosyntactic means that are not necessary for them. Often even such non-standard cases of expression are ranked in the scale of prototypicity by empirical research, various hierarchies are formed, but in this way the so-called prototype effects are not noticeable. (here the structure su and critique of the logical category of identification Zr. Lakoff 1987: 136-152), which are su not directly related within the boundaries of the grammatical category. 1.2. Prototypical cases of expression of grammatical functions are important only ne because they motivate the definition of this category and thus indirectly contribute to the linguistic analysis of the ir linguistic structure of the sentence, but one other prototype of grammatical expression is — undoubtedly used — in the semantic interpretation of the sentence. ar ta t. y. attributing to it specific semantic contents. In cognitive grammar, the interpretation of a subjective linguistic structure is understood as a different conceptualization of it. Specifically, the ar understanding of the semantic content conveyed by sentences depends primarily on the conceptualization of the sentence structure. to Which way the sensor turns depends ir on the iSoriniu (primarily — contextualir ), from the internal factor. The latter are connected by su the semantic expansion and the possibilities of combinatorics (semantic integration). jy User In the su internal structure of the sentence, the ir related factors determine ,inadequate* expression of a grammatical function, which, if conventionalized, opens the way to an alternative reading of the sentence. to Let us further examine some For more important cases of non-typical expression of ir grammatical functions, let us try to examine the inner causes of such expression. 1.2.1. Regarding the convergence of free secondary ir predicative circumstantial functions ar ,relativity“ often refers to one of the j participants in the i§ situation conveyed by the sentences (English) (paticipant-oriented) circumstances (plg. Holvoet, Tamulioniené 2005: 121-127 su literatura), ple: 127 Notes (1) The girl was happy in po the backyard. (2) The girl happily ran in the po yard. Equalizing From these examples we can say that in the first subject noun of the i8 ju i sentence mergaité the semantically oriented secondary predicate (free secondary predicate) is typically expressed ~ su with the noun number, the adverbial form with the ir conjugated genitive vowel is funny. O in the second example the i8 secondary to predication of the content itself is required by an atypical adverb, which dél inherentiniy — morphosyntactical characteristics of semantic connection of the profiled situation participants su direction (it is usually considered the same as in the first ir example) cannot show. How We know that the adverbs of the verb prototypically modify the action itself. If we give up To suggest this prototype, we can easily conceptualize the second sentence so that the adverb in it first (or Simply) will only show the action being performed. It is really easy to imagine that if a girl is happy when she walks, then her walking itself is happy, she walks happily. It is easy to notice that the ir semantic basis for such linguistic,translation“ of secondary t. y ji predication is laid by metonymy transfer of the predicated property: the subject noun is naturally assigned a distinct property (and) the jo action performed by the referrer. Such metonymy transfer of,,object* properties to the verb seems to depend on the semantics of the verb itself, for ir example, the adverb used in some verbs sounds very naturally, cf. su Girl happily strakséjo on Saligatvio. Thus, some unusual cases of grammatical function expression can be interpreted through metonymy, ir without maintaining linguistic ju coding (ar Anorexia nervosa. Such theoretical provision is all the more acceptable if we consider the position that free secondary predicates as circumstances of sentence verbs are connected by the relation of modification. By means of the discussed ir metonymy su transfer, the verb modifier changing predication of the second sentence is conceptually reoriented from one grammatical function to another. i§ j To fix the change in conceptual links, another prototype of ir formal expression is naturally chosen. 1.2.2. Perhaps the closest verb su reiSkiama predication is related to the so-called resulting. Going through su the perfective verbs they The object of the experienar ced action of the subject, cf. privated full yard; pripylé stikline skliding. Unfortunately, the expression of the predictive result in binomials is rare in Lithuanian. Kad This function in miisy (in English than in Latvian) generalized the use of the respective adverbs, and it is also not necessary to focus solely on the already mentioned close relationship between the purpose of the result and the dynamics of the action. su Some of the more regularly used adverbs in this sense are even grammatically igije nusmaugé dead, undressed 128 The function of adjective indicator they indicate that — the action of the modifiable verb is jy performed to the end, cf. naked ir t. t. (plg. Holvoet, Tamulioniené 2005: 125, 8 iSnaSa). Since the articles discussed as + DF with constructions, as the author notes, are insignificant, I will not talk about them further. 1.2.3. Let's move on to the article discussed as + DF construction approximate examples. Only free bit secondary predicates can be used in the spoken ne construction, but comparative ar functions depend on the circumstances. The choice of ir interpretation can be determined only by external contextual factors, as we will see later, but by the ne internal structure of the sentence, cf. : ir (3) He came to me dressed like a cadet corps nurse. (4) As I hoped that your dealing with my passion would not be rhetorical, that you would sincerely, as a scientist, driven by the curiosity of an experimenter, turn it into Zadéjote, me as your medium. (Example adapted is Vaiciulytė-Semeéniené 2007: 95.) \ In these sentences next to the ju verbazodziyu modifier pasitemps ir fromSrirdZiai going as + DF constructions will be perceived as comparative circumstances of the verb that specify them, rather than as secondary predicates that tell about the action. The latter interpretation is only possible if the It is known that the subjects of the i$ sentence are truly respectively a scientist ir and a cadet of the cadet corps, in other words, if in the example as + DF constructions are assigned a function of factuality. The fact that the factibility of the comparative function is not indispensable for constructions will be discussed further. 1.2.4. Due to the process of semantic expansion, ta several grammatical categories can be taken into account in the same morphosyntactic form. For example, the instrumental meaning of a noun can easily be expanded by means of metaphor as a circumstance of being or as a secondary predicate of a restrictive function. j It is therefore not surprising that several grammatical functions in a language can have the same morphosyntactic expression, ta e.g. : (S) The boy throws a stone at the window. (6) A stone fell from the roof. (7) In his childhood, tévas served with farmers as a shepherd. For the same reason, the same grammatical function can be ta expressed by various morphosyntactic means, e.g.: served the shepherd, as a shepherd, (through) the shepherd, individual grammatical functions derived from the same semantic root still have the same morphosyntactic uz expression, or by convergence of 129 Notes in place of the shepherd. So either i§ to smaller grammatical meanings after the formation of a more general grammatical category, inherited from the whole set of means of expression. ta i§ Si In any case, a certain syncretism in the expression of grammatical functions does not ar indicate a clear boundary between the non-existenju ce and the existence, since grammatical categories are first defined semantically. Of course, because several grammatical categories have a common semantic basis, and because the morphosyntactic indicators taken from other grammatical ar categories cause undesirable implications, some i§ practical difficulties in the grammatical analysis may arise. A contractual solution may then be necessary. 1.2.4.1. When analyzing specific examples, it can sometimes be difficult to decide which category to assign the - complement depicttive: ar secondary — predicates. For in both cases secondary predicates, by subcategorize one of the participants of the profiled event, perform a restrictive function in relation to the main predicate, cf. : (8) Meégstu Ciurlionj as a painter. (Example i8 Holvoet, Tamulioniené 2005: 133.) (9) He arrived j in the capital as a messenger. (Example i Ambrazas, red., 2006: 627.) The verb of the (9) sentence came, it seems, does not belong to noun complement-requiring predicates of perception functioning construction as ar ir Messenger Gia galéty biti is considered to be a modifier of the free secondary predicative depict. — Let's try The secondary predicate is therefore expressed in a conjunction sentence ir subordinated to the main predicate in terms of time modality, cf. He arrived in the j capital afraid of the messenger. But such a standard explanation of secondary predicate does not convey the whole (9) content of the sentence. It seems that a much more accurate beity If: He came j sosting to serve (t. y. function!) a messenger. The latter explanation shows that the sentence (9) verb is appropriate to interpret as a complex predicate, the constituent part of which is the implied functioning verb. By analyzing this The meaning of this sentence is a predicate, we must recognize that the construction as a messenger in it is the complement of the verb came (bit secondary predicate). Be therefore, when comparing the above sentences, j another difference in semantic structure falls jy into the eye. In the sentence atzvilgi, which limits the main (8) predicate (requiring the action of seeing megstu), the despective as painter typically refers to a subcategory of the individual, which is considered ta jo 130 Comments on: Ciurlionis — painter (painter) ir Ciurlionis, — composer (music) are two Professional categories defining this personal identity. The to restrictive forms of the despective are usually expressed by ir appropriate lexical means, e.g. Maybe. Ciurlioni, but only as a painter. Probably dél that in the sentence as a constructive (9) noun messenger individuali (it) is not considered part of the identity as a professional jo category, similarly We can't use restrictive lexical means to explain the construction here (at least without distorting the content of the sentence): plg. ? He arrived j in the capital, but only as a messenger. Such a test may be useful in the ir practice of assigning a free second predicative. 1.2.4.2. When restrictive function through one actanty subcategorization performing as i§ + DF the construction assigns to that actant a non-bidding category, it may be difficult to decide, which grammatical function of the deceptive comparative circumstance —- of the budo is ar closer to the secondary predication of — the construction, cf. : (10) Varnalesy root can be eaten Green as a salad. The young leaves are also used as a vegetable. (Example adapted i§ Vaitiulyte-Semeniene 2007: 95.) VarnaleSas are not commonly used in food, so they are classified as foods through secondary predication —salaty ar darzoviy — kategorijyu Parts of this plant do not become i§ such substances. The categories spoken of in this sentence context dél their unrealistic*“ functionally very close to the nouns ,, performing the function of comparison standard in comparative constructions, which requires factuality also unnecessary for the predictable predication (plg. Varnalésy root can be eaten Green as salad instead / of salad ir Varnalésy Root can be eaten Green like a / salad). In spite of such a dangerous approach to the comparative function as + DF constructiony restrictive pobidity in spoken sentences can still be recognized when they can reasonably be ir considered derogative. Ir it is possible only by clearly realizing Limits of this grammatical function (Ct. y. semantic apibré2tj). 1.2.5. Thus, when interpreting the non-typical su morphosyntactic expression of a sentence, which is the result of various processes of semantic expansion when choosing one of the usual conceptualizationar s, one does not rely on prototypes based, but on i§ grammatical jo categories with distinct be boundaries. If In these categories ,steps“ cross each other, j t. y. neturéty aiskiy rib, as empirical research allegedly shows, then no linguistic structure conceptualization and analysis work would be impossible. ar [The results of such studies only show the general trends of linguistic coding. 1.3. Finally, I would like to comment on one interesting case where the father of a grammatical or noun 131 Notes berg pendulum ir etc. (plg. Labutis 2002: 331-332), sample is the mother ,tévai', men women ,man', hands and feet ‘galiinés’ ir bread. (plg. Ambrazas, ed., 557), 2006: which are rather attributable to Zodziy sphere of activity. Tradici$kai The cases of close free opposition distinguished in ir Western linguistics are not discussed by Lithuanian authors. Usually, free opposition is attributed to a preposition characterized by semantic and intonational independence. So he was interested in the consequences of divorce. By claiming that ,appendix ir jo pazymimasis The word both are nouns, Symbolizing the same real real thing ta rei8kinj* ar (Balkevičius 1963: 177), approximately assumes the aforementioned essential poZym of the opposition is the correferentiality of — its démeny, but without paying attention to the specificity of the démeny reference, it makes an overly ty broad conclusion dél syntactic equivalence, esa predélis, just as ju ir jo pazymimasis A word that can replace the whole noun in a sentence (plg. Balkevicius 1963: 176; Morkiinas, para. 1999: 500). Meanwhile, such a statement, as we will see later, is valid only in those cases be of free opposition where both of its demi-elements have a specific reference. In all Lithuanian grammar definitions of noun going as po + DF constructions are considered to be permits. Although not one Lithuanian author (without blowjob) Zukauskaitės ir Balkevičius, taip pat plg. Sirtautas, Grenda 1988: 104) long has been observed takiy ,,priedéliy* functional proximity to the circumstances, but not ju intended to be discussed in terms of secondary predication. Meanwhile, as we will see later, a more detailed analysis of the prepositional syntax shows that some galéty biti are considered to be free secondary predicates based on ir ,,real* (t. y. be as) prefixes. What has been said is sufficient to conclude that the prepositional concept established in Lithuanian linguistics is not adequate The following notes for the analysis tasks: néra sufficiently define2ti nei This grammatical category is represented by the syntactic rank, the ju orientation of the required predicate and the apprehension. Todél further, what is traditionally called the subjunctive adjective noun compound, I will try to present ir to analyze as a noun opposition, based on the ir Western Definition of %io term. Where necessary, I will ir use the traditional prefix term. 2.2. Noun apostrophe, as a syntactic category, defining iSorinis pozymis —it démeny co-referentiality. In other words, both opposition nouns (or more precisely noun phrases) — They mean ta the same thing, although they often ji refer to it in different ways (differs from the reference subbyte) (plg. Taylor 2002: 235). Traditionally, opposition j is defined as a cohesive (or restrictive) ir free (or non-restrictive) (plg. Burton-Roberts 1975: 391). The démens of close opposition form the unit of intonation (plg. poet Maironis, neighbor butcher), the 0 elements of free opposition are characterized by intonational, o often semantic ir independence (plg. Valdas Adamkus, 138 Remarks The President of the Republic of Lithuania; Author of the Anthem of the Republic of Lithuania, Vincas Kudirka; Putinas, poetas) (see Van Langendonck 2007: 126). 2.2.1. Prototypical copulative opposition consists of a proper noun and a jj subcategorizes a general noun, which usually goes before that proper noun, e.g. : (11) Linguist Kazimieras I was born in 1879 metal. That the noun opposition in this example forms a single intonation unit is shown by the pabréatine (with logical kiré) iStariamas its second syllable, cf. The linguist Kazimieras Biiga was born in 1879. In terms of reference, the subjects of this opposition are clearly unequal. As we know, only the real name is inherently defined, so are specific references, noun phrases. So long as it can replace all oppositional compounds without loss, e.g. Kazimieras Biiga was born in 1879. Meanwhile, the definition of the general noun and the type of reference in this opposition are not so clear. It can (more easily than it is sometimes claimed) replace all oppositional compounds only in special contextual circumstances, when it is clear what the linguist is talking about. So maZy most of his reference is not specific. In the linguistic literature, such general affirmative definitions are discussed on the basis of article languages, in which they are often used with the nominative article, cf. the singer Robeson, the lawyer Wright, but also singer Robeson, lawyer Wright. However, the use of the substantive article in article language is not always associated with the presupposition of the unique identification of the referent of the noun phrase it determines, e.g. the core of an apple = an apple core. One démeny of i8 close apposition (in the prototypical case — the general noun) always indicates the category of the referent of the other démeny (the proper noun) (professional, social or other class of dependence), i.e. it subcategorizes. We could say that its referent is instantiated not in the real, but in the typological space®. Thus, the noun of close opposition corresponding to the traditional preposition has no specific reference, but is in some sense defined. This is what we can call the moon. The descriptions of definition given by the substantive article in the above English examples constitute a presupposition of the category dependence of the actual noun referent. 5 The first distinction between the use of so-called attributive and referential definitional descriptions was made by Donnellan (1966). In the linguistic literature, his example Smith’s murderer is insane has been plagiarically discussed: $io sentence has a dual interpretation as uk and relies on the possibility of interpreting its subject noun phrase as referenta. (Smitho Assassin) type or as a type instanciaciya to (konkrety asmenj). 139 Notes 2.2.2. The fact that the disposition of specific vs. unspecified reference is a restriction that characterizes close opposition is also shown by the fact that such opposition does not tolerate two defined specific references in noun phrases, e.g. : (12) The poetry of Adam Mickiewicz, the greatest poet of Polish Romanticism, strongly influenced Lithuanian poets of the nineteenth century. (13)?The work of Adam Mickiewicz, the greatest Polish romantic singer, strongly influenced Lithuanian poets of the nineteenth century. Siu pavyzdziy daiktavardinés frazés The most famous song of Polish romanticism referrer's uniqueness implied miisy i§ Ziniy about nineteenth-century literature, and formally the highest degree of definition (tradici: ai — nominative) of adjective form®. We see that the $i defined noun phrase can only go along with a correferential proper name as a dému of free opposition. The reference of a prepositional noun in close opposition can be narrowed even radically, for example, by modifying it with an adjective, so long as the noun's referent is not uniquely identified (specific), until then the spoken opposition is assumed, cf.: (14) My teacher Strazdas and the frightened Papievius also hurried to the chapel. (example iS Labutis 2002: 328-329). Although the adjectives are often called the determinants of the defined noun phrase, but in Lithuanian language they can be associated with the description of the definition su only under favorable epistemic circumstances of the context, when the uniqueness of the referent of the defined noun phrase is ar perceived in terms of be (plg. Bolvoet, Tamulioniene 2006: 24). For example, néra guaranteejy that the equative sentence The straw hat is my teacher The subject of the predicative noun phrase is a uniquely identifiable individual, my only teacher, because I can have more than one teacher. t. y. a ir Todél's reference in terms of the fundamental difference between %io equivalence sentence ir adjective jo match Strazd is a teacher who is often emphasized (plg. Holvoet, Cizik-ProkaSeva 2005: 79), regis, néra. On the other hand, in the sentence My teacher is The speaker of a phrase with a subject in the position of to strazdus will always be perceived as the only individual who knows me. About the importance of the upper and lower degree verbs in the formation of modified noun phrases Zr. Mikulskas (2006: 48-49). 140 Notes When the adjective modifies the noun phrase, the unique reference is implied by the corresponding idealized is cognitive model (ICM), then such a possessive compound cannot go in close opposition with a proper noun, cf. : su (15) My husband makes potato pancakes. (16) (Hand) Antanas is making potato pancakes. (17) ?My husband Antanas is making potato pancakes. The (17) sentence sounds strange, because we understand a family where a woman has only one husband, ICM supports the specific phrase my husband reference. 2.2.3. Since the definition of the prepositional noun of close opposition is not the definition of one of the co-ordinate partners, the asymmetry of such a noun conjunction is obviously grammatically necessary. ir Si asymmetry encourages to try to describe the spoken oppositional compounds not to distinguish other modification ju i complementation relationships ir based on noun compounds. Representatives of transformative and generative grammar (plg. Burton-Roberts 1975: 397-405) attempted to examine close oppositions as cases of modification, the status of the prefix as a modifier based on the derivation of the presupposed restrictive jo relative i$ sentence (plg. Linguist Kazimieras Buga gimé 1879 years < Kazimieras Biga, who was a linguist, was born in the year). 1879 The fact that the cases of close opposition can reasonably be regarded as modifier connections is also shown by the obvious endocentricity of these cases — a single, usually specific reference noun of an oppositional connection can syntactically represent the entire connection. For example, in the example under consideration, such is the opposition linguist Kazimieras Biga real name it is univocal when it is the main — dému of a noun ir (English) head). O first affirmative (speaker), as already mentioned, in the sentence can replace the whole conjunction only in special contextual circumstances, when it is linked by anaphoric links to *Kazimiero Bigos as person, when t. y. iSku, about which linguist is talking. The endocentric aspect of the close opposition allows us to see more clearly the dimension of its relation called S /P (self-contained /dependent) asymmetry, which is also valid for modification-linked compounds. Sudétiniy struktiry formation groundsThe asymmetry here is first understood as démeny relative conceptual independence S/ P dependence. ar In the case of modification, one certain i§ relationship of profiling (so conceptually dependent) démens substructurtiry semantically specifies (elaborates) other, conceptually independent (and usually semantic much more contentful) dému. Both démens of spoken opposition nouns usually — — Winter thing, ne 141 Note ratio (with the exception of ar the names of kinship in certain social roles and some other cases), thus the categories of classification are of one level jy according to abstraction, according to ne cognitive ir ir (about three main cognitive categories Zr. Ungerer, Schmid 1996: 60-113). In the case of close opposition of Prototipinés, the real name (Kazimierz Biga) be referenj ces to concrete individuals in their form together say ir to individual base (intermediate level) category (zmocus, male). We can reasonably assume that another member of the opposition (authorisation), specifying Lower than basic individual category (e.g., jo profession) semantic3when ja specifies, in the same way as noun pie ir specifies only schematicWhen adjective tasty implied category food in prototypical modifier compound tasty pie. Siuo In (limited) respects, the proper name is conceptually dependent on the ji semantically specifying (additional) generic noun. But if we first take into account the basic function of the real name, the reference to a specific individual, then t. y. jo the j conceptually dependent domain, which is necessary for the supplementation of the jo reference-specified (factually defined) substantive - of the designation, we can consider the to subcategory of the individual as a saying prefix. Be such addition, as we see, a single prepositional noun cannot function in the actual space of the discourse. The inherent diversity of complements in terms of the position of a defined noun is well illustrated by examples such as: (18) The fact that Zemé is flat, it is obvious to everyone. (19) The thought that he could do that is unbearable. Here nouns fact thought dél too general ir (kategorinés) their own reikimés alone, their own be supplementary (when The earth is flat that he could do ir it in sentence subjects negaléty go, cf. : ), (20) "The fact is obvious to everyone. (21) The thought is unbearable. These apostrophic complements are specific references: they, like i8tisy (finitiniy) sentence nominalization, i8 you are inherited its definition (presumption of unique situation) dél lázati ir teljesvertésis to névmási szöveg (Langacker 1991: 34-35; 148-149). Structurally, the opposition, one of the dimensions of which is the nominalization of the propositional origin, is comparable to the su prototypical case of the close opposition, one of the dimensions of which is the proper noun. (Heyvaert 2003: 213-221). Structurally close oppositional properties are recently even considered as a criterion for defining a proper noun (From Langendonck 2007: 125142 Notes 143). Thus, by defining the syntactic relationships in the context of close opposition, we can turn to the usual complementary modifications. The presupposition of the categorical ir dependence of the co-referential demi-noun on such an opposition is the necessary permission of the specific reference noun of the complement defining the referent. The jo latter, according to syntax representation, is — considered the main démen of the apostrophic compound, predélis modifier®. o — jo 2.2.4. In discussing the asymmetrical nature of the close apostrophe reference and the syntactic relationships resulting from that ir asymmetry, I based myself on a prototypical model, jy where the actual apostrophe noun is preceded by a subcategorizating general noun. ji In the discourse of using such common oppositions, functional motivation is usually not very pronounced, and we could ir reasonably call them unobserved cases of close opposition. [in fact, it can be assumed that the real name in many cases alone can ensure the unique identification of its reference in the discourse, so further reference clarification is not necessary. ir The fact that in the prototypical copulative opposition the common démens do not have a special communicative curve is iconically reflected by the fact that in the conjunction they do not have a logical differentiatiir on underlined by intonation. — : (22) The poet Aidas Maréénas is now speaking. 7 Using simple theoretical constructs of cognitive grammar, we subcategorize In terms of close opposition, we can define it more ir precisely as an affirmative of relative nature, which has a certain valence structure. Jo The boundary of the profiled relation is constituted by an instanced referent in the typological category space, the trajectory is only an o abstractly - perceived correferential noun, for which the only semantic limitation of the specific reference is established. The — latter substructure of - the preposition semantically clarifies ir (elaborates) jo opposition partner — uniquely identifiable noun denoting the referent. *Based mainly on the examples of languages, in which the modification of noun phrases is possible only through apostrophe, in typological literature we find attempts to define one affirmative as a syntactically non-integrated modifier. i8 Esq toxins ,positional modifier* performs the same semantic functions as the integral equivalent in a noun ir jo (plg. Rijkhoff 2002: 22-23) However, in Lithuanian we could at least discuss the free opposition in this way. The close opposition, as we have seen, allows us to deduce between its elements one or another relationship of conceptual dependence, which is based on syntactic dependence. ir jy (t. y. on the one hand, the modification, on the other hand, the complementary relationship). Therefore, if we define dependencies in terms of syntax, the “syntaxically non-integrated modifier” is a contradictio adjecto. in 143 Remarks We could reasonably assume that such adjectives as in the example of (22) the opposition do not play an essential role in determining the real name of the referent: like constant epithets, indicating the subcategory of the name-bearer usual to the participants of the act of communication, they make the identification of the referent almost automatic. However, in some cases, the role of such a prefix in indicating the categorical dependence of the real name on the referent may be more significant, especially in written language. Because to there may be more than one person with the real name, it may ir be unclear to the to broader audience (reader) which person is meant when the name is mentioned in the speech (text), cf. : jo (23) We were watching mathematician Kubiliaus TV. (Example i Labutis 2002: 329.) In Lithuania there are many Kubilius's surname holder, ir without specifying the profession of the speaker with the appropriate prefix, the addressee (reader) may not be aware of who the speaker is Kubiliy — mathematics, literature, politics etc. ar ¢This is the talk (raSoma). 2.2.5. The use of the prefix of close opposition in speech may be associated with purposes other than identifying the su speaker for communication purposes. The function performed in such a predéliy sentence may be close to restrictive as + DF depiktyvy function when over In this case, the secondary predicate narrows the main predicate of the sentence to the desired direction, e.g. : (24) For most Lithuanians, Maironis, as a priest, is less known than Maironis as a poet. (25) For most lietuviy priest Maironis is less Known as a poet Maironis. (26) For most Lithuanians Maironis priest is less known than Maironis poet. It is obvious that (25) ir (26) sentencey close opposition predéliy purpose to ne facilitate the name Maironis referrer identification — he is so known ir to everyone. Priedéliais priest poet name ir Maironis designatas (t. y. person as a certain cultural phenomenon) is narrowed and formed according to ir the purposes of communication: they, as the appropriate despectives in ir the sentence, are required (24) to (is recognized) reiSkiama predication. Additional functional motivation ir as a supplement to communication skills In these examples, the inverse than usual ir intonation of the opposition démeny contour helps to recognize, e.g.: poetas Maironis, Maironis poetas. Such cases of close opposition are justified 144 Notes can be called symmetrical (significance effect in the last example is even more pronounced dél postpozicinés predélio padéties). 2.2.6. I saw that close opposition is formed by du general nouns. It is often observed in literature, esa always ai’ku, which ne dému of such opposition is the main (recognizing) o which modifies jj (note). Generally speaking, the same specificity vs. specificity applies to such atypical cases of close opposition. nespecifinés reference démeny disposition requirement. The designator of the uniquely identifiable referent in the sentence represents the entire oppositional compound and becomes the ir principal démen. jo Often as a formal distinctive feature of the main démens is indicated the first jo place in the opposition, which intuitively allows to decide about ka i8 tiesy in the sentence is spoken, plg. my neighbor's doctor, engl. my neighbour the doctor. I8ties specific reference in such compounds usually (t. y. in the unspecified cases) has the first nouné frazé it and is the main dému — of the opposition, the second frazé definition o (although in the English example ir Zzymim explicitly — article) is typological. In other words, the logic of the close opposition in the given example is based on the common presupposition, which is conveyed by the ascriptive sentence My neighbor is a doctor, one equative sentence That doctor is my neighbor. When we have the whole sentence before our eyes, it is easier to say which opposition démens designate is the target of the proposition, cf. : (27) On the head of the daughter and tévas Zemaitis darési aukStaiga neaSkus. (Example iS Labutis 2002: 331.) After all, of course, the statement of this sentence is about the teva, but not about Zemaiti! 2.2.7. The functional motivation of the close opposition of two common nouns may also be related only to facilitating the identification of the ne referent, but su ir su the expression of the additional predicate in relation to the predicate of the main sentence, cf. : (28) My neighbor's doctor often doesn't stay at home. In this example, the main démen of the close opposition is the specific reference noun phrase my neighbor, its prefix interprets the second démen non-specifically, which is probably Gia iStariamas pabréziamaja o intonation® my neighbor the — doctor. su Logical interjection of the second déme of the apostrophe ro- ° The intonation of the close apostrophe is primarily related to the intentions of communication: when deciding which déme of the compound is to be considered a prefix, we cannot rely on intonation alone, cf. : I count my neighbors (t. y. a doctor in the neighborhood, he'll help you. In interpreting the § sentences, specific references (but not necessarily 145 Note the size and additional his communication curve. Indeed, the functional motivation of such a preposition may be related not only to the clarification of the reference of the first dimension, but also to the expression of the secondary predicate. In this case we could say that the adjective (doctor) implicitly says also about the action performed by the subject of the sentence. The neighbor often does not stay at home, because that is his, the doctor's, profession, which is usually inseparable from urgent calls and night watches. The likelihood of such an implication is, of course, closely related to the purpose of the main predicate (in fact, the insertion of such a prefix is often motivated by the main predicate). It is easy to give examples when different predicate meanings of a sentence lead to different interpretations of the same prefix, cf. : (29) My neighbor- 's shoemaker walks in hole shoes. (30) My neighbor shoemaker won the lottery on a turisting trip i Spain. In the first example, the functional motivation of the close opposition preposition is probably related to the secondary predicate —discount— expression: the neighbor walks in hole shoes, although the boater can easily fix them. In the second example of the noun phrase my neighbour the reasons for the additional information (that he is a shoemaker) are not so distinct, they may simply be related to facilitating the identification of the first démens. 2.2.8. The examples of close opposition discussed above indicate that you (priedéliy use) motivation in many cases can be associated with additional restrictive or circumstantial function in relation to the main predicate of the sentence. Functionally, such oppositional prepositions are very close to free secondary predicates of the + DF construction, respectively —depictives and circumstantial predicates. The difference is that the secondary predicate in the preposition can only be implied into the meaning of the whole sentence, whereas in the second case it is explicitly required by adequate constructions (see My neighbor, as a doctor, does not stay at home all night). However, the implicit form of the additionally required predicate is not the preposition, for which the prepositions we are talking about cannot be called secondary predicates. Firstly, we cannot do this for structural reasons — the preposition of the close opposition together with its modifiable principal démen breZtumas) is assigned to the second affirmative, which is iStariamas with a logical kiréi. It represents the entire oppositional compound in the sentence, and the prefix (kaimynq) preceding it indicates its subcategory as the principal démens. In this example, the functional motivation is related to the narrowing of the definition of the designate of the object noun (gydytojq). 146 Notes represent the same argument of the main predicate, so syntaxSkai is a component part of the complement of the predicative verb: laikyti toki priedélj dar ir to Verb modifier can be too complicated. 2.2.9. Probably due to the i8 partial coincidence of the mentioned functions, the ir prevailing opinion in Lithuanian linguistics is that as + DF constructions shall also be regarded as permits. Such an opinion would seem to support ir certain ontological preconditions of close opposition, respectiveir ly as + DF the kinship of the construction. [the use of such prepositions is primarily based on the presupposition of a factual connection statement about the categorical dependence of the main démens referent (which in English, as we have seen, is indicated by the prepositional noun phrase article). Such a presupposition is based on the use of the close opposition preposition in ir cases where it implicitly limits the apprehension of the main predicate of the sentence, which has a restrictive function in t. y. relation to that predicate. Ir only additionally predicting circumstantial need, This statement due to the same as the basic predication su presupposition i8keliamas i§ sentence likeness j becomes profile ir jo (predicate in the narrow sense) part. In other words, the predicate of a sentence can be implied only if the factual statement is not merely presupposed, but ar easily perceived as an integral part of the meaning of the i sentence. If we remember, it's like ir + The expression of the restrictive function of the DF construction is based on the presupposition of a factual connection statement that subcategorizes the noun referent of one of the predicative arguments (as we have seen in the example I'm very tired Ciurlionj as a painter, without distorting the meaning of the sentence, jo second predicate (as a painterq) difficult to j &explain the corresponding connection sentence). Only when such a factual statement is presupposed, implied by the predicate required ne by the whole o sentence, can i ir ,aplinkybiné“ govorimy predikatyviniy construction interpretacija'®. The fact that The 3iq interpretation confirms that the factual connection statement belongs to the sentence profile, showing an ir easily realized explanation, jo e.g. My neighbor, as a doctor, doesn't stay at home anymore — My neighbor, being a doctor, often stays at home — My neighbor often does not stay at home because (he) is a doctor. Still délto choice is spoken as + DF constructions as actionZodine phrase modifiéius free ‘°GrieZtai taking, only circumstantial needs secondary as + DF constructions predicativeor in terms of time modality ir are subordinated (belong) to the main predicate, Appropriate constructions depicts dél presupozicinio pobiedzio In this respect there is an independence: jy the time of the necessary predication only coincides (or overlaps) su the time of the main predicate. 147 Notes Howvoet, A., Tamutioniene, A. 2006: Description category. In: Hotvorr & Mikutskas, red., 2006, 11-32. Kaztauskas, J., Laiconaite, A., Ursutis, V., ed., Modern Lithuanian 1961: Language. Vilnius: State Political ir and Scientific Literary Publishers. Lasutis, V. 1994: Lithuanian language syntax 2. Vilnius: Vilnius University Press. Lasutis, V. 2002: Syntax of Lithuanian language. Third supplementary edition. Vilnius: Vilnius University Press. Laxorr, G. 1987: Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Everyone. Chicago-London: University of Chicago Press. Lancacker, R. W. 1987: Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Lancacker, R. W. 1991: Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2, Descriptive Application. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, Martuews, P. H. 1997: The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press. Mikutskas, R. 2006: I describe the perspective of the bivardy aprago. In: Ho.vort & Mikutskas, red., 2006, 33-65. Morkonas K., par., Lietuviy 1999: kalbos enciklopedija. Vilnius: Institute of ir Science and Technology. Rukuorr, J. 2002: The 2004-2005 Phrase. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sirtautas, V., Grenpa, C. 1988: Syntax of Lithuanian language. Vilnius: Science. Taytor, J. R. 2002: Cognitive Grammar. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press. Uncerer, F, Scumip, H.-J. 1996: An Introduction 1 - 10 3 to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Longman. Vacuum-semen, L, 2007: Nouns as constructs as an analytical predicative indicator of meaning. Minutes Linguistics Lithuanica 56, 73-101. 154 Notes Van Lancenponcx, W. 2007: Theory and Typology of Property Names. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Zuxauskaite, J. 1961: As a use of the conjunctive ZodzZiu and the conjunction. In: Kazauskas, Laiconarre & Ursutis, ed., 1961, 217-278. Rolandas Mikulskas Lithuanian Language Institute P. Vileisio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lithuania 14 mazmoZis Change is now tarmiy teksty Zodynéliai. That's what I say after meeting you su A. Leskauskaite Kuciiiny kraSto teksty (2006) book Zodynéliu (p. 401-425). We all know that dialects, snegts now exist alongside common language (school, radio, television, government sites), bilingualism (even multilingualism), slang — youth, student, literary worker snegts. For the science, the etymology of words, the history of dialects, the most important is the inherited vocabulary, and the innovations are interesting only sociologically. International Words are temporary, and when you go into detail, you don’t even notice such facts as andlizas, garnizonas, fabriké, kantora karasélé liminddas, litindntas, leitenantas- ‘, karva, (1)!, nervas‘, (2), pilstikas, radija, Sakmatai, S6feris, Soferidutis, Soferiikas (what unheard German Words!), triperis (?), vitirindrius, veterinaras‘ (dél nekiréiuoty e reducciones). Kucidiny kra8tas was Part of Bérznyko (the authors transformed Bérzininkai) parish, which has completely bowed down and fought for Lithuania, so you owe a lot, they are now even ridiculed, striby and other actors (especially traders) spread: baj@vas, -d, blestva (in the text bla.stva —158 p., that is, repeated foreign Word), basandské (in the text basandsku —Pp. 366), burtdkas (Lp, Drsk girdéta, youth borda.kas!), cielkd (2) snekaltybe iSlaikiusi mergina‘ (in the text cielkos, p. 388, vél repeated foreign language Word —authors lit.), bufdiké,vatiné’, dacia (?) (Svendubrés bilingual dd.éa), davdi,nagi‘, diryti,kvailinti‘ (in the text Id.pka, p. 262, that is, pure foreign Word), nacidlnykas (purely Russian Word), paslévica (!),patarle‘, podlas,niekSingas‘, pratibnas SleikStus, prieSingas‘, tuzdlas,sunkus‘, zakonas,istatymas‘, zast@vas (in the Polish guards) and so on. Already the great Latvian scholar J. Endzelinas in his review of K. Biiga’s first LKZ embroideries has claimed that multilingual human language 155