Daiktavardinės „kaip“ konstrukcijos kaip analitinis predikatyvų žymėjimo rodiklis

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LVI (2007), 73 -101 Daiktavardinés kaip konstrukcijos kaip analitinis predikatyvu zyméjimo rodiklis” Lietuviy kalbos institutas This Loreta VAICIULYTE-SEMENIENE article deals, with the aid of typological data and grammatical hierarchies, with the substantival kaip-phrases in Lithuanian. Comparative constructions and appositional constructions at noun phrase level are left out of consideration, and attention is focused on kaip-phrases with the status of sentence-level predicates, expressing either primary or secondary predication, i. e., copular predicates and secondary predicates having the status of modifiers. The kaip-phrases investigated here encode complementative, depictive and circumstantial secondary predicates as well as adverbials. It is argued that in addition to typical instances of (complementative, depictive and circumstantial) secondary predicates and adverbials, there are also transitional cases. The more a secondary predicate is internal to the main predicate, the more it will tend to be encoded by bare case, though an alternation of bare case and analytical marking, both as an instance of morphosyntactic variation and with a clear opposition of meaning, is possible. The article is the result of a 2007 staZuoteés in Germany (Oldenburg, Carl von Ossietzky University). The author heartily thanks the head of the course prof. habil. Dr. Gerdun Hentscheliu: for all the help and advice. I am also grateful to the German Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung and Gemeinniitzige Hertie-Stiftung for funding this project. For critical remarks and thoughts, worth rethinking and interpreting some of the previous decisions of the article, I sincerely thank the respected reviewer. Those remarks of the reviewer's discussional approach, which did not receive one or another theoretical solution in the latter article, the author reserves the right to discuss them (again) in more detail in the future. 73 Loreta VArCiuLYTE-SEMENIENE 1. INTRODUCTION 1.0. In Lithuanian grammar studies, constructions with ‘as’ are discussed when (primary ir secondary) NameWord (in the case of a noun) predicative? ir circumstanar ces when examining the preédial resolution. In the first case, the constructions are examined — roughly speaking — on the level of the sentence, in the second — on the level of the noun. Despite the fact that they are mentioned as constructions in one way or another in larger works devoted to grammar (e.g., in the academic Lithuanian language grammar 1976, in the present Lithuanian language grammar 2006, in Balkevičius's present Lithuanian language syntax 2007, in the 1963, Swan Lietuviy kalbos sintakséje 1998), are dealt with in a separate study (e.g., Zukauskaité 1961), reading the latter works ir Kaunas VDU The current Lithuanian language textyno® (hereinafter LT) material raises certain questions, which are precisely what this article aims to address. 1.1. Without j pretending to be a comprehensive literature review, it is probably ma Zukauskaitė’s study 1961 on constructions with a substantive and a substantive-substantive clause, here, in kaip vartojima. Nedetalizuojant visko, kas pasakyta apie kaip vartojima suaddition to the summarizing statement of the author of the study (Zukauskaitė’s statement on the circumstances of the constructions as they can go in the clause with a 1961: 277) predicate, a subjunctive (mostly a preposition) and a su predicate, it is worth referring to a few more of her remarks: ir (i) Syntactic constructiony with as the relationship depends on the local saju ‘Hitherto, the question of what constitutes a grammatical position in the constructs under consideration is not addressed. Meanwhile, it is said that in larger works on Lithuanian grammar, the position is considered as a (Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 556; Ambrazas, ed., 2006: 492) ar explanatory (Hello 1998: 329) Word, switch (Balkevitius 1963: 123, 182; Zukauskaite 1961; Ulvydas, red., 1976: 653tt), part (Balkevidius 1963: 217; Labutis 1998: 307) ar — somewhat awkwardly - prefixed (Holvoet, Tamulioniené 2005: 135t). * The term predicate is used, based on Holvoet, Tamuliontene predicate is (2005): used in predicative, — tar syntax dependent noun; Syntactic dependencies of nouns can be resolved in two ways: by modification or by control. More about the syntax modification - management ir ry8iy - concept, based on the kuria article, Zr. : Holvoet, Judzentis (2003: 11-35; 2005: 11-38). The same applies to the traditionally understood types of syntactic relationships. ‘Internet access at: http://donelaitis.vdu. It. 74 Nouns as constructions In China: ,,biadama Salia noun, comparative construction closer to adjective or prefix*; to other part of the speech, although the relation of the ar comparative construction is perceived as a relation to ir the action su (i3assigned L. V.-S.) Ratio’ (Zukauskaité 1961: 251t; as far as the skirtingai circumstances of the bid are concerned: cf. t. p.: 253, 257°).” Plg. : (1) We, xarp uzveizpal ponar jusy ir statyti, Jus graudent téviskai pamokint ir ugsimaném. (Quoted from Zukauskaite 1961: 270.) (2) Aguté brought Arvydas to bathe, and put white candles on the table. * ir Ka uz (Quoted from Zukauskaite 1961: 269.) ‘Pvz., Balkevicius (1963: 175; plg. Labutis 1998: 328tt; Ambrazas, ed., 556t) 2006: pnedelj defines it as a sign that shows what the signable thing or phenomenon is. jo In this permissiir on differs from visy kity pazyminiv, which, as Known, unknown Zodj, atsakydami j questions what, which, raised, kteno, how much... Meanwhile, according to Sirtauto (1981: 67), ,,permission has a double grammatical meaning: the related factor su defines, ir ji determines (also approved by su it), relating to ir su tariniu (i8disclosed L. V.-S.) ‘ Attention to be paid j Zukauskaitė's term is comparative construction, which is used to refer to cases where things are not ir compared with each other. °For example, Zukauskaité (1961: 252tt) as constructions, in the sentence e1nanéias biidos circumstance (t. y. related su predicate- ), claims that the type of sentence as (i) Skrynis as nulietas maZiau pardavinéjo (t. p.: the 256), construction as su goes in a subjunctive, in the example on o the next page Petronelé, as matusés beaten, trusting her work (t. p.: next to the 257) conjugation of the influencing noun used iSkirtiné as a construction is interpreted by the authors as a (') circumstance of hunger (plg Petronella wept, because she had been beaten; see also below). On the other hand, po in the last sentence, Mirgéjo’s snow-covered, gold-diamond-covered Zemés pavirsius construction su as understood as a sign. For example, in German, the predicate reikimés of time is distinguished from the prepositional condition by its constructive position in the sentence, cf. ir : Als Secretary of the The rector knew ourre Neighbor all Dean personally / Unsere Neighbor as Secretin of the Rector knew all of them. Dean personally. Unlike, for example, the preposition as a construction, which can go both in the preposition of the denotation and in the postposition, the time retk’més constructions usually go only at the beginning of the sentence (for more cf. su Anders, Hentschel 2006: 234), ®According to Zukauskaité- ’s criteria for the place sentence, the latter sentence is used as a construction but is understood as a circumstance of the cause, 75 Loreta VaAiciuLyTEe-SEMENIENE (3) Brolienés dukté Verone, Kai pepina, pavéZino namo... (quoted by Zukauskaité 1961: 251.) (4) Joms, Kaip cimines, reikéty pranešti apie Povilo mirtj... (quoted by Zukauskaité 1961: 251.) (5) He né ask daring kaw svecias... (quoted by Zukauskaité 1961: 251.) 1961: 251.) (6) Everyone will respect me, As an old man. (Quoted by Zukauskaité 1961: 251.) (7) Todél Flesius will always chase io aité 1961: 256.) (8) Karp t1epswa Zydéjo nasturtos. (Quoted from Zukauskaite 1961: 252.) AS NOT HIS OWN. (Quoted by Zukausk- (ii) Adjectives with como, often without requiring any comparison, describe a thing or a person in some respect or distinguish a certain position (cf. Zukauskaité 1961: 269). (iii) In addition to typical prepositions and substantive prepositions (Zukauskaité 1961: 270) (the latter define the object or person of the main sentence and are at the same time closely syntactically linked to the predicate, the main content of the sentence, e.g., Karp xarzyc} tave jie supras and the freedom hymns mentioned) or circumstances of the case, intermediate (or transitional) are recognized as constructions (cf. Zukauskaité 1961: 269). (iv),,In general, prepositions are also connected with the predicate, without the conjunction as not used* (Zukauskaité 1961: 271)’, e.g. : (9) Kap atsaxymas suddenly arose one red flag.... (Quoted from Zukauskaite 1961: 271.) (10) Bet kq aS now leaving, xaip uzstara, I could take... (Quoted from Zukauskaite 1961: 271.) (11) During the illness, when a good and ruthless caretaker arranged ji the cemetery, as the author herself states (Zukauskaité 1961: 267), "8iq construction, only the construction connected with the phrase, should be considered a supplement" (iSskirta L. V.-S.) (see also below). ° It remains unclear how Zukauskaité understands the term ‘permission’. If we assume that the adjective Zukauskaites was understood traditionally, i.e. as a noun conjugation mark assigned to the compound level, the author's ideas are doubtful, as it may also be related to the predicate, Dar ply. isnasa 4. 76 Daiktavardines kaip konstrukcijos clothes and prepared for a long journey. (Quoted by Zukauskaité 1961: 271.) (12) In war every morer, she was very afraid miisy peliy. (Quoted according to Zukauskaité 1961: 271) In addition to what has been said in reference, it is important to note that Zukauskaite does not yet distinguish as constructions between the "signifiant" and the "significant" in the traditional sense. The construction is interpreted by her either as circumstance or as preposition, i.e. it is distinguished both at the level of the noun compound and at that of the sentence (cf. e.g. sentences (2), (5), (7) - (12)). 1.2. Jonas Balkeviéius two years later appeared in the New Syntax of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language (1963) with constructions with as mentioned as one of the two types of expression, Signifying (i) the substantive part of the sudétinis (i. e. the conjunction) and (ii) the substantive part of the composed tarini (the predicative of the noun, or otherwise —traditionally speaking, the tarini pažyminj), e.g., (i) Nejuciomis Petras ir pats nori biiti Karp tas senovés LiETuvis; (ii) After all, I am about to cross the school threshold for the first time in my life as a TEACHER), (b) circumstances (e. g., Kedulis j savo pirkiq), subjunctives (e.g., Juk aS, Karp NASLAITE, I grew up in this shelter (Balkevigius 1963: 110, 123, 165, 182t, 218t). Discussing the circumstances of the verb, interpreted as constructions, Balkevičius (1963: 219) states that »there are comparisons which, while describing the circumstances of the verbal verb, at the same time indicate the characteristics of the factor. For example [...] UZpakaly mtsy kar some wall nitikso dark forest. [...] Such comparisons, if they are more closely connected with the verb than with the predicate, can be considered to be subjunctives of the verb, and if they are connected with the verb not by attributive, but by predicative relations, they can be considered to be substantive parts of the verb”.!! In addition, Balkevičius (1963: 124) draws attention to a few other things: (i) The word predicate of the compound taric, interpreted as a construction,,sometimes denotes the existence of such a factor, which is also that of the taric ‘© Plg, Ambrazas, red., (2006: 490):,,the taric sign is a part of the sentence, in the same stage of the sentence division having twofold connective relations: with the taric and with the factor or complement- '. For example, “When the supporting Word [i.e., the Word to which the comparative phrase is connected indirectly, or, in other words, as a construction] is followed by the personifying form of the verb, the comparative phrase is merged with it or together with it forms the substantive part of the speech” (Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 657). 77 Loreta VaicruryTe-SEMENIENE The cause or purpose of the action or behaviour performed by the connection iSreik’to (i8skirta L. V.-S.)“ (13) He is known to (Balkevigius 1963: 124), pvz.: the whole factory colleague as the first worker. (Quoted by Balkevicius 1963: 124.) pRiEMONE terminate this dangerous paxinciai. (Quoted by (14) Tokiu bidu kelioné j Vilniy buvo pasirinkta xaip geriausia Balkeviéius 1963: 124.) (15) This manifestation took place as a protest against the establishment of the 1RaisKA,,Zemdirbystés társaság”. (Quoted from Balkevitius 1963: 124.) (ii) The preposition with how, unlike without it, “not only shows what is the thing to be known, but also indicates that the existence of the thing to be known is also a certain circumstance, most often indicating a cause or a consequence (i8skirta L. V.-S.)” (Balkevidius 1963: 182). Gii) Instead of the btivio jnagininko, which refers to the non-permanence of the thing, a certain interval of time, sometimes used as a construction (Brown 1969, pp. 123). Thus, in Balkevičius’ view, the construction of a symbol is related to the su differences in its purpose (permanent vs. temporary) or grammatical function (attributive vs. predicative vs. circumstance). On the other hand, it is also acknowledged that functional differences, e.g., paZyminiy tarp (attributive), circumstantial name, ir verbal predicate, are not distinct as constructions, t. y. esama pereinamujy evejy (plg. Balkevicius 1963: 123t, 219). 1.3. In the present grammar of Lithuanian language, there be are several statements that as constructions may be required a prefix (Ambrazas, ed., 2006: 492)'* ar they can replace the verb valentinj (t. y. verb required) actant (by Ambraza, ed., 2006: 603, verbal sign), more on this in the section of the i8pléstic sentence, or, more specifically, when discussing the verbal sign (Ambrazas, ed., 2006: 627) ir (qualitative) comparative sentences (Ambrazas, ed., 634t). 2006: It is stated that the alignment is not explained as a construction may be a required tariff mark, which ,,just The subject’s ar fear of the object in relation to the action” (Ambrazas, ed., 2006: 627), e.g. : ‘Also ir Lietuviy in language syntax (Hello 1998: 329t) limits itself to stating that the licence with the Word can be connected ir su how. 78 Nouns as constructs (16) He arrived in his capital Karp as a postman. (cf.... messenger- .) (Quoted by Ambrazas, red., 2006: 627.) (17) All the surrounding gerbé Motiejy Karr gaby mersTr4. (Quoted from Ambrazas, ed., 2006: 627.) Meanwhile, the comparative as a construction in a sentence can be a circumstance* (see sentence (8)), a substantive part of a verbal noun (e.g., SodZius buvo Kap viena Semyna), a conditional pronoun (see sentence (7)) (see Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 659) or an attribute of some sentence part (e.g., Atlydéjo jq palydovai —trys broliai kar 4Zvo1a1 ir jy draugai). Separately discussed comparative constructions with as type, when things are compared, indicating their identity in a certain respect, e.g. : (18) The old Pikéiurniené was famous in the whole area for Kap gera BoBuTh. (Quoted from Ambrazas, ed., 2006: 634.)'* It can be seen that in Grammar, constructions with as — are roughly discussed according to whether they mean comparison or not (cf. the case of the comparative subjunctive). 1.4, Similarly as in the present Lithuanian grammar, constructions with as are also examined in the academic Lithuanian grammar (Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 659tt). Without repeating what has been said, I would like to draw attention to a few more statements found in the latter grammar: (i) Many of the identical comparative sentences say at the same time the action (being) preposition, e.g., Auksé gi jos privengé Karp iSdidzios Pontos; 18) (Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 6611). (ii) Comparative sentences, which are connected to nouns in order to show their independence from the verb-word, are often distinguished by punctuation marks and usually go immediately after the supporting word (Ulvydas, ed., '8 Akademinéje Lietuviy kalbos gramatikoje (Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 521tt), besides the comparative circumstances in which the comparative sentences go are discussed separately. Labutis (1998: 307) also distinguishes between the qualitative (bid) 1976: 673). circumstances and their specific variant ~ comparative circumstances. \ In Lithuanian grammar (Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 661) when discussing this type of sentences it ir is stated that as a construction,,defines the identity of the comparable thing and shows the attention of the action (see L. V.-8.)*. 79 Loreta VaiciuLyTé-SEMENIENE (iii),Constructions with how, when associated with nouns [...], can also describe the spoken identity of the subject in a certain respect, e.g. : Veruté, When meaningful KamBaRINE, was introduced to serve guests. Such constructions are regarded as prepositions* (Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 673).,,.Going with the connecting word as exclusive prepositions not only describes the characterizing Word reisV.-S.) (e.g., Vilius, Kam karo pipvyris, tuojau gavo statybinés medZiagas), or in which respect (e.g., O Karalienés tokios keistos mintys, kurios rasi visai nedera jai, Karp Morinal) it is described” kiama daikta ar asmenj, bet kartu pasako, dél kurios priezasties (iSskirta L. (Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 556; cf. (i)). In summary, it can be seen that in the aforementioned works of Lithuanian linguistics, the use of the word as a construction is associated with the distinction of grammatical function (subject vs. object vs. circumstance) and the meanings of the subject, object, background that are conveyed by it. 2. NOUNS AS CONSTRUCTIONS IN SYNTACTICAL POSITION 2.1.Noun constructions with how they can be interpreted grammatical functions both on the sentence and noun compound level. According to the predicate, in the noun combination, i.e. the case of the preposition with as, the predicate is in the lower predicate of the sentence (downgraded prediction) or, in other words, such constructions with as do not form the main predicate of the sentence. In the verb of the sentence as constructions can be used the main (primary) and secondary (additional) predicate; The primary and secondary nouns with are used as secondary predicates, respectively. The main predication of the sentence is represented by the binary predicates of the connection, which are designated by the noun with as constructions, i.e. in such sentences the predicate is governed by the actant (requires it) and is designated as a construction. Antriné —additional —the predication of the sentence can be read as secondary binary and free nouns with as predicatives'® and as cons- 'S About free vs. binary predicative definitions more broadly 4r, Holvoet (2003); Holvoet, Tamulioniené (2005). 16 Cf. the concept of the narrative sign in the grammar of contemporary Lithuanian language (Ambrazas, ed., 2006: 603t, 627), where there is no distinction between secondary batinyjy vs. free predikatyvy. 80 Daiktavardines kaip konstrukcijos One of the fundamental differences between secondary (eventual and free) predicatives and circumstances is the possibility of semantic association of the primary with one of the arguments of the principal predicate, or, in other words, conceptual association with the referent: secondary predicates are associated in a copulative relationship with one of the arguments of the principal predicate (German: Partizipantenbezug, Referentenorientierung; English: participant-- oriented), circumstances — only with one of the predicates (German: Ereignisbezug, Vorgangsorientierung, English: event-oriented) (for more on this, see: SchultzeBerndt, Himmelmann 2004; Himmelmann, Schultze-Berndt 2005; Hentschel 2005). On the level of the sentence, the secondary—bit-based and free predicates replace the essential (conjunction) predicates that are required by the main predicate: they, as mentioned, are connected by a copulative relationship with one argument of the main predicate, which in morphosyntactic terms is a coordination indicator. '® However, with regard to the main predicate, the latent copulative relationship of the biting and free secondary predicates is different. '? In the »true« copulative relation to one of the arguments of the main predicate are connected the free predicates of the noun, with which the secondary predicate is optional (unnecessary) (cf. further sentence (22) It j ParyZiy grizo KAIP pipvyris ~ It j grizo j Paryziy. And at the same time he was a hero). Meanwhile, secondary byte predicates denote the essential predicate; ¥ On the fact that secondary predicates are not only free instructions (adjuncte) in relation to the predicate, but also additions controlled by the predicate, i.e., required by the predicate (English) complementary), r., e.g., Nichols (1978); Aarts (1995); Holvoet, Tamulioniene (2005). Different opinions Zr. Fehrmann (1994: 91-93). 8 About tuning and terms agreement controller, agreement trigger, agreement target to be defined more broadly See. Corbett (1998: 1; 1999: 103; 2001: 2). Tuning is understood in a broad sense, i.e. not as copying the form of the tuning transducer, but as choosing the form of the tuning receiver, taking into account the tuning transducer. : And in noun compounds, there is a copulative relationship between the adjective 1 and its noun, e.g. : John, (as) rapesting sinus, always helps parents; plg. John always helps parents. It is a rippled sinus. Nevertheless, as already mentioned, attributes and relationships are distinguished in the Lower level of the sentence division; they are not related to the basic predication of the sentence, which is expressed in terms of time and modality. 81 Loreta VAICIULYTE-SEMENIENE and finance and economic affairs. The Seimas probably does not object to having two committees. KT. (34) Should a Foreign Affairs Committee be needed? (Voices in the room) Not the Foreign Affairs Committee, but the State and Justice Committee —As the President has said. Okay, okay. AGitl. Sutarém. KT. If, for example, in the sentences (31)-(32) as a construction can be interpreted as a comparative, then in the sentences (33)-(34) hardly. It appears that the galéty bits used as constructions in the sentences of the type in question are considered secondary predicates. In this case, of course, the verb beiti should be understood not as a conjunction, but as an independent verb, 0 as interpreted as a particle, to which the verb,,only, only“ or,,in addition, in addition to“ means. 3.3. Optional (non-essential) noun with as constructions 3.3.1. Free predicates with as Recently, in typological literature, secondary free predicates (traditional, narrative) associated with one of the arguments of the main predicate are classified as resulting vs. non-resulting (or deceptive in the plagiarism sense) or deceptive (in the narrow sense), circumstantial (hereinafter circumstantial predicates) and resulting (for more on this see Hentschel 2005, 2006; Holvoet, in press; Irimia 2005: 23t; Schultze-- Berndt, Himmelmann 2004: 3; Himmelmann, Schultze-- Berndt 2005: 4, Hinterhélz 2001: 100; Nichols 1981). Here the narrow concept of depiktyvy is observed, i.e. depiktyvy are attached to circumstantial predicates and resultatives. Without going into too much detail, there are some basic differences between free predicatives. 3.3.1.1. The event predicted by the depicts of — the free - predicates (the state of the subject or object) coincides in principle with the time of the action expressed by the main predicate (English) temporal overlap, vok. temporal Overlapping / Coextension). For example, in a sentence (= 23) The beginning of the academic year professor first kartq meets Karr LDK Gediminas order Kavaurs despectively reiskiamos thing (personal) bisenos (professor is LDK 88 Daiktavardinés kaip konstrukcijos Knight of the Order of Gediminas) the time is limited (valid) the laiko intervalu (profesorius sutinka prasidedanéius mokslo metus), plg. Kai proprincipal predicate fesor welcomes the beginning of the school year, he is at the same time a Knight of the Order of Gediminas of the LDK; the sentence says nothing about whether Gedimino ordino kavalierius pries ar / ir po prasidedanéiu mokslo mety suthe professor is LDK believer. The deceptive corrects (precises) the information about one of the arguments (referents) of the i8 main predicate during the last action (the professor does not accept the beginning of the academic year, but by accepting them he is also for the first time a knight of the Order of Gediminas). The deceptive is used to describe the modality and the scope of negation of the action described by the main predicate, e.g., The professor does not agree to the first academic year as rector (i.e., the professor does not agree to the first academic year as rector) (see also sentences (9), (22)-(23)). The deceptives in terms of time, modality and negation belong to the main predicate, are part of the action Zodinés frazés (German VP-interne). 3.3.1.2. Resultative is also a part of the action of the Zodiac phrase, but unlike in the case of the despective, the event (behavior) predicted by it is the consequence (or result) of the action described by the resulting predicate. In other words, the time-related behavior of the object described by the results does not coincide with the main predicate- -represented action interval; The resulting predicate tells the object to behave properly after the action described by the principal predicate has ended, e.g., The private yard is full of cars (quoted from Valeckiené 1967: 105) (see also Himmelmann, Schultze-- Berndt 2005 and the literature cited there; also cf. Hentschel 2005; Holvoet, in press). Given that the resulting verb is not the same as the noun constructions with how, they are not discussed further. 3.3.1.3. 8 Johanna Nichols (1981: 18t), discussing free predicate nominals in Russian, makes a rough distinction between circumstantial and non-circumstantial, the former being defined as,,an actant not governed by the verb. Also adverbial, in relational grammar oblique or non-term* (Nichols 1981; 367) and semantically divided into: time, concessions and conditions; whereas the latter (Nichols 1981: 19) are closely related to the circumstances of hunger -Zymi how much), quality, form, etc. 89 Loreta VAICIULYTE-SEMENIENE criteria and interrelationships. Circumstantial predicates, like depicts, are not resulting, but, unlike depicts, they do not become the principal predicate in the absence of a negation of the action (i.e., the principal predicate is negative, but not the predicate itself) (cf. Nichols 1981: 42); they are part of the sentence, not verb-externe phrases (VP-externe).3! Circumstantial predicates, in addition to the time coincidence with the main predicate (see 3.3.1.1.), additionally mean, according to Nichols (1981: 11, 18, 349), (i) time, (ii) concession, (iii) condition or (iv) preposition (see (i) rus. Resionxom on Zyl in Moscow; There is provorovalsja KAK KLADOVSCIK; (ii) Russian. He and salvation could not forget about it; (iii) Russian. SLapKi to be tasty; (iv) Kako pRepsTAvitet' svoej sredy on pital jubov' k francuskoj kul'ture) (transl. Flaate 2007: 90; Hentschel 2006; Renz 2006: 46tt).22 3.3.1.4. As already mentioned, in Lithuanian linguistics it is common to talk about free prepositional predicatives (see sentences (2), (5), (13) —(14)). They are also common in Kaunas Textile. However, nothing has been said about other circumstantial predicates in Lithuanian linguistics. It is true that Balkevičius’ mention of the need for a purpose is probably associated with such sentences as (15) or (35). The need for cause and effect can also be discussed in the sentence (36): In addition to Rugelé being a friend of Ildefonso, he was borrowed also because he was a scientific consultant and/or... he was borrowed for scientific consultations. (35) Buozei mazametis reikia Karp cheap work sica. (Quoted from Balkevicius 1963: 124.) (36) O since professor Ru&elé is old Ildefonso Science ™ Plg. Holvoet, Pajediene (2005: 97¢t, 115), where predicate and sentence circumstances (modifiers) are distinguished from each other according to whether they can (or cannot) modify language units that do not have independent sentence pozymiy. The predicate circumstances,,can modify language units that do not have independent sentence sub-symbols (e.g., the predicate circumstances can modify a structure without time and sequence sub-symbols and recite Maironi eilérastius), 0 the sentence circumstances can modify only such language units that have independent sentence sub-symbols (e.g., perhaps they can modify the recite Marroni eilérastius, but not recite Maironi eilérastius)* (Holvoet, Pajédiene 2005: 115). * Pig. circumstantial predicative rai’ka in German and Polish in; Hentschel (2006). Example: (i) As a child, Peter wore glasses; (ii) Even as a doctor, Magda could not help; (iii) As an aperitif, stomach bitter spoils my appetite; (iv) Paul is in the intensive care unit as he is seriously injured. This type of construction is known as a preposition (German: Apposition). Schroeder (2003); Beckmann friend, (1997: 164tt); Lawrens (1993). 90 Daiktavardinés kaip konstrukcijos it was immediately borrowed from the "Fast" Karp Scientific Consultant (temporarily still creating such a position). KT. The question arises whether the circumstances discussed in the typological literature, such as Zzymimas and other, are necessary in the Lithuanian language as free predicates. There is no great doubt about the circumstantial predicative of concession: when negating a positive sentence with a free predicative of the cause or purpose, it is usually interpreted as concession, cf. sentence (14) In such a case, the trip to Vilnius was not chosen as the best prism (~ although it was the best means) to end this dangerous acquaintance. Meanwhile, the negative sentence (36): Although Professor Rugelé is an old friend of Ildefonso's science, he was nevertheless not borrowed if »Fast« around the scientific consultant gristy as a predicate with a clearer interpretation of the purpose (different from the sentence (35)). In Kaunas Textyne there is also another secondary as a predicate, which can be interpreted as a condition, cf.: (37) Romualdas Ozolas, Centro Sqjunga:,,J Lietuŋ investicijos turéty ateiti Kaip j padoriq saul“. KT. (37a) If Lithuania is a decent country, then investments should come here. (37b) Since Lithuania is a decent country, investments should come here. However, the predicate of the condition can easily be imagined in the following sentence: It is good to be unbeaten in any military service law. Kap xarisxis could not strike or speak out. ir The fact that the predicate of time can be used as a construction shows that phraseology has become a living thing, cf. sentence (38). However, it must be acknowledged that It is known that in Lithuanian the use of the noun as a predicate is rare, cf. sentences (39)-(40). For the meaning of time, it is common to choose semi-participative bit construction or greeting sentences (e.g., when I was a child / when I was a child, I did a lot of sports), less often the conjugative noun syllable marks the predicative of time (e.g., You did not know me as a child). (38) All-powerful Anupri and dying consort crowned Julyte's wedding. Such a celebration had not been seen before by the whole Sily village audience, from the laughers to the demented old men. KT. (39) Life dictates it. But I don't want to be a man who SL Loreta Vaicru.yTe-SEMENIENE came to judge others. We'll work together and see who can do what. - You remember xaip Privatization Department vapova. The second phase of privatisation is now underway. How, in his opinion, should it develop, how should it end? KT. ** (40) Pole jo neiSdave ir went on with the soldiers to check another wagon. Rafah successfully reached Berlin, joined the American troops, and later Karp's mercenary Soldier led the fight against communism in Africa, devoting much of his life to revenge for the Polish occupation. KT. 3.3.1.5. Thus, from what has been said, it can be seen that the noun as a construction can be deceptive and circumstantial (time, concession, condition, purpose, cause) predicates. 3.3.2. How constructions as circumstances Simon Dick in Functional Grammar (1989; 1997) distinguishes four modifiers (or, in Dick's terms, satellites) related to the predicate (i.e. circumstances). The latter modifiers, which do not form a nuclear predicate, form a core or extended predicate (i.e., they do not belong to the predicate or its arguments). This is limited to the first and second layer modifiers as defined by Dick. ** The modifiers of the first level are prototypical 8° Schultze-- Berndt, Himmelmann (2004: 42) interpret examples of this type, such as On pomnit menja gusarom, as deceptive. Autoriai (2004: 22) skiria 6 depiktyvy skyrimo kriterijus, kuriy pirmasis apibréZiamas taip:,,it [the clause -L. V.-S.] contains two separate predicative elements, the main predicate and the depictive, where the event expressed by the depictive holds within the time frame of the event expressed by the main predicate (18skirta L. V.-8.)“ arba,,depictives express a state that holds during the reference time of the event encoded by the main predicate“ (2005: 4, dar t. p.: 18).,,In the case of circumstancials, other semantic links are evoked in addition to the basic pure temporal overlap. Following Nichols, these,,other semantic links“ could be classified as condition, consession and temporal“ (Himmelmann, SchultzeBerndt 2005: 17). * Third-level modifiers are propositional or, according to Dika (1989: 252t; 1997: 297t) attitudinal satellites, which involve the evaluation of the speaker- 's subjective attitude. In other words, they are modal circumstances of the sentence (see Hentschel 2005), e.g., Lamer, a¥ teve susitikę, I met you, I met you. 92 Daiktavardines kaip konstrukcijos (hunger, means, qualities, etc.) predicate-related modifiers (VP-interne Adjunkte), which modify or specify the event represented by the main predicate, or, in Diko's (1989: 192t; 1997: 225t) terms, states of affairs (SoA), e.g., Onuté Soka Karp pLuNKsNELE. Such modifiers go into the predicate negation apprehension (see 3.3.1.1.). The second-level modifiers are distinguished by the sentence level (VP-externe Adjunkte); they mean a thing, a place, a time, a result, a purpose, a cause, etc. (Dik 1989: 206tt; 1997: 243t), e.g. John met with That's Karepros. *° Such circumstances of the sentence level, like circumstantial predicates (see 3.3.1.3.), are beyond the limit of the predicate negation. Even though the article leaves the comparison as a construction, it is still necessary to state that between such constructions in the sentence there is usually a significant difference between circumstances, i.e. the modifier of the first-level predicate, and free predicatives, whose limits are not broken, cf. sentences (41)-(46). For example, if in the sentences (41)-(42) as a construction it can be paraphrased: we were greeted as honourable guests are greeted or in the letter she kept as she kept the most precious gift, then it seems that in the sentence (42) it can be interpreted as the predicate of the preposition: in the letter she kept, because it was the most precious gift. And the sentence (43) is ambiguous: the noun as a construction can be understood as a comparative circumstance of the need, «excellently», e.g. we remember as we would remember a good lesson, or it can be understood as a comparative circumstance of the use, «excellently», e.g. we remember as we remember a good lesson, or it can be understood as a comparative circumstance of the use, «excelleApie sitloma aplinkybry (modifikatoriy) skirstyma hetuviy kalboje plg. Holvoet, ntly», e.g. we remember as we remember a good lesson, or it can be understood as a comparative circumstance of the use, «excellently» (e.g. they modify or specify the ilocuciné value of the act of speech, i.e. y reiSkiamas kalbétoyo comment on the act of speech, e.g., Arvinar kateawr, it is rude. Pajédiené (2005), ten pat Zr. and other works of Lithuanian grammar presents opinional support. Dar plg. isnaga 32. % In the literature (cf. Zifonun et al., 1997: 1122tt; Renz 2006-11t) tests are used for individual layer modifiers. For example, the first and second-level modifiers are used to distinguish each other by the so-called "Wok". It is the case that..., angl. It is the case that..., left. That was... test. E.g., vok Ste legten sich friih schlafen; plg. It was early in the morning when they went to sleep; left. We went to sleep; plg. They fell asleep. It was funny. Bet: The face slowly acquires the color of the costume; plg. *It was slowly, That the face takes on the colours of the dress. 93 Loreta VAICIuLYYT£-SEMENIENE biti associated su tai (t. y. ,,berzinés koSés“ obtaining) as a proposition, as well as a commentary on an event, cf. or — ,,berZinés koSés“ obtaining, or moving, — was a good lesson. In other words, in the latter case as the construction is combines ma su propoziciniu this, o funkci8kai is free (prieZasties) predikaty vas. Meanwhile, despite the conjugation of the su conjugation adjective, the construction of the noun kaiz is circumstantial in (44)-(45), sentences where it speaks about the fear of plant consumption. Démesio worthy sentence (46), where, Considering i divorce as a construction of the first i8 The galéty of the light is to be interpreted as a precise home circumstance of the bied: ...he's a young man. (When from Hearts?), When MOKSLININ: Cas, hydrogen (t. y. vedamas — L. V.-S.) experimenter, you'll smalsumo, turn me into your medium. By stating this, the same bit implies the idea that sincerely the same construction as) is related (o to the predicate, is ir a bio su circumstance. su t y. It shows typical ir circumstances of morphological expression — Signification of adverbs. I found some functions sincerely more su related to subjects (plg. he is heartfelt), nor the su predicate (plg. ?heartless conversion, but: he nervously bitten his nails, cf. nervous big bite). In other words, in this case it is affirmed about the person's horror during the action, o ne ‘about the fear of performing an action. It is based on the subjects ir su they are combined construction as. *° su In short, the construct in the spoken case is rather a free predicate. These types of sentences allow to talk about these cases only pereinamuobetween free ne predicative circumstances, but about ir possible adverbial ir connections between both predicates and one su su i8 jo arguments (by Geuder 2002, oriented adverb’, or In this particular case transparent (psychological) adverbs; plg. Renz 2006). (41) Last miisy visited by jmoné — ,,Kédainiy griidai*. Here we were greeted as honorary guests — su with ir orchestral songs. KT. °° Plg. ta in the same su sentence a different separation: At once I as believed that jtisy riipestis my passion would not be rhetorical, that jiis deosirdZiai Karp moxsuiniKas, guided by the experimenter’s curiosity, turns into his medium, where as a construction galéty mane be understood as a predicate of the presence. ir *7Plg. Geuder (2002: 10t; but plg. t. p.: 209): ,,In view the fact that the relation of between and x-predicates systematic, it is conceivable that certain adverbs might share eindividual-related meaning is so components their x-predicating cognates maybe because they are derived from them. of — It is adverbs with this property that call orientied I adverbs. This is to say, this particular notion of ,,orientation“ is always understood as orientation to an individual“. 94 Daiktavardines kaip konstrukcijos (42) Vytas showed the letter with a few sentences and said that it was Karp's most precious gift. And the buddy's right. As an uncountable number I received an analogous gift. KT. (43) Ieskokime gavusiy, 'berzinés kosés'. Are you very angry at your tévy, gave from you,,berzinés kosés“? —As long as the ass is hot. Then we remember xalp gerq LESSON. KT. (44) Washed varpuciy Rhizomes (150g) boil in hot water, cut into 2-3 cm long pieces, fry in fat and give as a carnyra to fried or boiled meat. KT. (45) Varnalésy Root can be eaten Green Carp Salad (a little different from gelteklés). Young leaves are also used in Karp parZove. It can be used to prepare salads, soups. When preparing salad burdock leaves need 1-2 min. keep in hot water, drained: (46) At the same time, I hoped that my passion would not be rhetorical, that you, delighted scientists, guided by the curiosity of an experimenter, would turn me into your medium, as you said, for my benefit, and help me to emerge from my ignorance. KT. The second-level predicate modifiers — circumstances — of the i§ part could be classified as such kind as constructions, as in the sentences (47) -(48), where one i8 means bitty purpose: the purpose of consumption or cultivation. ** In addition to the meaning of the object, in the sentence (48) as a construction it can probably be understood as a predicate of the beginning, cf. Gelsvé is grown in Lithuania because it is a spice plant (see sentence (42)). Cases such as (48) remain unexplained in functional terms. It must be acknowledged that the circumstances that require constructions are rare: in many cases, the reasons for coordination as constructions can also be interpreted as related to one argument of the iS predicate. (47) In writing about the Germans, he says that,,they collect mud with their hands, allegedly peat, and clean it, using it more often than 88 Cf. cases where the construct is used as the valent actant of the predicate of purpose, i.e. the bitin predicate, e.g., Fits [Zolés] for prophylactic teas, KAP preesxonis, indoor Zolyny imitation of the scent, air aromatization, Zoliy pillows, sauna, aromatic baths, Zeldynuose (KT). Sliziené (2004: 328) distinguishes between the objective noun and/or the infinitive actant in such sentences with tikt:,,biti kokiam reikalui geram, naudingam“. 95 Loreta I love the sun, iSdziovintq uses ir Cap Where4 to cook from ir Narrow vent for a dirty chin "Warm up". KT. (48) The fruits are flat, yellowish brown. The whole plant smells strongly, decorative. Gelsvé kilusi iS Asian. Widely grown in Lithuania The War of Conquest. Green leaves, — Rhizomes ir Roots. All parts of the plant contain essential oil, fermenty, organiniy riigsciy. KT. 4. FINAL REMARKS To sum up what has been said, aiSkeja that non-comparative nounvar. dzio as constructions can be reiSkiami secondary bits free depicts circumstantial predicates — circumstances. ir ir — ir With sv constructions as more useful analytically Use secondary predicates. By saying this, it seems to be implying the idea that the same morphosyntactic notation can be used for different grammatical functions or purposes. ir / On the one hand, yes, on the other — hand, morphosyntactic experiments can talk about more or less separate secondary ma predicates for circumstances typical ar it (bidinga) with ir the same but different resolution In retrospect { Hentscheli assigned two — predikatyvy hierarchy primus (t. y. connection) (pAnravaRDZIO) PREDICTIVE < SECONDARY PREDICTIVE (< DEPIKTYVAS < SUPPLEMENT) (Hentschel 2005) (according to which, the more to the right in the hierarchy is the predicate, the more frequently the noun jnagininkas) preliminaria ir antriniy predikatyvy syntactically semantic ir jtraction (Voice. syntax-semantic Einbindung) j with the main predicate hierarchijq (Hentschel 2006: 172) KomMpLEMENTAS < DEPICTIVE < ENVIRONMENTAL TIME PREDIKATYVAS < ENVIRONMENTAL SALYGOS PREDICTIVE < ENVIRONMENTAL NATURE PREDICTIVE (according to which, the closer the predicate is to the hierarchy, the less it is included in the main predicate) hierarchies i based on Lithuanian — language data ir and analysis (but plg. Vaitiulyté-Seméniene, in the press, a, b; Holvoet, in the press), it can be said: the less the secondary predicate is involved in the main predicate, the better j ji Analytically analyze in the — colloquial case the noun as a construction. More specifically, the hierarchy COMPLEMENT < DEPICTIVE < ENVIRONMENTAL In terms of time, predicates are intermediate between typicky phrases veiksmazodinés (VP-internair l) sentence (VP-externe) predikativy: according to its morphosyntactic meaning (single conjugated vowel as a ar construction, cf. sentences (38) — 96 Nouns as constructs they connect (40)) with both despective and other su circumstantial su (conditions, reasons ir etc.) predicates, indicated only as constructions. On the other hand, the despectives used within the hierarchy can be Similarities are indicated both as complements and as the same circumstantials (time) predicates ar circumstances. This is primarily meant to be a sign of a witch. If the noun complements are necessary in the genitive, then in the case of the despective they are the more necessary the less the typical despective is necessary in the possessive. (more on this plg. Vaiciulyte-Seméniené, in the press, there is b ir cited literature). On the other hand, inagininku Significant noun despectives (especially less typically, e.g., quantity, biid etc.) ir dél its meaning su (quantity, bid ir etc.) circumstances of commonality su overlaps usually with significant circumstances of the accuser. The same applies to the possible ir as constructions reiSkiama depiktyvy circumstances cover. ir Thus, considering that there is no functional or morphosyntactic boundary between secondary ir predicative circumstances, it is possible to say: the more the secondary predicative is involved in the main predication, the more useful it is to be marked with a singular. j ,,pure” verb, without excluding a separate verb (of the ir / tuner or initiator) ir / ar analytical Signification as a morphosyntaksiniy varianty? ? ar in the case of oppositional use. SOURCES KT = Kaunas Vytautas The current textbook of the investigative language of the Computer Linguistics Centre of the Vilnius University: http://donelaitis.vdu.lt. LITERACY Aarts, B. 1995: Secondary predicates in English. In: Aarts & Meyer, David, eds., 1995, 75-101. * Morphosyntactic variants are understood, according to Hentschel (1992; 2001): morphosyntaxins gateways are in one fixed — structural position where they are sewn su ta the perspective of the situation, two (at least) the to semantic argument itself has different morphosyntactic forms, powerful to replace each other in the necessary difference. be Then the choice of i8 one linksniy depends on stilistiniy, pragmatiniy and so on. ir Nuances. 97