Acta Linguistica Lithuanica

LVI (2007), 73 – 101

Noun like constructions as an analytical marker of predicative marking^*

Loreta Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

This 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.

* This article is the result of a 2007 research fellowship in Germany (Oldenburg, Carl von Ossietzky University). The author sincerely thanks her fellowship supervisor, Prof. Habil. Dr. Gerd Hentschel, for all his help and advice. I am also grateful to the German foundations that funded the fellowship, Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung and Gemeinnützige Hertie-Stiftung.

I sincerely thank the esteemed reviewer for critical comments and ideas that prompted me to reconsider and reinterpret some of the article’s earlier decisions. The author reserves the reviewer’s discussion-oriented comments, which did not receive one theoretical response or another in the present article, for more detailed consideration in the future (once again).

73

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMENIENĖ

1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

1.0. In studies of Lithuanian grammar, constructions with like¹ are discussed in connection with (primary and secondary) nominal (in this case, noun) predicatives² and adverbials, or in analyses of appositional expression. In the former case, constructions with like are examined—roughly speaking—at the sentence level, and in the latter, at the noun-phrase level.

Although constructions with like are mentioned in one way or another in major works on grammar (e.g., the academic Grammar of the Lithuanian Language 1976, the Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian 2006, Balkevičius’s Syntax of Contemporary Lithuanian 1963, and Labutis’s Syntax of the Lithuanian Language 1998), and are examined in separate studies (e.g., Žukauskaitė 1961), reading these works alongside an examination of material from Kaunas VDU’s Corpus of Contemporary Lithuanian³ (hereafter KT) gives rise to certain ideas that this article aims to set out.

1.1. Without aspiring to provide a comprehensive review of the literature, mention should probably be made first of all of Žukauskaitė’s 1961 study on the use of constructions with like. Without detailing everything said about the use of like in complex and simple sentences, alongside the study author’s generalizing claim (Žukauskaitė 1961: 277) that constructions with like can function in a sentence as predicates, modifiers (most often appositives), and adverbials of cause and manner, it is worth reporting several more of her ideas:

(i) The syntactic relation of constructions with like depends on their position in the sentence.

¹ This discussion does not attempt to determine what like is, grammatically speaking, in the constructions under consideration. It may be noted, however, that in major works on Lithuanian grammar like is regarded as a connective (Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 556; Ambrazas, ed., 2006: 492) or an explanatory word (Labutis 1998: 329), a conjunction (Balkevičius 1963: 123, 182; Žukauskaitė 1961; Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 653ff.), a particle (Balkevičius 1963: 217; Labutis 1998: 307), or—somewhat hesitantly—a preposition (Holvoet, Tamulionienė 2005: 135f.).

² Terminas predikatyvas vartojamas, remiantis Holvoetu, Tamulioniene (2005): predikatyvas – tai predikatiškai vartojamas, sintaksiškai nuo veiksmažodžio priklausomas vardažodis; vardažodžio sintaksinė priklausomybė gali būti reiškiama dviem būdais: modifikavimu arba valdymu. Plačiau apie sintaksinių – modifikavimo ir valdymo – ryšių sampratą, kuria remiamasi straipsnyje, žr.: Holvoet, Judžentis (2003: 11–35; 2005: 11–38). Ten pat plg., kaip tradiciškai suprantami sintaksinių ryšių tipai.

³ Available online at: http://donelaitis.vdu.lt.

74

Daiktavardinės kaip konstrukcijos

in the text: “when it stands next to a noun, a comparative construction is closer to an attribute or apposition⁴; with verbs or other parts of speech, even if they agree with the word being modified, the relation of comparative constructions⁵ is understood as a causal (emphasis added by L. V.-S.) relation” (Žukauskaitė 1961: 251ff.; somewhat differently when discussing manner adverbials: cf. ibid.: 253, 257⁶).⁷ Cf.:

(1) We, BUILT BY YOU AS STEWARDS and LORDS, have decided to rebuke you and instruct you in a fatherly manner. (Quoted from Žukauskaitė 1961: 270.)

(2) Agutė brought Arvydas water to wash with, handed him a white towel, and seated him at the table AS A GUEST.⁸ (Quoted from Žukauskaitė 1961: 269.)

⁴ Pvz., Balkevičius (1963: 175; plg. Labutis 1998: 328tt; Ambrazas, red., 2006: 556t) priedelį apibrėžia kaip pažyminį, kuris parodo, kas yra jo pažymimasis daiktas arba reiškinys. Tuo priedėlis ir skiriasi nuo visų kitų pažyminių, kurie, kaip žinoma, aiškina pažymimąjį žodį, atsakydami į klausimus koks, kuris, kelintas, kieno, kiek... Tuo tarpu, anot Sirtauto (1981: 67), „priedėlis turi dvigubą gramatinį ryšį: susijęs su veiksniu ir jį apibūdina, determinuoja (be to, su juo suderintas), susijęs ir su tariniu“ (išskirta L. V.-S.)

⁵ Attention should be drawn to Žukauskaitė’s term comparative construction, which is also used for cases in which the entities are not compared with one another.

⁶ Pavyzdžiui, Žukauskaitė (1961: 252tt) aptardama kaip konstrukcijas, sakinyje einančias būdo aplinkybe (t. y. susijusias su tariniu), teigia, kad tokio tipo sakinyje, kaip (i) Skrynias kaip nulietas mažiau pardavinėjo (t. p.: 256), konstrukcija su kaip eina pažyminiu, o kitame puslapyje teikiamame pavyzdyje Petronelė, kaip matušės nuplakta, pasikūkčiodama verkė (t. p.: 257) greta derinamą įtakojančio daiktavardžio vartojama išskirtinė (') kaip konstrukcija autorės interpretuojama kaip būdo aplinkybė (plg. Petronelė pasikūkčiodama verkė, nes buvo matušės nuplakta; dar plg. toliau). Kita vertus, tuoj po pastarojo sakinio teikiamame Mirgėjo, kaip aukso deimantais apibertas, snieguotas žemės paviršius konstrukcija su kaip suprantama kaip pažyminys.

⁷ For example, in German, based on the position of as constructions in the sentence, temporal predicatives are distinguished from causal and conditional ones; cf.: Als Sekretärin des Rektors kannte unsere Nachbarin alle Dekane persönlich / Unsere Nachbarin als Sekretärin des Rektors kannte alle Dekane persönlich. Unlike, for example, causal as constructions, which can occur both before and after the element they modify, temporal constructions with as generally occur only at the beginning of the sentence (for more detail, cf. Anders, Hentschel 2006: 234).

⁸ According to the sentence-position criterion proposed by Žukauskaitė, the as construction used in the latter sentence should be understood as a causal adverbial,

75

LORETA VAičULYTĖ-SEMENIENĖ

(3) The sister-in-law’s daughter gave Veronė a ride home, as a grandmother would... (quoted from Žukauskaitė 1961: 251.)

(4) They should be informed of Povilas’s death, as relatives... (Quoted from Žukauskaitė 1961: 251.)

(5) He did not even dare to ask, as a guest... (Quoted from Žukauskaitė 1961: 251.)

(6) Everyone will respect me as a grandfather. (Quoted from Žukauskaitė 1961: 251.)

(7) That is why Blusius always walked around as if he were a stranger. (Quoted from Žukauskaitė 1961: 256.)

(8) The nasturtiums blossomed like flames. (Quoted from Žukauskaitė 1961: 252.)

(ii) Appositives with as, often no longer expressing any comparison, characterize an object or person in some respect or single out one of their features (cf. Žukauskaitė 1961: 269).

(iii) In addition to typical appositives and causal appositives (Žukauskaitė 1961: 270) (the latter characterize an entity or person in the main clause and are also closely linked syntactically to the predicate, substantiating the sentence’s content, e.g., As a hero they will understand you and mention you in hymns of freedom), or causal adverbials, intermediate (or transitional) as constructions are recognized (cf. Žukauskaitė 1961: 269).

(iv) “In general, appositives that are also linked to the predicate are not used without the conjunction as” (Žukauskaitė 1961: 271)⁹, e.g.:

(9) As an answer, a red flag suddenly appeared.... (Quoted from Žukauskaitė 1961: 271.)

(10) But what could I now take with me as a deposit, as I leave... (Quoted in Žukauskaitė 1961: 271.)

(11) During her illness, as a caring, good worker, she arranged the funeral garments

tačiau, kaip teigia pati autorė (Žukauskaitė 1961: 267), „šią konstrukciją, tik priežastiškai susietą su tariniu, reikia laikyti priedėliu“ (išskirta L. V.-S.) (dar plg. toliau).

⁹ It remains unclear how Žukauskaitė understands the appositive. If we were to assume that Žukauskaitė understood the appositive in the traditional way, i.e. as a nominal agreeing modifier distinguished at the phrase level, the author's claim that it can also be related to the predicate raises doubts. See also footnote 4.

76

Daiktavardines kaip konstrukcijos

drabužius ir pasiruošė tolimon kelionėn. (Cituojama pagal Žukauskaitė 1961: 271.)

(12) LIKE every WOMAN, she was very afraid of our mice. (Quoted in Žukauskaitė 1961: 271.)

What matters in what has been said in summary is that Žukauskaitė still does not distinguish the predicate modifiermarked by kaip¹⁰ constructions—in the traditional sense; rather, she interprets the construction either as an adverbial or as an appositive, i.e. one distinguished at either the nominal-phrase or sentence level (cf., e.g., sentences (2), (5), (7)–(12)).

1.2. In the syntax book Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos sintaksė (1963), published two years later, Jonas Balkevičius mentions constructions with kaip as one of the means of expressing (i) the nominal part of a compound (i.e. copular) predicate and (ii) a complex predicate (a nominal predicative, or, in traditional terms, a predicate modifier), e.g. (i) Petras himself imperceptibly wants to be LIKE that ancient LITHUANIAN; (ii) After all, soon, for the first time in my life, I will cross the school threshold AS A TEACHER), (manner) adverbials (e.g. Kedulis slipped into his hut LIKE A THIEF), and modifiers (appositives) (e.g. After all, I, AS AN ORPHAN, grew up in a gloomy orphanage) (Balkevičius 1963: 110, 123, 165, 182f., 218f.). Discussing manner adverbials expressed by kaip constructions, Balkevičius (1963: 219) states that “there are comparisons which, while describing the manner of the predicate, also indicate a property of the subject. E.g. [...] Behind us, a dark forest looms LIKE SOME WALL. [...] Such comparisons, if in meaning they are more closely related to the subject than to the predicate, can be considered subject modifiers; if, however, they are linked to the subject by predicative rather than attributive relations, they are nominal parts of compound predicates.” ¹¹ In addition, Balkevičius (1963: 124) draws attention to several further points:

(i) The nominal predicative of a complex predicate, expressed by a kaip construction, “sometimes describes such a state of the subject that is at the same time also that predicate’s

¹⁰ Plg. Ambrazas, red., (2006: 490): „tarininis pažyminys yra sakinio dalis, toje pačioje sakinio sklaidos pakopoje turinti dvilypius prijungiamuosius ryšius: su tariniu ir su veiksniu ar papildiniu“.

¹¹ Cf. “When the anchor word [i.e. the word to which the comparative phrase, or, in other words, the kaip construction, is directly attached] is a finite verb form, the comparative phrase attaches to it or together with it forms the nominal part of the predicate” (Ulvy das, ed., 1976: 657).

77

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMENIENĖ

the cause or purpose of an action or state expressed by a conjunction (emphasis added by L. V.-S.)” (Balkevičius 1963: 124), e.g.:

(13) He is known throughout the factory staff AS the foremost worker.

(Quoted in Balkevičius 1963: 124.)

(14) In this way, the trip to Vilnius was chosen AS the best MEANS of ending that dangerous acquaintance. (Quoted in Balkevičius 1963: 124.)

(15) This demonstration took place AS an EXPRESSION of protest against the closure of the “Agricultural Society.” (Quoted in Balkevičius 1963: 124.)

(ii) An appositive with kaip, unlike one without it, “not only shows what the modified noun is, but also indicates that the state of the modified noun is at the same time a certain circumstance, most often indicating a cause or respect (emphasis L. V.-S.)” (Balkevičius 1963: 182).

(iii) Instead of the instrumental of state, which expresses the non-permanent state of an object lasting for a certain period of time, a kaip construction is sometimes used (Balkevičius 1963: 109f, 123).

Thus, in Balkevičius’s view, marking with a kaip construction is related to differences in meaning (permanent vs. temporary state) or grammatical functions (attribute vs. predicative vs. adjunct). On the other hand, it is again acknowledged that functional distinctions—for example, between modifiers (attributes), adjuncts, and nominal predicatives expressed by kaip constructions—are not sharply drawn, i.e., transitional cases exist (cf. Balkevičius 1963: 123f, 219).

1.3. In the Contemporary Grammar of Lithuanian, apart from a few statements of fact that kaip constructions can express an appositive (Ambrazas, ed., 2006: 492)¹² or can replace a verb’s valency-bound (i.e., verb-required) argument (called a predicative modifier in Ambrazas, ed., 2006: 603), more is said about them in the chapter on expanded sentences, or, more specifically, in the discussion of the predicative modifier (Ambrazas, ed., 2006: 627) and comparative expressions of quality (Ambrazas, ed., 2006: 634f). It is stated that a kaip construction that does not express comparison can function as a predicative modifier, which “only denotes the state of the subject or object in relation to the action” (Ambrazas, ed., 2006: 627), e.g.:

¹² Taip pat ir Lietuvių kalbos sintaksėje (Labutis 1998: 329t) apsiribojama konstatavimu, kad priedėlis su pažymimuoju žodžiu gali būti jungiamas ir su kaip.

78

Daiktavardinės kaip konstrukcijos

(16) He arrived in the capital AS AN ENVOY. (cf.... as an envoy.) (Quoted from Ambrazas, ed., 2006: 627.)

(17) The whole neighborhood respected Motiejus AS a gifted MASTER. (Quoted from Ambrazas, ed., 2006: 627.)

Meanwhile, a comparative kaip construction can function in a sentence as an (manner) adverbial¹³ (cf. sentence (8)), as the nominal part of a nominal predicate (e.g., The villagers were LIKE one FAMILY), as a predicative attribute (cf. sentence (7)) (cf. Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 659), or as an attribute of some sentence constituent (e.g., She was accompanied by attendants—three brothers LIKE OAKS and their friends. A type of comparative construction with kaip is discussed separately, in which things are compared by indicating their identity in a certain respect, e.g.:

(18) Old Pikčiurnienė was famous throughout the neighborhood AS a good GRANDMOTHER. (Quoted from Ambrazas, ed., 2006: 634.)¹⁴

It can be seen that in the Grammar, constructions with kaip are discussed—roughly speaking—according to whether or not they express comparison (cf. the case of the predicative attribute).

1.4. As in the Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian, constructions with kaip were also examined in the academic Grammar of the Lithuanian Language (Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 659ff.). Without repeating what has already been said, here we would like to draw attention to a few further claims found in the latter grammar:

(i) Many comparative expressions indicating identity also state the cause of an action (or state), e.g., Auksė, for her part, avoided her AS a proud LADY; cf. sentence (18) (Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 661f.).

(ii) Comparative expressions that are directly associated with nouns in order to show that they are independent of the verb are often set off by punctuation marks in writing and usually occur immediately after the head word (Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 673).

¹³ Akademinėje Lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje (Ulvydas, red., 1976: 521tt), be būdo ir kt. aplinkybių, atskirai aptariamos ir lyginamosios aplinkybės, kuriomis eina lyginamieji posakiai. Labutis (1998: 307) taip pat skiria kokybės (būdo) aplinkybių specifinę atmainą – lyginamąsias aplinkybes.

¹⁴ Lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje (Ulvydas, red., 1976: 661) aptariant tokio tipo sakinius teigiama, kad kaip konstrukcija „nusako lyginamų daiktų tapatumą ir rodo veiksmo atžvilgį (išskirta L. V.-S.)“.

79

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMENIENĖ

(iii) “Constructions with kaip associated with nouns [...] can also denote the identity of the concepts under discussion in a certain respect, e.g.: Verutė, AS a more elegant CHAMBERMAID, was introduced to the guests to serve them. Such constructions are considered appositives” (Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 673). “When used with the connective word kaip, detached appositives not only characterize the object or person denoted by the word they modify, but also state the reason (emphasis added by L. V.-S.) (e.g., Vilius, AS a war HERO, immediately received building materials), or the respect in which (e.g., And the Queen has such strange thoughts, which perhaps do not suit her at all AS a MOTHER) he is characterized” (Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 556; cf. (i)).

1.5. In summary, it is clear that in the Lithuanian linguistic studies mentioned above, the use of kaip constructions is associated with the distinction between grammatical functions (attribute vs. predicative attribute vs. adverbial) and the meanings of cause, purpose, and respect that they convey.

2. SYNTACTIC ASPECTS OF NOMINAL KAIP CONSTRUCTIONS

2.1. Noun constructions with kaip can express grammatical functions both at the sentence level and at the level of the noun phrase. In terms of levels of predication, in a noun phrase—that is, in the case of an attribute (appositive) with kaip—predication is expressed at a lower clause level (English downgraded predication); in other words, such constructions with kaip do not constitute the main predication of the sentence. At the sentence level, kaip constructions can express main (primary) and secondary (additional) predication; correspondingly, primary and secondary noun predicates with kaip are used (English secondary predicate, German sekundäre Prädikate). The main predication of a sentence is expressed by obligatory copular predicates, marked by noun constructions with kaip; that is, in such sentences the copula functioning as the predicate governs (requires) an actant marked by a kaip construction.

Secondary—additional—predication in a sentence can be expressed by secondary obligatory and free¹⁵ noun predicates with kaip¹⁶ and kaip construc-

¹⁵ Apie laisvųjų vs. būtinųjų predikatyvų apibrėžtį plačiau žr. Holvoet (2003); Holvoet, Tamulionienė (2005).

¹⁶ Cf. the concept of the predicative attribute in The Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian (Ambrazas, ed., 2006: 603ff., 627), where no distinction is made between secondary obligatory vs. free predicates.

80

Daiktavardines kaip konstrukcijos

tions functioning as adverbials in the sentence.¹⁷ One of the essential differences between secondary (obligatory and free) predicates and adverbials is the possibility of a semantic connection between the former and one of the main predicate’s arguments, or, in other words, a conceptual connection with a referent: secondary predicates are linked by a copulative (Latin copula) relation to one of the main predicate’s arguments (German Partizipantenbezug, Referentenorientierung; English participant-oriented), whereas adverbials are linked only to the predicate itself (German Ereignisbezug, Vorgangsorientierung; English event-oriented) (for more on this, cf. Schultze-Berndt, Himmelmann 2004; Himmelmann, Schultze-Berndt 2005; Hentschel 2005).

At the sentence level, secondary—obligatory and free—predicates resemble obligatory (copular) predicates expressing the main predication: as noted, they are linked by a copulative relation to one of the main predicate’s arguments, which is, morphosyntactically, the agreement controller¹⁸. However, with respect to the main predicate, the latent copulative relation characteristic of obligatory and free secondary predicates differs.¹⁹ Free noun predicates are linked by a “genuine” copulative relation to one of the main predicate’s arguments; the secondary predication they express is optional (not obligatory) (cf. sentence (22) below: He returned to Paris AS A HERO ≈ He returned to Paris. And at the same time he was a hero (/as a hero)). By contrast, obligatory secondary predicates express obligatory predication; more specifically, obligatory secondary predicates more or less

¹⁷ For the view that secondary predicates include not only free adjuncts (English adjuncte) related to the predicate by a modification relation, but also complements governed by, i.e. required by, the predicate (English complementative), see, for example, Nichols (1978); Aarts (1995); Holvoet, Tamulionienė (2005). For differing views, see Fehrmann (1994: 91–93).

¹⁸ For a broader definition of agreement and the terms agreement controller (English agreement controller, agreement trigger), agreement target (English agreement target), see Corbett (1998: 1; 1999: 103; 2001: 2). Agreement here is understood in a broad sense, that is, not as copying the form of the agreement controller, but as selecting the form of the agreement target with reference to the agreement controller.

¹⁹ At the noun phrase level, too, there is a copulative relation between the attribute (predicate) and the word it modifies, e.g.: Jonas, (as) a caring son, always helps his parents; cf. Jonas always helps his parents. He is a caring son. Nevertheless, as already noted, attributive relations are distinguished at a lower level of sentence structure; they are not related to the temporal and modal meanings expressed by the main predication of the sentence.

81

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMENIENĖ

determined by the meaning of the main predicate; they express a latent copular predicative which, together with the main predicate, forms a complex predication (cf. Schroeder 2003: 29ff.; Hentschel 2006: 147; Holvoet, Tamulionienė 2005: 130) (cf. sentence (21) below In the case, I am recognized AS A VICTIM ≈ *In the case, I am recognized. And at the same time I am a victim (/as a victim).

Syntactically secondary obligatory predicatives also differ from free ones: the former, like copular predicatives, are arguments governed by the main predicate (a copula or a verb with an independent meaning)—complements (English complement; German Komplemente) (cf. sentences (19)–(21)), whereas the latter are modifiers of the main predicate—adjuncts (German Supplemente) (cf. sentences (22), (23)).²⁰

(19) Prof. A. Minkevicius worked continuously AS THE CHIEF EDITOR of the Biology Sciences series (C) of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences’ publications (cf.... as editor).²¹ KT.

(20) The crime was solved within a few days because the man whom the robbers had chosen AS AN INTERMEDIARY blundered (cf.... as an intermediary²²) when selling the stolen cargo. He offered it for sale to the very company to which the stolen cargo belonged. KT.

(21) Although I am recognized AS A VICTIM in the case (cf.... as a victim²³), I cannot blame A. Stašaitis at all. KT.

(22) [He] was promoted to senior officer. By 1796 he was already commanding the French army in Italy. There he won many important victories and returned to Paris AS A HERO (cf.... a hero,... as a hero). In 1798 he led the expedition to Egypt, but with rather little success. KT.

²⁰ Cf. footnote 2. For more on the terms governing word, dependents, modified word, modifier, see Holvoet, Judžentis (2003: 14).

²¹ Sližienė (1994: 183) valentingumo požiūriu, be subjekto vardininko, skiria įnagininku reiškiamą sintaksinį aktantą. Skirtingos nuomonės žr. Holvoet, Tamulionienė (2005: 135).

²² Valentingumo požiūriu Sližienė (1998: 303) rinkti „balsuojant paskirtį“, be subjekto vardininko ir tiesioginio objekto galininko, skiria įnagininku ir / arba prielinksnine konstrukcija su į reiškiamą sintaksinį aktantą.

²³ Sližienė (1998: 249) valentingumo požiūriu, be subjekto vardininko ir tiesioginio objekto galininko, skiria galininku ir / arba įnagininku reiškiamą sintaksinį aktantą.

82

Daiktavardinės kaip konstrukcijos

(23) This September is a special one for Pranas Baltrėnas, head of the Department of Environmental Protection. For the first time, the professor welcomes the start of the academic year as a KNIGHT of the Order of the Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas, KT.

Adverbials also have the status of modifiers in a sentence, that is, they are generally (though not always; cf. Pranukas feels great today (cf. like a corpse)) not arguments of the predicate.²⁴ However, as noted, unlike free predicatives, adverbials are related to the predicate of the sentence, that is, they specify the action expressed by the predicate. English grammars widely use the so-called do so (“do”) test, nominalization, and so on, to distinguish adverbials from free predicatives, for example, Jonas read the book quickly; cf.: Jonas read the book and did so quickly; the quick reading of the book (for more, cf. Hentschel 2006).

2.2. What has been stated descriptively could be summarized as shown in Diagram 1.

Diagram 1.Overview of KAIP constructions

²⁴ For a more detailed account of the distinction between adjuncts from a typological perspective, see, for example, Schultze-Berndt, Himmelmann (2004); Himmelmann, Schultze-Berndt (2005), Schroeder (2003).

83

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ

It is probably worth saying at the outset that, despite the binary classification, there are no strict boundaries between any of the distinguished members, either syntactically or functionally; in other words, alongside typical representatives of each distinguished group, there are transitional, ambiguous (Ger. ambig) or vague (Ger. vage) cases (cf., e.g., Geuder 2002; Hentschel 2006; Renz 2006; Holvoet 2006). The following discussion is essentially about sentence-level noun-with-kaip constructions.

3. NOUN KAIP CONSTRUCTIONS FROM A FUNCTIONAL PERSPECTIVE

3.1. When discussing as constructions from a functional perspective, first of all one would like, as far as possible, to set aside typical constructions with comparative meaning that can serve different grammatical functions, such as: The village was like one family ≠ the village was one family; He behaves like a child ≠ he is a child; The cows came back like slabs ≠ the cows were slabs, and so on. In other words, the discussion below does not concern constructions with as that describe the similarity of actions, things, or properties to other things or properties. On the other hand, grammars (Ambrazas, ed., 2006: 634; Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 661ff.) include examples of the type in (18) among comparative identity constructions; here they are understood, in traditional terms, as predicative attributes, or, in other words, as secondary predicates, which in principle do not express comparison and are at the same time related not only to the predicate of the sentence but also to one of its arguments; cf.: (= 18) Old Pikčiurmienė was famous throughout the area AS a good GRANDMOTHER²⁵ ≈ Old Pikčiurmienė was famous throughout the area [for being a good grandmother (lit. that she was a good grandmother) (cf. sentences (16)–(17); see also below).

From what has been said above, it is clear that, according to the Lithuanian linguistics works mentioned earlier (cf. 1.1–1.3), constructions with kaip may mark:

(i) In the case of an attribute (apposition)—causal and respect meanings.²⁶

²⁵ Šlįžienė (1994: 197) kaip konstrukciją laiko garsėti „kuo pasižymėti; būti, darytis garsiam tam tikroje aplinkoje, sferoje“ vienu iš valentinių (fakultatyviųjų) palydovų, kuris pagrečiui gali būti vartojamas su įnagininku, plg., Šalis garsėjo puošniu baroko STILIUMI; Kai kurie kompozitoriai garsėjo ir KAIP SMUIKININKAI.

²⁶ Pagal Flaate (1999: 10), funkciniu požiūriu kaip konstrukcijos, einančios greta savo derinimo daviklio ir kartu su juo užimančios vieną predikato argumento poziciją,

84

Daiktavardinės kaip konstrukcijos

(ii) In the case of a secondary (free) predicative—causal, purposive, or respect meanings.

Setting aside predicatives with comparative meaning introduced by kaip, it must be observed that, in principle, nothing is said about kaip constructions as obligatory predicatives. The Lithuanian grammar works mentioned do not, in essence, discuss non-comparative kaip constructions when addressing adverbials either. This gives rise to several questions:

(i) Are obligatory predicatives marked by non-comparative kaip constructions?

(ii) Are causal (as with an apposition) and purposive meanings the only ones characteristic of the free noun-with-kaip predicative? If not, what other meanings are there? Are only adverbial meanings characteristic of noun constructions with kaip functioning as free predicatives?

(iii) If adverbial meanings are characteristic of the free noun-with-kaip predicative, are the constructions under discussion also used as adverbials (cf. 1.1. (iii))?

3.2. Necessary noun as constructions

3.2.1. Perhaps there is least doubt about the status of as constructions as secondary obligatory predicates with such perception or cognition verbs as: understand, perceive, interpret, postulate, describe, etc., for example:

(24) Primitive man understood death AS the SEPARATION of the spirit, that is, exhaled air, from the body. (Quoted in Sližienė 2004: 198.)

(25) This man, from the poverty of his purely personal thought and the hardship of salvation, understands philosophizing AS A RISK, when the human spirit is called upon to make an existential decision. KT.

A little more uncertainty arises concerning the interpretation of constructions with as in such

sentences, or, in Flaate’s terminology, adjacent (noun) as predicates (German adjazente (substantivische) als-Prädikative), as restrictive. In other words, at the level of the noun phrase, as predicates are restrictive, or—traditionally—they have a qualifying meaning. Restrictive predicates limit (narrow) the predication expressed by a sentence and often, despite their status as modifiers, cannot be omitted from the sentence.

85

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ

in sentences of the type shown in (19)–(21). From the perspective of valency, Nijolė Sližienė (1994: 183; 2004: 298) distinguishes, for verbs of this type, such as work, serve, etc., in addition to the nominative, an instrumental-case valency-bound argument, that is, an argument required by the predicate. Axel Holvoet and Aurelija Tamulionienė (2005: 135f.; cf. Flaate 2007: 80; Hentschel 2006: 147f.), on the other hand, regard the instrumental case used in sentence (19) (and thus also the as construction) as a secondary free predicate, and compare it with constructions such as (16).²⁷ The author of this article (cf. also Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė, in press, a) tends to argue that verbs expressing the performance of a particular function (German Funktionsverben) (work, serve, figure²⁸, etc.) require a valency-bound argument expressed by a noun denoting an object’s (person’s) social position, occupation, work activity, a particular function performed by or envisaged or assigned to an object (person), and so on. Given the view that obligatory predicates are predicate dependents (i.e., they are required by the predicate and cannot be omitted, since the sentence becomes ungrammatical or the meaning of the predicate changes) (cf. Holvoet, Judžentis 2003; 2005; Flaate 2007: 81; 88), it should nevertheless be acknowledged that there is a sufficiently obvious difference in meaning between sentence (= 19) Prof. A. Minkevicius constantly worked as [...] editor (/ as an editor) and Prof. A. Minkevicius constantly worked.²⁹ This often instrumental-marked valency-bound argument can sometimes apparently be used alongside the as construction with no major difference in meaning (cf. sentence (26)), or—in a different meaning—be expressed solely by an as construction (cf. sentences

²⁷ Teigiama (Holvoet, Tamulionienė 2005: 135), kad „nepaisant leksinių ribojimų nematyti pagrindo, dėl ko tokius įnagininkus turėtume pripažinti veiksmažodžių valdomais būtinaisiais predikatyvais: nors su kai kuriais veiksmažodžiais šis įnagininkas yra reguliariai vartojamas, jis nėra jų reikalaujamas“. Plg. Balkevičius (1998: 81): „Vardininkas su jungtuku kaip gali atstoti predikatinį įnagininką, kai šis žymi veiksmo metu trunkantį būvį arba kaip ankstesnio virsmo rezultatą, pvz., Vaškelis ir Jakaitis [...] dirbo kaip laisvai samdomi darbininkai; [...] būdvardis [žodžių junginyje] funkcionuoja kaip pažyminys“.

²⁸ Cf. figūruoti ‘to be, participate somewhere; to be the object of attention or consideration’, e.g., figūruoti teisme liudininku (Keinys, ed., 2000: 156).

²⁹ Plg. Sližienės (1994: 182) skiriamą atskirą dirbti reikšmę „ką nors daryti, veikti“, pvz., Jis dieną naktį dirba. Dar plg. Kaip vyriausiasis Lietuvos mokslų akademijos darbų biologijos mokslų serijos (C) redaktorius prof. A. Minkevicius dirbo nuolat, kur konstrukcija su kaip gali būti suprantama kaip aplinkybinis (priežasties) predikatyvas.

86

Daiktavardines kaip konstrukcijos

(27)–(28). On the other hand, it should be acknowledged that nominal kaip constructions may be avoided because of their ambiguity (see also below).

(26) Science is like an industry, in which specialists of every kind serve AS SUPPLIERS of specialized production (cf. … as suppliers of specialized production). KT.

(27) There was no sewage system there, so every morning the people of Dovydai poured the contents of a barrel out in front of the door; the barrel served everyone AS A TOILET (*as a toilet, but: instead of a toilet). KT.

(28) Freedom is directed toward values which, far from being an exclusive human creation, serve humanity AS A GUIDE, A NORM, and A SANCTION. KT.

3.2.2. Setting aside typical comparative-meaning such as constructions functioning as copular predicatives (cf. sentence (29)), it can be argued that the remaining such constructions are not characteristic of expressing primary predication (cf. sentence (30)) (somewhat differently, Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė, in press, a). In other words, constructions with such as are characteristic of expressing secondary predicatives.

(29) They say to Saulius: “Get yourself together once and for all, calm down, be LIKE A HUMAN BEING!” KT.

(30) You say that if [you] are not a HUMAN BEING (cf. … human being), then you do not want to be a WORM (cf. … worm). Very nice, but what, in your opinion, is a human being if you are not one? To be a HUMAN BEING (cf. … human being), do you really have to have a label stuck on your forehead, that is, be a COBBLER, ENGINEER, PRIEST, or MUSICIAN (*cobbler, engineer, priest, musician)? KT.

But then the question may arise as to how such as constructions are to be interpreted in sentences of the type shown in (31)–(34).

(31) We established one more institution, and, of course, a hasty vote was held here because of this institution. I think that institution could be A DEPARTMENT of the ministry. Well, say, raised to the level of a directorate, but let’s leave it at that for now. Nevertheless, we are making one mistake. KT.

(32) Here [in the New Testament] he [Christ] is THE FULFILMENT of all that the revelation of the Old Testament had begun, prepared, and promised over the course of a thousand years. KT.

(33) A. BASKAS. On behalf of the Social Democratic faction, I speak against the urgent procedure. (Murmurs in the chamber) CHAIRMAN. Your committee can serve AS AN ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE. Two committees—the Budget

87

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMENIENĖ

and the Finance and Economics Committee. The Seimas probably has no objection to there being two committees. KT. (34) Probably the Foreign Affairs Committee? (Voices in the hall) Not the Foreign Affairs Committee, but the State and Law Committee—as an ADDITIONAL ONE. Good. Thank you. Agreed. KT.

If, say, in sentences (31)–(32) the as construction could also be interpreted as comparative, that is hardly possible in sentences (33)–(34). It seems that the as constructions used in sentences of the type under discussion could be regarded as secondary predicates. In that case, of course, the verb be should be understood not as a copula, but as a verb with an independent meaning, while as is interpreted as a particle with the meaning “just, only” or “also, moreover”.

3.3. Optional (non-obligatory) noun + as constructions

3.3.1. Free predicates with as

In recent typological literature, modifiers related to one of the main predicate’s arguments—secondary free predicates (traditionally, predicative attributes)—are distinguished as resultatives vs. non-resultatives (or depictives in the broad sense), or as depictives (in the narrow sense), circumstantials (English circumstantial) (hereafter adverbial predicates), and resultatives (for more on this, cf. Hentschel 2005, 2006; Holvoet, in press; Irimia 2005: 23ff.; Schultze-Berndt, Himmelmann 2004: 3; Himmelmann, Schultze-Berndt 2005: 4, Hinterhölz 2001: 100; Nichols 1981). Here the narrow conception of depictives is adopted, i.e. depictives are contrasted with adverbial predicates and resultatives. Without going into too much detail, several principal differences among free predicates may be noted.

3.3.1.1. In typical free predicates—depictives—the event being predicated (the state of the subject or object) in principle coincides in time with the action denoted by the main predicate (English temporal overlap, German zeitliche Überlappung / Koextension). For example, in sentence (= 23) The professor welcomes the beginning of the academic year for the first time AS A KNIGHT OF THE ORDER OF GEDIMINAS OF THE GRAND DUCHY OF LITHUANIA, the depictive expresses the state of an entity (person) (the professor is a knight of the Order of Gediminas of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania

88

Daiktavardinės kaip konstrukcijos

of the Order of Gediminas of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) is bounded by (holds during) the time interval of the main predicate (the professor welcomes the beginning of the academic year); cf. When the professor welcomes the beginning of the academic year, he is at the same time a knight of the Order of Gediminas of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The sentence says nothing about whether the professor is a knight of the Order of Gediminas of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania before and/or after welcoming the beginning of the academic year. The depictive specifies (makes more precise) information about one of the main predicate’s arguments (referents) at the time of the latter’s action (the professor does not simply welcome the beginning of the academic year; in welcoming it, he is also, for the first time, a knight of the Order of Gediminas of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania). The depictive falls within the scope of the modality and negation of the action described by the main predicate (English scope of negation), e.g. The professor does not welcome the beginning of the academic year for the first time as rector (i.e. the professor welcoming the beginning of the academic year for the first time is no longer doing so as rector) (cf. also sentences (9), (22)–(23)). With respect to time, modality, and negation, depictives belong to the main predicate and are part of the verb phrase (German VP-internal).

3.3.1.2. Resultatives are also part of the verb phrase, but, unlike depictives, the event (state) they predicate is the outcome (or result) of the action described by the main predicate. In other words, temporally, the state of an entity expressed by resultatives does not coincide with the interval of the action denoted by the main predicate; the state expressed by a resultative characterizes the entity after the action described by the main predicate has ended, e.g. The yard is crowded with carts (quoted from Valeckienė 1967: 105) (for more, see Himmelmann, Schultze-Berndt 2005 and the literature cited therein; cf. also Hentschel 2005; Holvoet, in press). Given that resultatives are not typically marked by noun constructions with as, they will not be discussed further.

3.3.1.3. Drawing on the circumstantials distinguished by Johanna Nichols (1981: 18ff.) (as well as in the work of other authors), Gerd Hentschel (2006) developed and refined the types of adverbial predicates (circumstantials), their classification³⁰

³⁰ Johanna Nichols (1981: 18t), aptardama rusų kalbos laisvuosius antrinius predikatyvus (angl. free predicate nominals), juos skiria – grubiai tariant – į aplinkybinius ir neaplinkybinius (angl. circumstantial vs. non-circumstantial), kurių pirmieji apibrėžiami kaip „an actant not governed by the verb. Also adverbial, in relational grammar oblique or non-term“ (Nichols 1981: 367) ir semantiškai toliau skirstomi į laiko, nuolaidos ir sąlygos; tuo tarpu antrieji (Nichols 1981: 19) – artimai susiję su būdo aplinkybėmis – žymi kiekį, kokybę, formą ir pan.

89

Loreta Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė

criteria and interrelations. Circumstantial predicatives, like depictives, are not resultatives, but, unlike depictives, do not fall within the scope of the negation of the action expressed by the main predicate (i.e., the main predicate is negated, but not the predicative itself) (cf. Nichols 1981: 42); they are part of the sentence, rather than the verb phrase (German VP-externe). ³¹ In addition to temporal overlap with the main predicate (cf. 3.3.1.1), circumstantial predicatives also express, according to Nichols (1981: 11, 18, 349), (i) time, (ii) concession, (iii) condition, or (iv) cause (cf.: (i) Russian Rebionkom on žyl v Moskve; On provorovalsja kak kladovščik; (ii) Russian On i spjaščij ne mog zabyt’ ob ėtom; (iii) Russian Sladkij ėtot čaj vkusnyj; (iv) Kak predstavitel’ svoej sredy on pilal ljubov’ k francuzskoj kul’ture) (see also Flaate 2007: 90; Hentschel 2006; Renz 2006: 46ff.).³²

3.3.1.4. As already mentioned, in Lithuanian linguistics it is customary to speak of free causal predicatives (cf. sentences (2), (5), (13)–(14)). They are also frequent in the Kaunas Corpus. However, little has been said in Lithuanian linguistics about other circumstantial predicatives. It is true that the purpose meaning mentioned by Balkevičius is probably associated with sentences of the type exemplified by (15) or (35). Causal and purpose meanings could also be discussed in sentence (36): Besides being Ruželė’s friend, Ildefonso was also borrowed because he was a scientific consultant and/or... he was borrowed for scientific consultations.

(35) A minor is needed by Buožė as cheap labour. (Quoted from Balkevičius 1963: 124.)

(36) And since Professor Ruželė is an old friend of Ildefonso’s from academia

³¹ Plg. Holvoet, Pajediene (2005: 97tt, 115), kur predikato ir sakinio aplinkybės (modifikatoriai) tarpusavyje skiriamos pagal tai, ar jos (ne)gali modifikuoti kalbos vienetus, neturinčius savarankiško sakinio požymių. Predikato aplinkybės „gali modifikuoti kalbos vienetus, kurie neturi savarankiško sakinio požymių (pvz., predikato aplinkybę meniškai gali modifikuoti laiko ir nuosakos požymių neturinčią struktūrą deklamuoti Maironio eilėraščius), o sakinio aplinkybės gali modifikuoti tik tokius kalbos vienetus, kurie turi savarankiško sakinio požymius (pvz., galbūt gali modifikuoti deklamavo Maironio eilėraščius, bet ne deklamuoti Maironio eilėraščius“ (Holvoet, Pajėdiene 2005: 115).

³² Plg. aplinkybinių predikatyvų raišką vokiečių ir lenkų kalboje in: Hentschel (2006). Pvz.: (i) Als Kind trug Peter eine Brille; (ii) Sogar als Ärztin konnte Magda nicht helfen; (iii) Als Aperitif verdirbt mir Magenbitter den Appetit; (iv) Als Schwerverletzter liegt Paul auf der Intensivstation. Apie tokio tipo konstrukcijų kaip priedėlių (vok. Apposition) sampratą plg. Schroeder (2003); Beckmann (1997: 164tt); Lawrens (1993).

90

Daiktavardinės kaip konstrukcijos

he was immediately borrowed from “Greitoji” AS a scientific CONSULTANT (temporarily creating such a position). KT.

The question arises whether Lithuanian also uses free kaip predicatives to mark other circumstantial meanings discussed in the typological literature. There is little doubt about circumstantial predicatives of concession: when a positive sentence containing a free causal or purpose predicative is negated, it is usually interpreted as concessive; cf. sentence (14) In this way, the trip to Vilnius was NOT chosen AS the best MEANS (≈ although it was the best means) of ending that dangerous acquaintance. By contrast, the negative sentence (36): Although Professor Ruzelė is an old friend of Ildefonso’s from academia, he was nevertheless not borrowed from “Greitoji” AS a scientific CONSULTANT supports a more salient purpose interpretation of the kaip predicative (unlike in sentence (35)). The Kaunas Corpus also contains a few secondary kaip predicatives that could also be interpreted as conditional; cf.:

(37) Romualdas Ozolas, Centre Union: “Investment should come to Lithuania AS to a decent COUNTRY.” KT.

(37a) If Lithuania were (is) a decent country, investment should come here too.

(37b) Since Lithuania is a decent country, investment should come here.

However, a conditional predicative is easy to imagine in a sentence such as: It is good to be free of any Military Service laws. AS A SOLDIER, I would be unable either to strike or to speak out publicly.

The fact that a temporal predicative can be expressed with kaip constructions is shown by the idiom kaip gyvas, cf. sentence (38). However, it must be acknowledged that noun kaip predicatives with a temporal meaning are rare in Lithuanian; cf. sentences (39)–(40). To express time, speakers typically choose a semi-participial būti construction or a subordinate clause (cf. as a child / when I was a child, I played a lot of sports), and less often a temporal predicative marked by a case agreeing with the noun (cf. You did not know me as a child).

(38) Anupras’s complete resurrection from the dead was crowned by Julytė’s wedding. The public of Šilai village, from the tearful to the moss-covered old men, had never seen such a celebration AS ALIVE. KT.

(39) Life dictates that. But I would not want to be a person who

91

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ

came to judge others. We will work together and see who is capable of what. – You remember him AS THE HEAD of the Privatization Department. Now the second stage of privatization is under way. How, in your opinion, should it develop, and how should it end? KT.³³

(40) The Pole did not betray him and went on with the soldiers to inspect the other carriages. Rafa reached Berlin safely, joined the American troops, and later, AS a mercenary SOLDIER, led the fight against communism in Africa, devoting much of his life to avenging the occupation of Poland. KT.

3.3.1.5. Thus, from what has been said, it is clear that noun-kaip constructions can mark depictives and circumstantial (temporal, concessive, conditional, purposive, causal) predicatives.

3.3.2. Kaip constructions as adjuncts

Simon Dik, in Functional Grammar (1989; 1997), distinguishes four levels of modifiers (or, in Dik’s terminology, satellites (English satellites)) associated with the predicate (i.e. adjuncts). These modifiers, which do not enter into the nuclear (English nuclear) predication of the sentence, form the core (English core) or extended (English extended) predication (i.e. they do not belong to the predicate and its arguments). Here, the discussion is limited to Dik’s first- and second-level modifiers.³⁴ First-level modifiers are prototypical

³³ Schultze-Berndt, Himmelmann (2004: 42) tokio tipo pavyzdžius, kaip On pomnit menja gusarom, interpretuoja kaip depiktyvus. Autoriai (2004: 22) skiria 6 depiktyvų skyrimo kriterijus, kurių pirmasis apibrėžiamas 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 (išskirta L. V.-S.)“ 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 circumstantials, other semantic links are evoked in addition to the basic pure temporal overlap. Following Nichols, these „other semantic links“ could be classified as condition, concession and temporal“ (Himmelmann, Schultze-Berndt 2005: 17).

³⁴ Trečiojo lygmens modifikatoriai yra propoziciniai arba, pagal Diką (1989: 252t; 1997: 297t) attitudinal satellites, kuriais reiškiamas kalbėtojo dalykų padėties vertinimas. Kitaip sakant, tai yra modalinės sakinio aplinkybės (plg. Hentschel 2005), pvz., LAIMEI, aš tave sutikau. Ketvirtojo lygmens modifikatoriai yra ilokuciniai (angl.

92

Daiktavardinės kaip konstrukcijos

(manner, instrument, quality, etc.) modifiers associated with the predicate itself (German VP-interne Adjunkte), which modify or specify the event expressed by the main predicate or, in Dik’s (1989: 192ff.; 1997: 225ff.) terms, the state of affairs (English nuclear predication) of the nuclear predication (English states of affairs (SoA), e.g., Onutė dances LIKE A FEATHER. Such modifiers fall within the scope of predicate negation (cf. 3.3.1.1.). Second-level modifiers are distinguished at sentence level (German VP-externe Adjunkte); they express a state of affairs with respect to location, time, result, purpose, cause, etc. (Dik 1989: 206ff.; 1997: 243ff.), e.g., Jonas MET ONUTĖ YESTERDAY EVENING IN THE CATHEDRAL SQUARE.³⁵ Such sentence-level adjuncts, like circumstantial predicatives (cf. 3.3.1.3.), lie outside the scope of predicate negation.

Although comparative-meaning such as constructions are left aside in the article, it must nevertheless be acknowledged that there is no strict boundary between the manner adverbials usually marked in a sentence by such constructions, i.e. first-level predicate modifiers, and free predicatives; cf. sentences (41)–(46). For instance, if in sentences (41)–(42) the such as construction could be paraphrased as: we were received as one receives honored guests or he kept the little letter as one would keep the most precious gift, then it seems that, at the very least, in sentence (42) it can also be interpreted as a causal predicative: he kept the little letter because it was the most precious gift. Sentence (43) is also ambiguous: the noun as construction may be understood as a comparative (manner) adverbial meaning “perfectly,” cf. we remember as we would remember a good lesson, or it may

illocutionary satellites) (Dik 1989: 258t; 1997: 304tt) arba šnekos akto (plg. Hentschel 2006; Holvoet, Pajėdienė 2005: 95); jais modifikuojama ar specifikuojama šnekos akto ilokucinė vertė, t. y. reiškiamas kalbėtojo komentaras šnekos akto atžvilgiu, pvz., ATVIRAI KALBANT, Jis yra nemandagus.

For a discussion of the proposed classification of adjuncts (modifiers) in Lithuanian, cf. Holvoet, Pajėdienė (2005); the same source also reviews the views presented in other works on Lithuanian grammar. See also footnote 32.

³⁵ Literatūroje (plg. Zifonun etc. 1997: 1122tt; Renz 2006: 11t) siūloma testų atskirų lygmenų modifikatoriams skirti. Pvz., pirmo ir antro lygmens modifikatoriams tarpusavyje skirti naudojamasi taip vadinamu vok. Es ist der Fall, daß…, angl. It is the case that…, lenk. To było… testu. Pvz., vok. Sie legten sich früh schlafen; plg. Es war früh der Fall, daß sie sich schlafen legten; lenk. Wcześnie położyli się spać; plg. Położyli się spać. To było wcześniej. Bet: Twarz powoli nabierała barwy stroju; plg. *To było powoli, że twarz nabierała barwy stroju.

93

Loreta Vaičiulytė-Semenienė

be associated with this (i.e., the obtaining of “birch porridge”) as a proposition, namely as a comment on an event; cf. this—the obtaining of “birch porridge,” or the beating—was a good lesson. In other words, in the latter case the as construction agrees with propositional this, while functionally it is a free (causal) predicative. Meanwhile, despite agreeing with the agreement trigger, the noun as construction is an adjunct in sentences (44)–(45), which concern the way plants are used. Sentence (46) is noteworthy: given the punctuation, the as construction might at first glance be interpreted as a purposive manner adjunct:...you sincerely (sincerely HOW?), AS A SCIENTIST, driven (i.e. led—L. V.-S.) by an experimenter’s curiosity, you will turn me into your medium. In making this claim, one would at the same time imply that sincerely (and consequently the construction with as as well) is associated with the predicate, i.e. is a manner adjunct. This is also indicated by the morphological expression typical of adjuncts—the use of an adverb. Functionally, however, sincerely is associated with the subject rather than the predicate (cf. you are sincere; cf.?sincere turning; but: he nervously bit his nails, cf. nervous nail-biting). In other words, what is asserted in this case is the person’s state during the action, not the manner in which the action is performed. This is also supported by the you-agreeing construction with as³⁶. In short, in the case at hand the as construction is more likely a free predicative. Sentences of this type allow us to speak of transitional cases not only between free predicatives and adjuncts, but also of the possible association of adverbs both with the predicate and with one of its arguments (following Geuder 2002, oriented adverb³⁷, or, in this particular case, transparent (psychological) adverbs; cf. Renz 2006).

(41) The last company we visited was “Kėdainių grūdai.” Here we were welcomed AS HONORED GUESTS—with an orchestra and songs. KT.

³⁶ Cf. the same sentence with different punctuation: That time I believed that your concern for my passion would not be rhetorical, that you, sincerely AS A SCIENTIST, driven by an experimenter’s curiosity, would turn me into your medium, where the as-construction could also be understood as a causal predicative.

³⁷ Plg. Geuder (2002: 10t; dar plg. t. p.: 209): „In view of the fact that the relation between e- and x-predicates is so systematic, it is conceivable that certain adverbs might share individual-related meaning components of their x-predicating cognates – maybe because they are derived from them. It is adverbs with this property that I call oriented 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 little letter of a few sentences and said he had kept it AS his most precious GIFT. And his friend is right. I have received countless similar gifts. KT.

(43) Let’s look for people who have received “birch porridge.” Are you very angry with your parents after getting “birch porridge” from them? — While our bottoms are still smarting. Later we remember it AS a good LESSON. KT.

(44) Boil the washed bluebell rhizomes (150 g) in salted water, cut them into 2–3 cm pieces, fry them in fat, and serve AS A GARNISH with fried or boiled meat. KT.

(45) Burdock roots can be eaten raw AS A SALAD (they differ little from salsify). Young leaves are also used AS A VEGETABLE. Salads can be made from them, or they can be added to soups. When preparing salads, burdock leaves should be kept in hot water for 1–2 minutes and then drained... KT.

(46) That time I believed that your concern for my passion would not be rhetorical, that you, sincerely, AS A SCIENTIST, driven by an experimenter’s curiosity, would turn me, as you promised, into your medium, for my own good, and help me emerge from ignorance. KT.

Some constructions of this kind with as could partly be classified as modifiers of a second-level predicate—adjuncts—as in sentences (47)–(48), where one of the meanings would be purpose: the purpose of use or cultivation.³⁸ Besides the purposive meaning, in sentence (48) the as construction can probably also be understood as a causal predicative; cf. Lovage is cultivated in Lithuania because it is a spice plant (cf. sentence (42)). Cases such as (48) remain functionally unclear. It must be acknowledged that adjuncts expressed by as constructions are rare: in most cases, because of agreement, as constructions can also be interpreted as being associated with one of the predicate’s arguments.

(47) Writing about the Germans, he says that “they collect mud, that is, peat, by hand, dry it, making greater use of winds than

³⁸ Cf. cases in which the as construction is used as a valency-bearing argument of a purpose predicate, i.e. as an obligatory predicative, e.g. Suitable [herbs] for preventive teas, AS A SPICE, for imitating the scents of herbs indoors, scenting the air, herbal pillows, in a bathhouse, sauna, aromatic baths, and landscaped gardens (KT). Sližienė (2004: 328), in sentences of this type with tikt ‘be good, useful for some purpose’, distinguishes an argument expressing purpose by means of the dative and/or an infinitive.

95

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ

sun, and the dried plant is used AS A FUEL for cooking food and warming a body chilled by the north wind.” KT.

(48) The fruits are flat, yellowish-brown. The whole plant has a strong fragrance and is ornamental. Lovage originated in Asia. In Lithuania it is widely cultivated AS A SPICE PLANT. The raw materials are the leaves, rhizomes, and roots. All parts of the plant contain essential oil, tannins, and organic acids. KT.

4. CONCLUDING REMARKS

To summarize what has been said, it becomes clear that non-comparative noun as constructions can express secondary—obligatory and optional depictive—and circumstantial predicates and adjuncts. Constructions with as are more characteristically used to mark secondary predicates analytically. In saying this, one seems to imply the idea that the same morphosyntactic marking is characteristic of expressing different grammatical functions and/or meanings. On the one hand, yes; on the other, from a morphosyntactic perspective one can speak of an expression that is more or less typical (characteristic) of individual secondary predicates and adjuncts, and that at the same time differs among them. Taking into account Hentschel’s distinction between two hierarchies—the hierarchy of predicates PRIMARY (i.e. copular) (NOMINAL) PREDICATE < SECONDARY PREDICATE (< DEPICTIVE < COMPLEMENT) (Hentschel 2005), according to which the farther to the right a predicate is placed in the hierarchy, the more frequently the noun appears in the instrumental case—and a preliminary hierarchy of the syntactic and semantic integration (German syntakto-semantische Einbindung) of secondary predicates into the main predication (Hentschel 2006: 172): COMPLEMENT < DEPICTIVE < CIRCUMSTANTIAL TEMPORAL PREDICATE < CIRCUMSTANTIAL CONDITIONAL PREDICATE < CIRCUMSTANTIAL CAUSAL PREDICATE (according to which the farther to the right a predicate is placed in the hierarchy, the less integrated it is into the main predication)—and on the basis of Lithuanian data and analysis (see also Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė, in press, a, b; Holvoet, in press), one could argue that the less a secondary predicate is integrated into the main predication, the more characteristically it is marked analytically—in the case under discussion, by a noun as construction. More specifically, with respect to the hierarchy COMPLEMENT < DEPICTIVE < CIRCUMSTANTIAL PREDICATE, temporal predicates are intermediate between typical verb-phrase-internal (VP-interne) and clause-level (VP-externe) predicates: in terms of their morphosyntactic marking (a single agreeing case or an as construction; cf. sentences (38)–

96

Daiktavardines kaip konstrukcijos

(40)) they are related both to depictives and to other circumstantial predicates (of condition, cause, etc.), marked only by as constructions. On the other hand, depictives distinguished within the hierarchy can be marked similarly to both complements and those same circumstantial (temporal) predicates or adjuncts. In saying this, what is primarily meant is marking by the instrumental case. While the instrumental is characteristic of expressing nominal complements, in the case of depictives it is more characteristic the less typical the depictive is semantically (for more detail, see Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė, in press, b, and the literature cited there). On the other hand, nominal depictives marked by the instrumental (especially less typical ones, e.g. those of quantity, manner, etc.) overlap with adjuncts usually marked by the instrumental because their meanings are shared with (quantity, manner, etc.) adjuncts. The same can be said of the possible overlap between depictives and adjuncts expressed by as constructions. Thus, if one accepts the view that there are no strict boundaries between secondary predicates and adjuncts, either functionally or morphosyntactically, one could argue that the more a secondary predicate is integrated into the main predication, the more characteristically it is marked by a single “pure” case, without ruling out a separate case (agreeing and/or instrumental) and/or analytical marking as morphosyntactic variants³⁹ or cases of contrastive use.

ŠALTINIAI

KT = Kauno Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto kompiuterinės lingvistikos centro dabartinės lietuvių kalbos tekstynas: http://donelaitis.vdu.lt.

LITERATŪRA

Aarts, B. 1995: Secondary predicates in English. In: Aarts & Meyer, eds., 1995, 75–101.

³⁹ Morfosintaksiniai variantai suprantami, pagal Hentschel (1992; 2001): morfosintaksiniai variantai – tai vienoje fiksuotoje struktūrinėje pozicijoje, kuri susijusi su ta pačia situacijos perspektyva, vartojamos dvi (mažiausiai) to paties semantinio argumento skirtingos morfosintaksinės formos, galinčios viena kitą pakeisti be reikšmės skirtumų. Tada vieno iš linksnių pasirinkimas priklauso nuo stilistinių, pragmatinių ir pan. niuansų.

97

Loreta Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė

Aarts, B. & Ch. F. Meyer, eds., 1995: The Verb in Contemporary English. Theory and description, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ambrazas, V., red., 2006: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Anders, S. & G. Hentschel 2006: Zur Syntax und Semantik polnischer Phrasen mit jako und substantivischer Ergänzung im Vergleich zu deutschen als. In: I. Bobrowski & K. Kowalik, red., Od fonemu do tekstu. Prace dedykowane Profesorowi Romanowi Laskowskiemu. Kraków: Lexis, 223–228.

Balkevičius, J. 1963: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos sintaksė. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

Balkevičius, J. 1998: Lietuvių kalbos predikatinių konstrukcijų sintaksė. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Beckmann, F. 1997: Untersuchungen zur Grammatik der Adjunkte. Berlin etc.: Walter de Gruyter. (Studia Linguistica Germanica, 44.)

Boeder, W. & G. Hentschel, Hrsg., 2001: Variierende Markierung von Nominalgruppen in Sprachen unterschiedlichen Typs. Oldenburg: IBIS. (Studia Slavica Oldenburgensia, 4.)

Corbett, G. G. 1998: Agreement in Slavic. www.indiana.edu/~slavconf/linguistics/~corb.pdf

Corbett, G. G. 1999: Introduction. In: Agreement [Special issue of] Folia Linguistica 33 (2), 103–107.

Corbett, G. G. 2001: Agreement: terms and boundaries. www.surrey.ac.uk/LIS/ SMG/-projects/agreement/Papers/texas.pdf

Dik, S. 1989: The Theory of Functional Grammar 1, Berlin etc.: Mouton de Gruyter.

Dik, S. 1997: The Theory of Functional Grammar 2, Berlin etc.: Mouton de Gruyter.

Fehrmann, D. 1994: Sekundärprädikativische Strukturen im Polnischen. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach 33, 83–117.

Flaate, I. 1999: PRO-blematische als-Prädikative im Deutschen. In: Nordlyd: Tromsø University working papers on language and linguistics 27, 1–23.

98

Daiktavardinės kaip konstrukcijos

FLAATE, I. 2007: Die „als“-Prädikative im Deutschen. Eine syntaktisch-semantische analyse. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag. (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik, 71.)

GEUDER, W. 2002: Oriented Adverbs. Issues in the Lexical Semantics of Event Adverbs. http://deposit.ddb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv?idn=964908301 http://w210.ub.uni.tuebingen.de./dbt/volltexte/2002/546/index.html http://w210.ub.uni.tuebingen.de./dbt/volltexte/2002/546/pdf/geuder-oriadverbs.pdf

HENTSCHEL, G. 1992: Konstanten der Kasusvariation. Zum Wechsel zwischen Nominativ und Instrumental sowie zwischen Akkusativ und Genitiv im Russischen. Göttingen. (Habilitacinio darbo rankraštis.)

HENTSCHEL, G. 2001: On defining „variable marking“ or „marking variation with nominal groups“. In: Boeder & Hentschel, Hrsg., 2001, 15–28.

HENTSCHEL, G. 2005: Morphosyntaktische Markierung sekundärer Prädikate. (Rankraštis.)

HENTSCHEL, G. 2006: Zur Klassifikation sekundärer Prädikate am Beispiel von als-Phrasen des Deutschen und jako-Phrasen des Polnischen. In: Slavistische Linguistik, 2005, München (spaudoje).

HIMMELMANN, N. P. & E. SCHULTZE-BERNDT 2005: Issues in the syntax and semantics of participant-oriented adjuncts: An introduction. In: HIMMELMANN & SCHULTZE-BERNDT, eds., 2005, 1–67.

HIMMELMANN, N. P. & E. SCHULTZE-BERNDT, eds., 2005: Secondary predication: The typology of depictives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

HINTERHÖLZ, R. 2001: Semantic contraints on case assignment in secondary adjectival predicates in Russian. In: G. JAGER, A. STRIGIN, CHR. WILDER & N. NING ZHANG, eds., Papers on predicative contructions. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 22 (5), 99–112.

HOLVOET, A. 2003: Laisvieji predikatyvai ir jų sintaksiniai ryšiai. In: HOLVOET & JUDŽENTIS, red., 2003, 67–78.

HOLVOET, A. spaudoje: Secondary predicates in Baltic. In: W. BOEDER, G. HENTSCHEL & CH. SCHRÖDER, eds., Aspects of Secondary Predication (spaudoje).

99

LORETA VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ

HOLVOET, A. & A. TAMULIONIENĖ 2005: Antriniai predikatyvai. In: HOLVOET & MIKULSKAS, red., 2005, 117–172.

HOLVOET, A. & J. PAJĖDIENĖ 2005: Aplinkybės ir jų tipai. In: HOLVOET & MIKULSKAS, red., 2005, 93–116.

HOLVOET, A. & A. JUDŽENTIS 2003: Sintaksinių ryšių tipai. In: HOLVOET & JUDŽENTIS, red., 2003, 11–35.

HOLVOET, A., & A. JUDŽENTIS 2005: Sintaksinės priklausomybės tipai: papildymai ir patikslinimai. In HOLVOET & MIKULSKAS, red., 2005, 11–35.

HOLVOET, A. & A. JUDŽENTIS, red., 2003: Sintaksinių ryšių tyrimai. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. (Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai, 1.)

HOLVOET, A. & R. MIKULSKAS, red., 2005: Gramatinių funkcijų tyrimai. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. (Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai, 3.)

IRIMIA, M.-A. 2005: Types of secondary predication. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 25, 20–29.

KAZLAUSKAS, J., LAIGONAITĖ, A., URBUTIS, V., red., 1961: Dabartinė lietuvių kalba. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

KEINYS, S., red., 2000: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

LABUTIS, V. 1998: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

LAWRENS, B. 1993: Apposition. Begriffsbestimmung und syntaktischer Status. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik, 44.)

NICHOLS, J. 1978: Secondary predicates. In: Berkeley Linguistic Society 4, 114–127.

NICHOLS, J. 1981: Predicate nominals. A partial surface grammar of Russian. Berkeley etc.: University of California Press. (University of California Publications – Linguistics, 97.)

RENZ, M. 2006: Partizipantbezogene Adverbien im Polnischen. Oldenburg, Magisterarbeit.

100

Daiktavardinės kaip konstrukcijos

Schroeder, Chr. 2003: Depiktive im Sprachvergleich Deutsch-Türkisch. Eine kontrastivtypologische Analyse. Wiesbaden [spaudoje; pasirodys Turcologica serijoje]

Schultze-Berndt, E., N. P. Himmelmann 2004: Depictive secondary predicates in cross-linguistic perspective. In: Linguistic Typology 8, 59–131.

Sirtautas, V. 1981: Sakinio dalys. Kaunas: Šviesa.

Sl žienė, N. 1994: Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių junglumo žodynas I, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Sl žienė, N. 1998: Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių junglumo žodynas II (1), Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Sl žienė, N. 2004: Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių junglumo žodynas II (2), Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla.

Ul vydas, K., red., 1976: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 3. Vilnius: Mokslas.

Vaičiulytė-Semenienė, L. spaudoje, a: Die morphosyntaktische Markierung substantivischer sekundärer Prädikative im Litauischen. In: W. Boeder, G. Hentschel & Ch. Schroder, eds., Aspects of Secondary Predication.

Vaičiulytė-Semenienė, L. spaudoje, b: Depiktyvų semantiniai tipai ir jų morfosintaksinis žymėjimas. Baltų Filologija.

Valeckienė, A. 1967: Predikatyvinis pažyminys kaip atskira sakinio dalis. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 9, 97–116.

Zifonun, G. et al. 1997: Grammatik der deutschen Sprache, Berlin etc.: Walter de Gruyter.

Žukauskaitė, J. 1961: Kaip vartojimas jungiamuoju žodžiu ir jungtuku. In: J. Kazlauskas, A. Laigonaitė, V. Urbutis, red., Dabartinė lietuvių kalba, 961, 217–278.

Loreta Vaičiulytė-Semenienė

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lietuva

101