Dėl sintaksinio dviprasmiškumo ir teminės–reminės struktūros

Notes BIBLIOGRAPHY DLKG ~ The grammar of the present-day hetyuviy language. 4th supplementary edition. Vilnius: Institute of ir Science and Technology. Skanvztus, P. 1943/1996. Lietuviy languages Zodziy daryba. Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute, Vilnius, 1943. Lithuania Selected works 1, par. A. Rosinas, from Vilnius: Science ir encyclopedias publishing 1996. house, Smerona, A. 2005, Main work on the issue of appointment of bidy. Minutes Linguistics Lithuanica 52, 83-89. Urautis, V., Zodziy's 1978. theory of work. Vilnius: Mokslas. VaskeLaené, J. 2006: Dél of the present ir tense participle and participle action morphological ir breakdown. Minutes Linguistics Lithuanica 54, 83-93. Axel Bolvoet Lithuanian Language Institute P. Vileigio g. 5, 10308 Vilnius, Lithuania South syntactically bilingual ir reminder-reminder structures Su Rolando Mikulsko ,,Notes dél syntactic ambiguity sqvokas“ (Sis ALL Issue, pp. 1-53) polemize prompted ne only the issue mentioned in the title of the article, but ir ,,other related matters- *, in particular This line by the author 2003 m. (based on Bogustawskio 1977 m. concept) formulated the criticism of the concept of actual division. Discussion While it touches on fundamental questions of the grammar structure of the language, Mikulski's remarks raise ir fundamental problems. First of all dél syntactic ambiguity: According to Roland Mikulskas, the construct we are discussing is Onutés Green eyes cannot be considered as syntaxically ambiguous, because they have a clear, only ji This construction has two meanings; syntactic ambiguity implies semantic ambiguity, which ir We just don't notice it. In cognitive linguistics, the position of which i8 Mikulskas criticizes with analysis (similar to constructioir ny in grammar, which can be considered cognitive 116 Notes grammar variant), the construction is sui generis, the primary unit of grammatical structure, comparable to the sociotic Zenkle of language. Without denying the necessity of construction at the level of language use, we do not consider it as the primary unit of syntactic structure, and therefore we are forced to interpret it based on general, unrelated to specific constructions, structural units. Such more elementary units, it must be assumed, are also used by cognitivists; The length of the repertoire may also give rise to discussions, which we will deal with later. For now, let's discuss the meaning of the construction and its syntactic construction. Without denying the connection between these two things, we believe that its probative power in both directions (i.e. both in syntax for drawing conclusions about meaning, and vice versa) is limited. Having consistently argued that the possibility of ambiguous semantic interpretation of the sentence Many people read little books does not indicate syntactic ambiguity, Mikulskas strongly postulates that the possibility of ambiguous syntactic interpretation of any sentence should indicate semantic ambiguity. Maybe that's natural. The possibility of double semantic interpretation is the most important diagnostic criterion for determining possible syntactic ambiguity, although, as Mikulskas himself points out, it cannot yet be considered as evidence if semantic ambiguity can be interpreted differently. However, semantic ambiguity can be divided into several types, and English terminology, for example, distinguishes between ambiguity and vagueness. The latter may presuppose different ways of constructing meaning that lead to similar meaning: considering the meaning of the component parts of a sentence, it is possible to expect that the meanings of two sentences may differ in principle, but in practice it is difficult to formulate this difference. In the literature Gia bitty can be quoted the sentence General does not say that he knows about these events, whose Salutinj démenj can be interpreted as a questioning complement sentence (cf. Do you know about these events? Tell me, do you know about these events) or as a relative sentence with an omitted antecedents (... does not say [that] he knows about these events). The syntactic ambiguity is evident, as revealed by the paradigmatic relationships of the quoted sentence with sentences where the function of the salutative démens is univerbal (cf. General does not say everything, because he knew about these events —with the relative sentence and General does not answer the question, because he knew about these events —with the questioning noun sentence). It is difficult to indicate what differences in meaning are related to these different syntactic interpretations, since it is practically impossible to say, “it is the same thing”. This means that there are two different ways of approaching that real reikimés. It seems that this can also be said about syntactic structures with different phonetic implementations. To many linguists it may also seem that both the sentences John has a hard character and John has a sunky 117 Notes do not differ in their meaning. Of course, in the latter case, different phonetic implementations thus encourage research into the meaning of the difference, but would we want to deny the possibility of syntactic ambiguity where there is no phonetic difference? The structure of the Do you have something to eat sentence is ambiguous, because we can split it into [Do you have something to eat]] (cf. Do you have anything to eat? I have nothing to eat with the aim communicative of the split construction) or [Do you have [something to eat]?] (cf. I have no kq/what to eat —¢this kq/what is a communicative suffix). ReikSmés difference iS esmés néra and in this case. Which syntactic breakdown is "correct"? Apparently, both are correct, the sentence is syntactically ambiguous, and no one's head is looking for the "only right" interpretation. Of course, the construction discussed by Mikulsko and my is special. However, both syntactical interpretations of the structure Onutés Zalios akys are associated with certain difficulties, neither of the splitting options gives ideal results. Secondly, the meaning of this construction, on which Mikulski and miisy agree, differs quite markedly from that which can be expected from any of the two considered syntactic divisions. Todél us and In this case neSauty i head one i8 ty split bydy declare the only correct. Even more inclined to choose one of the two splitting biases is Mikulskas himself, who says that the construction in question is a perinterpreted construction of the connection, although under favorable conditions possessive interpretation is assumed. It is true that Mikulskas himself immediately points out the formal inadequacy of this construction to the meaning it conveys. We could agree with this: since both the construction of connection and the possessive construction of belonging are inadequate for conveying this meaning, a hybrid construction was created, uniting both constructions in terms of meaning. Although Mikulskas is the one who formulates this, his arguments support this interpretation; apparently, ginG is more verbal than substantive. Discussing the concept of the actual partition raised by missy i3, Rolandas Mikulskas correctly observes that the “actual partition” has been reformulated in such a way that the term iS itself is no longer suitable for it. We all agree: the use of the term was motivated by the desire to adapt to tradition, but the terms should not restrict the freedom of thought, so now we would go without the traditional term,,actual division‘, which reflects the Prague School’s conception of the theory reflected in the term,,thematic-reminé structure‘. It must be acknowledged that formulating Zymeta’s actual division characteristics was not based on extensive empirical data. It must, of course, be further defined, in view of the two components of the actual division of Zymétum. First with the problems discussed, yet to introduce an alternative 118 Notes are made to the internal model of actual partitioning and the principle of division — the distinction between layered and unlayered actual partitioning. The latter type, illustrated by sentences such as IS uzsienio grjzo Jonas, Tai Jonas parvaziavo iš išorės, is perceived by the user of the language as special, contextually limited and thus symbolic because of its contrasting character. This group is unproblematic and due to its special status among the different models of the current division Salininky may not arise any problems. The second part is more related to the investigator's provisions. Such views are also reflected in the article by Rolandas Mikulskas. One i8 jy is that the category of the grammatical subject (verb) is ontologically indistinguishable from that of the subject; This category is defined as the highest degree of inherent thematicity in the encoding of a particular predicate element in a morphosyntactic structure. This means that, for example, the model of morphological actant representation associated with the verb padéti (kq kur) envisages a certain typical choice of primary and secondary themes, which is reflected in a certain attribution of the factor and direct complement functions in such sentences as Jonas padéjo knygq ant stalo. From the typical distribution encoded in the grammatical structure, the speaker can always deviate, following the communication needs of the specific situation, by creating sentences such as Knygq Jonas padéjo ant stalo. Everyone will agree that this sentence is not necessarily characterized by a contrasting ki, so it may have a layered theme-reme structure, just like John put the book on the table. In this case, is the actual part of the sentence Knygq Jonas padéjo sur la table zyméta? The answer will depend, of course, on the concept of miisy Zymétumo. For polemical purposes I said that it is indeed Zyméta in the sense that the actual division based on the,datum* and,novum* is its own. Salininkas holds it to be an illustration worthy of attention of the application of the actual division principle. In the sentence Jonas knygq padéjo on the table of such an actual concept of division Salininkas probably i8vis neuzsiimty. If I ask him if,datum“ In this case is John, or perhaps both John and the book, he can also not be interested. Medziaga, with which Salininkai operate such an actual division concept, is usually limited to such sentences, which dé] special ZodZiy order seems to require special clarification. Let us add that the Salininkai of this concept still operate the theme and frame in relation to inseparable sentences in their own way (cf. the example quoted by Roland Mikulskas Kazkoxia car stands across the road, apparently, accident). This interpretation is probably not applicable to the sentence Across the road there is a car, apparently an accident: the sequence across the road is probably described as a theme (because it is precisely to explain such requirements of Word order that the whole theory is formulated), although $j sentence can also be perceived as a theme-free, jvedantj 119 The scene i only notices new units of discourse that have not previously existed in panekovy’s mental space. Those who reject such an interpretation and at the ir same time do not want to get into a vicious circle, probably have j to rely on the assumption that the sentence in question has a certain non-Zyme implementation, used when it is indecipherable from the point of view of actual division. Here both theories Salininky poZitiriai coincide, because ir miisy in the article Some car is standing across the road is described as nezymeéta. The reasons for this statement, of course, will be Slightly different, depending on the viewpoint of the investigator. ,Date* ir ,novum* theory of the Salininks sentence Something maéina stands across the road The word order must be neutral, so that the actual division is not applied to it; containing potassium This proposition is decomposed by the actual decomposition ir positivist, like every other one, o jo insignificance arises from i8 other assumptions, which we will discuss in more detail. Let’s just add that Zyméta’s dual concept of the memories-reminiscences structure (non-layered, contrasting ir Any deviation from the truth encoded in the grammatical functions is inconveniently i8 misleading. ir These things should be distinguished terminologically. While recognizing that the speaker is always free to choose the subject of the sentence as he wishes, we assume at the same time that the language system always provides him with certain default values, which he can adopt or, if necessary, change. We assume that the grammatical structure of the sentence The student sat on the table in the textbook, related to the distribution of certain lexical grammatical functions between the be verb actants, reflects such an implicit choice of the subject when the subject status acquires a su §{ Zodis student. The loquacious person is always free to change the §j choice to ir say Vadovélj student padéjo on the table etc. ir The function of the subject, in my view, is a kind of dramatization of the theme: by assigning the function of the subject to a particular actor, the system of language distinguishes itself as an implied theme, ji leaving the speaker free to choose another actor to mark it by special means, such as the order of the words. ir Mikulskas perceives this assumption as a based tautology: the subject reflects the unsigned subject, o the unsigned subject is defined as the act that is represented by the subject. Such a quick truth can be i8 formed by a reader who does not accept the unmarkedness of the realization of the sentence The student padéjo handovélj on the table as an empirical fact. Norethisterone To take the risk of making the statement that a Lithuanian speaker asked to form a sentence illustrating a verb padéti (,ponere’,- ne ,adiuvare- ’) in a sentence, e.g., sentence The student padéjo handovélj on the desk, rather than The teacher put the student on the table because the latter was associated with a higher su number of contextual levels. You'd even say that ,,date* ir ‘novum’ in its own right 120 The Salininkai also, although without saying explicit verbs, acknowledged the inzymétuma: to they simply consider such sentences to 8i be worthless in the context of the actual division, because they do not illustrate its operation in a clear way, or they consider them to be This post is unrecognizable. Who refuses to acknowledge such a sentenceiy as The student laid the textbook on the table, not the actual division of the subject, I think, it will be more likely to separate the subject's ir general grammatical functions from the subject's own. From his i8 cognitive perspective, Mikulskas draws the trajectory ir boundary; in functional models the entity is sometimes defined as ,stebéjimo ta’kas’ (vantage point, according to Simono The situation is described by a i8 dictionary. Without rejecting this metaphor, the author of this verse still wants to acknowledge the aforementioned positions only as i8vestines. After choosing ji a theme, it becomes »observation point‘, since the ir choice of the theme is often determined by the difference in inherent topicworthiness, that is, the factor in the form of the subject, even after replacing it with an actual section (In the textbook, the pupil sat on the table), perhaps it can be subjectively perceived as an actant, from whose ta perspective i8 the situation is described. Inherent thematicity is based on such features as vitality and agency; a living active participant in the situation ir gives language users more ir empathy possibility, todél bin more suitable to play the role of the participant, from whose perspective the whole situation is ir perceived. to i8 We don't to want to deny everything, but the agent (or experimenter) ir factor interconnecting properties through the properties of the unsigned theme, we aim to create an economical and larger aiSkinama power owned ir apparatus. Probably no one seriously wants to directly associate a factor with certain su semantic roles, as is done, for example, in school grammar, where it is said that ,,factor reSkia factor*. The mediating unit of the language, the mis-post-situation, is a subject for which the morphosyntactic reflection of the character’s choice is not a factor, thus the latter is an essential formal, autonomous, “needless” element. i§ Other researchers consider the mediated element as a subject, which must receive a distinct semantic to treatment; but the subject-specificity does not disappear anywhere, on the ir “functional side” of the sentence we are then forced to discuss o separately the three functional units: the experience of the agent of semantic roles, the subject of grammatical roles, the subject of pragmatic roles. — / — ir — The first two are connected by a pabréZiama, the subject is o separated by ir an ordinary coincidence that remains — jy unexplained, as if it were a random thing. There is a silence, when the subject is considered a formal thing, not a means of encoding the subject, based on the principle entia non sunt multuplicanda praeter necessitatem. Ir semantic roles as elements of conceptualization of the situation, 121 Note the ir subject as ,,that, which is ka the subject of the sentence”, are elements of functional structure that can be defined independently of the morphosyntactic ir syntax (or ZodZiy order, if the studied language does not have linksniy and/or conjugation). We introduced the subject specificity in order to explain certain morphosyntactic phenomena (or The correctness of the word order, if the studied language does not have linksy and/or conjugation). For those who are more interested in economic considerations, they will try to overcome the agent's themes by connecting ir them with the subject's ir su morphosyntaksinj reiSkinj. Plg. Bernardo In Comrie's words: ,,Humans have a strong tendency to select more agentive entities as topics of discussion, which means that there is a natural correlation between agent and topic [...] The notion subject then simply of reflects the grammaticalisation this expected coincidence“ (Comrie of 1981: 114). Other i morphosyntactic analyses inDistilled category of subject projects semantic level j ir su yes, ne su will tend to associate those semantic positions that constitute the essence of inherent topicality. Question Gia is getting, of course, quite a j nasty ir chicken priority problem. For the author of this verse, the subject, perceived as an ontologically independent entity from the subject, appears as a hipostazé. For Mikulski, the inversely postulated relational theme appears as a petition to — the principle, since he is not inclined to su accept a certain structural non-significance as an empirical fact. South Opinions on this empirical fact may differ, of course, as long as it is not both Saliy acknowledged, the discussion remains aprioriniy assumption (whole egg) ir level. By the way, what is Siu empiriniy facts worth? Anot Mikulsko, small, but to do with ka such examples as su Do you play with the grass? Grammatical factor (sqziné) ¢ia néra neZyméta tema, mat sakinys SqZiné grauzia Juozq even sounds strange. I just want to ask, will the Salinians succeed better with such sentences with the other factor understanding? We assume that for them the sentence SqZiné grauzia Because of their enormous difficultir y, they could be applied to any theory. Ar Trajectory handling better suited? The ir existence of the prototype of the inconsistency factor in this example is obvious to the expert of any theory. Jj This may be explained by the fact that the distinction of verbs graugti in su relation to their grammatical function is determined by their primary, non-metaphorical use, and it remains in the case of jo metaphorizatioir n. [we say that Mikulskas This non-prototypism is not denied; because he himself, discussing the sentence type Onutés Green eyes, comments on the nobleman’s »formal inadequacy* to perform those functions which the author considers bad for the construction in question. O if, as we say, the sentence Juozq grauzia sqZiné nokam néra very helpful factor to the concept — that some ir bebiity ji define, it's — better by consensus 122 Notes to distance from it when considering general sentence structure elements and recognize ji the need for special interpretation. Ar Mikulsko's statement that ,,The encoding of both subject and ir possessive constructs in the genitive is not necessary for active sentences in Lithuanian language“ does not mean that the type of sentence Onutés Green eyes, as a peripheral, is not the most suitable example for a prototypical nobleman to be described? The same we would like to say about sentences like Juozq grauzia sqziné. Anything unreasonable looks like this Mikulsko’s criticism of the concept is as follows: “So far, the layered actual division can save little for the syntactic analysis of sentences: by relying on it, we risk ja generating tautological statements- .” As we see it, the benefits of the concept of miisy i8for syntax analysis are considerable. Positive signs Gia the type of sentence being discussed Onutés The green eyes differ from both nearby structures of the joint structure (Onutés eyes — are Green) ir posesyvinés belonging constructions (Skarelé is Onutés) are related as just thematic-remic structures su and in other respects — there is no noticeable difference. Thus, meaning discrepancies can be found only by examining the thematic-remic structure and the semantics of j the sentence, as was requested in the previous article. Miisy’s assumptions, of course, are not acceptable to Mikulskas, but it cannot be said that the theory of miisy’s memory-remembrance structure generates tautologies when analyzing sentences: tautology can lie in the initial statement that grammatical functions reflect the unity-remembrance structure’s grammatization, but only if one rejects the empirical basis. jo True tautologies are generated only if the constructor is not a specific one. The model of the memories-reminiscence structure is determined a priori by the grammatical functions, but we are not silent: we admit that in the sentence to Onutés Green Eyes Factor —that ir what he is bebiity (eyes or mouth) Onutés eyes) exactly su the subject does not match (the status of the topic can be attributed to the nobleman Onutés). Posesyvinéms mihi est tipo turéjimo konstrukcijoms (plg. lot. "Seven Newly-Certified NFL Players". nfl.com. I have ir twice seven daughteir rs pan.) non-thematic factors of the denominator are generally biding, this fact no one tries to deny. ir Syntactic development of the language, structural analysis, extension, etc. ir generate non-thematic factors, but they also generate ir ,non-subjective* denominators, t. i.e., the constructs in question not only do not have a ne subject, but generally have few factors, no matter how those factors are formulated; about neprototipiniy veiksniy problem is already raSes Keenan (1976). When designing the category of the factor j semantic level will arise significantly greater descriptive problems, because informal, functional concept of the factor (t. i.e., a concept where a factor is not considered a purely formal structure unit) 123 Notes: When looking for verbs, it is often worth to distance oneself from formal positions and recognize, for example, the subjects of the noun in sentences I have a headache, I like bright colors, / etc.), it opens the door to arbitrariness. ir o In the sentence Bright colors I like the denominator factor is the subject, This pattern determines the grammatiy functiony distribution, ir which i8stays in the sentence I like bright colors, where the factor is non-thematic. Ka well, we have to accept that the language does su not have a different grammatical function distribution model for each teminés-reminés structure model. Functional definition of the factor, shaking purely formal veiksniy, loses diagnostic criteria (which, it is important to repeat, in the case of the factor nature i8 is formal) in practice no longer able to ir separate the factor from the subject, as the principle declared. i8 This is the cost of hypostasis of the factor. You can, of course, tell me be that we're threatened. Ockham's razor, that ir the introduction of the factor as a semantic category is a decisive necessity of the Lowest. Only so far it seems to us that jshow this is These concepts The Sailor's Task... BIBLIOGRAPHY Bocustawski, A. 1977. Problems the of thematic-rhematic structure sentences. of Warsaw: University of Warsaw Press. Comrie, B. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology. Oxford: Blackwell. Ten, $. C. 1978. Functional Grammar. Amsterdam-Dordrecht: Foris. Keenan, E. L. 1976. Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’. In: Ch. N. Li, ed., Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 303-333. Axel Holvoet Lithuanian Language Institute P. Vileisio g. 5, 10308 Vilnius, Lithuania 124