Dėl gramatinių funkcijų skirstymo

The review of Prof. Vytautas Ambrazo, published in 2005, entitled Sintaksiniy rysiy tyrimy (The Study of Syntax Relationships), had already delighted the authors of the series of works on grammar, which began to be published in 2003. In this ALL issue is published a review of the third volume of Gramatikas darby Gramatiny funkcijy tyrimai by the same author. It gave me some thoughts that I want to share. This collection of articles was not simply ignored as a non-important event for Lithuanian grammar, but judging by the review, it does not seem that it has created a dialogue. Although the reviewer acknowledges that the thoughts expressed in the collection have been thoroughly considered by Lithuanian language researchers, he has chosen to do so only on the basis of the vocabulary used in Lithuanian grammar, especially the definitions of syntactic relationship types presented in these grammar. For,,that the mentioned types of connection are syntactic, not morphological, semantic different, should not be proved*. ar If it is not to necessary to prove it, then this thing is, apparently, an axiom. However, the axiom can be accepted or Not to accept it. There are also other aspects of Euclidean geometry that are not supported by its axioms. Nobody, of ir course, does not fall The fact that this geometry uz is based on certain axioms, ji but what is found in it internally, has the right to draw them out. This is exactly what the authors of the Grammar have tried to do with regard to the grammar of the present Lithuanian language, drawing attention to the intrinsic imperfections of some of the things presented in it. However, according to Prof. Ambrazo,,, Such a view of syntactic relationships is rejected a priori by some scholars, who believe that the nature of the interconnection of the two-way syntactic relationship is unnecessary and arose from the confusion of syntactic and morphosyntactic phenomena*. ir [...] But it is not rejected a priori, quite a ir ne "Why? The authors of this article argue why it is rejected, pointing out that the nature of the two-way dependence leads to the denial of the solution. Visus The reviewer ignored these arguments yy as if they had never existed. Of course, jy there was no need to ir discuss it, because the text is intended as Grammar work review. However, the use of the word,,sometimes* is not correct. Next reviewer raSo: really ,18 no takeaway Gia néra, it is an obvious fact that syntactic relations, and thus interconnection, have certain morphosyntactic indicators. * ir No one denies that ir syntactic relationships can have morphosyntactic indicators. User ,,can have“, because traditional ir grammar recognizes,,Shejima* in cases where the dependent The word does not have a dependency indicator, e.g. John ran away quickly. Ir bitent There is a certain inconvenience here, which the reviewer consistently ignores. Because traditional grammar uses two completely different heuristic means to determine syntactic dependence. On the one hand, the combination in such sentences as Maéiau Jonq linksmq constitute grounds for claiming that Zodis linksmgq is syntactically dependent on Zodis Jong. On the other hand, in sentences like Jonas atbėgo greitai, where it is not possible to rely on morphosyntactic criteria, it is assumed that quickly depends on atbėgo. Thus, the morphosyntactic criterion is not always used to determine the existence of a syntactic relationship. Since $i dependency is neither control nor debugging, it is defined as Merge. It is here that the danger lies: heuristics are too complicated. If it is permissible to determine syntactic dependence in such cases, where there is no morphosyntactic indicator, it is permissible, for example, to state that in the sentence Keep the bottle upright Word staciai is To be poured at He's got a bottle. Because what This sentence is different from the sentence Keep a bottle in a station where this type of dependency on a plugin is recognized? Only part of the speech in the first sentence uses adjectives. — Who iSkelty such a statement, only based on 108 | PAasTABas those criteria, which prof. Ambrazas. He has donety nothing other than those who assume the existence of Conjugation relationships between adverbs in ir sentences Jonas ran away quickly, Keep the bottle upright. Then iSeity, when ir sakinyye Keep the bottle in stages, in ir a sentence The syntactic relationship of let botelj staciq is binary. What 18 about when The authors of the present Lithuanian grammar do not see the need to The leakage between ir the bottles? The only thing that matters is that it can be done This grammar site is based on criteria. Consequently, the statement that in the sentence The statement that the syntactic relationship is binomial is just as true as the statement that it is homonymous. For the student who In this sentence two-way syntax relations are considered, it is possible to write two-way, but it is not possible to prove that it is wrong based on the theory of grammar of the present Lithuanian language. No sophistication can undo The flaws of this system based on ancient heuristics. How obvious are the facts mentioned i by the reviewer? We will quote again: ,,it is an obvious fact that syntactic relationships, thus mutual ir connections, have certain morphosyntactic indicators*. But the po famous Joannos From the 1986 article published by Nichols in 2000 it is evident that the directions of syntactic morphological ir dependence may be accessible; This skin is called "primary dementia". (head marking). Thus, the noun-controlling verb (main dému) can be combined with it; in most of the world's languages su verbs are combined only by factors, but ne su ir su direct ir indirect adjectives. It is unlikely that Prof. Ambrazui,,- main démens Zyméjimo“ savoka buty neKnown thing, but The spread of this idea in Lithuanian linguistics he, apparently, considered undesirable. After accepting it, interconnection becomes unnecessary. What noni, can reject the mention, but its denial in years is no longer an,,obvious“ 2005 fact. Ne Without mentioning the arguments on which he relies The authors of the grammar work1, in an attempt to change the concept of syntactic relationship, the reviewer concentrates his efforts on showing that The authors of this work contradict themselves, in one place acknowledging syntactic dependence, in another place rejecting it. 0 ja To do this by extractii§ ng individual sentences from the context, apparently, is not difficult. Mat In the work of grammar, the authors discuss various types of dependencies: semantic, — syntactic, morphological. In the author's opinion, it is important to distinguish them, so that their apparatus is accurate, the theory is not obsolete. Restoring the o truth by examining each quotation by showing how and for what purpose the quoted ir sentence was distorted from ir context is a long and tedious procedure. I will give you just one example. i§ ir ir Grammar worky authors prikiSama that they try ,to deny ir the very syntactic relationship between the ir auxiliary tactical sign (predictive) in such sentences as He parverté brolj aukstielninkg or [...] I saw funq', jj it is added: ir ,,Then in another place already sidiloma ,,to associate the secondary predicate term with the secondary su predicates containing the corresponding morphosyntactic [...] signs*. That's right, yeah In the works of grammar is prompted, one statement does ir not precede the other. Mat The authors of the work on grammar want to show that the difference between the circumstances of the ir verbal subjunctive is not syntactic, o but morphological. The reviewer is §j silent about this. Those who want to know why it is better to abandon the taronic symbolic binary syntactic connection, can refer to the page of the present-day investigative language 490 grammar}, where Salia derinamuyy tarininiy pa%yminiy still distinguish incompatible. But after all, the tactical signs differ from circumstances precisely in the coordination (in circumstances Sliejama prie veiksmazodiio, tarinis paŽyminys, to, dar derinamas be su veiksniu priesaga)? su ar After all, bitent combination in a sentence Less fun, ji according to prof. Ambrazo, ir indicates a syntactic dependency between a ir taxon and a syntactic complement, which allows syntax Notes | 109 ry8j described as a double. If coordination is the definition of a tabulatory sign, then what in the world should be an incompatible tabulatory sign?” Since such a contradictio in adiecto is better avoided, Gramanka- ’s work suggests that the difference between a tabulatory sign and circumstances is morphosyntactic, not syntactic. What's really wrong with this? The reviewer accuses the authors of the Grammar of confusion of criteria, and they only point out that it is useful to distinguish between syntactic and morphological dependencies. When forcibly trying to shake them, iSeina, for example, "incompatible verbal signs". Where if tikryju,,crosses* criteria, and where not? One more note dél patios,,prieStarėjimo* savokos. In the opinion of the reviewer, many of the things presented in the works of Grammatika are overwhelming. Preestaring, for example, are the just quoted statements about tactical signs. “Obviously PreStaring” are the actual circumstances of the case. Why is it,,obviously* pre-existing, it is not clear, because the author of S1y eiluciy in the reviewed work is already iSaiSkines, on what the chosen term is based and why it is not pre-existing (how the authors define the pre-existing circumstances, the reviewer does not inform the reader, so its pre-existence is presented as a belief article, similarly to syntactic relationships that do not require proof). Perhaps, after understanding the reviewer’s criteria for,,Pre-Aging*, it will be easier to understand why the,,incompatible verbal sign” attribute is introduced only after defining verbal signs by ka combining them with a substantive or adjective, néra, obviously,,- Pre-Aging*. Moreover, the proper character of the “incompatible grammatical sign” indicates an internal pre-existing, because it pre-exists several pages to the definition given earlier in the same section, whereas the pre-exists found in the works of grammar are pre-existing only from the reviewer’s perspective. The purely morphological distinction between circumstantial and circumstantial verbs is contradictory only in that it contradicts the definitions of syntactic relationships given in the grammar of the present Lithuanian language, which is not necessary to prove*. Finally, the last sentence of the review is surprising:- ,,It is necessary to agree with the author's own opinion that,,the problems related to the definition and description of the functions mentioned above have not been satisfactorily solved*. Let us hope that this will happen in the future.” The authors of the 18 actual peer-reviewed collection never expected to solve all the problems related to the grammatical function framework. Until now, no school of linguistics has completely succeeded in doing so, and it is highly doubtful that there will ever be a definitive answer to all those questions that have tormented linguists for decades. Probably every linguist has a deep doubt, so Prof. Ambroz’s remark is surprising, as is the underlying assumption that the inability to answer all the questions and reveal the ultimate truth of grammar (God’s truth) is a problem of the author of the Grammar work, which can easily be subsumed in the shelter of traditional grammar. The authors of the grammar work do not expect to lure speakers out of this refuge, who feel safe there. But if it seems to anyone that it is sometimes healthy to doubt the unnecessary truths of proof and to think about them critically, he can find in the works of Grammatika if not definitive answers, then at least interesting questions, which Prof. Ambrazas in his review, unfortunately, decided to avoid. It is very unfortunate that dialogue is being avoided, because it could be interesting. Axel Holvoet Lithuanian Language Institute P. VileiSio g. 5, 10308 Vilnius, Lithuania