Linksnių vartojimo dažnumas ir daiktavardžio reikšmė

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA LII (2005), 59–65 The Frequency of Case Use and Noun Meaning Ineta Savickienė Vytautas Magnus University Using Kurylowicz’s notions of grammatical and concrete cases, grammatical cases are examined with respect to their syntactic functions and concrete ones with respect to their semantic functions. Our hypothesis is that statistically the frequency of a case is inversely proportional to its degree of functional markedness. Grammatical cases (nominative, accusative and genitive) are shown to be more frequent than concrete ones (dative, instrumental and locative). Differences in frequency of case forms for specific words reflects markedness of the case and noun semantics. The study is based on an analysis of spoken Lithuanian using the CHILDES programme. The frequency of case forms and their meanings were investigated for adult-directed speech (ADS), child-directed speech (CDS) and child speech (CS). Similar tendencies were shown to hold in CDS and CS, but different ones in ADS. Significant differences connected with animacy were observed. Our results confirm the assumption that the meaning of a noun influences the semantics of individual cases and their potential of occurrence. 1. SPOKEN AND WRITTEN LANGUAGE The principle advanced by twentieth-century linguists—that spoken language differs from written language and should therefore be considered more important for research—received widespread support. Leonard Bloomfield (1935: 21) argued that writing is not language, but merely a means of recording language. Bloomfield’s views influenced theoretical linguistics as well, especially syntax. It is worth recalling that John Lyons (1977: 39–42) also drew attention to the grammatical and lexical differences that distinguish spoken and written language. He emphasized that in literate societies the relationship between spoken and written language is highly complex: variations in spoken and written language within a given language may be partly independent. Such claims, however, do not refute the priority of spoken language, since spoken language is, after all, needed first and foremost for communication, even in highly literate societies. Moreover, people acquire spoken language first and undoubtedly with ease, whereas learning written language takes many years, and is generally neither as easy nor always successful. In this paper, we will attempt to discuss the case category in Lithuanian, which encompasses several levels of language structure. In describing cases, it is inevitably necessary to take into account syn- 60 | I N E T A S A V I C K I E N E tax and semantics, since only by encompassing all these levels can one form a picture of the case category. We will examine whether the frequency of case use differs in conversations between adults and children. This article was written using conversational1 material. The conversations were systematically recorded on audiocassettes and transcribed onto a computer according to the CHILDES2 system. 2. THE CASE CATEGORY OF STANDARD LITHUANIAN “The category of case encompasses several levels of language structure. Consequently, all its properties cannot be revealed at any single level. Morphology describes the system of case forms, but this system is not devoid of meaning; paradigmatic relations are always based on what a given case form means in a syntagma” (Paulauskienė, 1994: 98). If we understand case together with prepositions as a single functional category, then subject–object relations will be at its center, while circumstantial notions will lie at its periphery. In a prepositional construction, the noun’s case is linked to the verb’s preposition, which requires a particular case—the genitive, accusative, or instrumental. In Lithuanian, prepositions are most commonly used with the genitive (ant, be, prie, iš, dėl, iki), accusative (į, pas, per, pro, prieš, apie), and instrumental (su, po). Prepositional constructions mainly express general locative meaning and, less frequently, other circumstantial meanings (Ambrazas, ed., 1994; Paulauskienė 1994; Valeckienė 1998; Šukys 1998). Jerzy Kuryłowicz divided all cases into two groups. Because of their primary syntactic function, he called the nominative, accusative, and genitive “grammatical” cases. The other cases (dative, instrumental, and locative) are “concrete”: they have a primary semantic function and often depend on a specific context, that is, on the lexical meanings of the verb and the noun attached to it (Kuryłowicz 1964: 31, 188–189). Thus, case functions are syntactic and semantic. Nouns are most often linked to the verb, which forms the center of the sentence and requires a particular case. Some cases are linked to other nouns. Adelė Valeckienė (1998: 251–252) teigia, kad svarbiausi linksniai sakiniui formuoti yra galininkas ir vardininkas. Pagal savo pirmines sintaksines funkcijas jie susiję su 1 This study is based on several small conversational corpora. The first comprises conversations between a child and an adult, that is, approximately 35 hours of recordings (see Savickienė 2001, 2003); the second comprises conversations among adults, that is, approximately 9 hours of recordings (material collected by the author). The interlocutors belong to different age and gender groups. The predominant topics of conversation concern household matters, experiences, and plans for the future. 2 This program makes it possible to carry out all transcription and coding work much more accurately and relatively quickly. It also enables the automatic analysis of large volumes of conversational text. The CHILDES system comprises two tools. The first is the CHAT transcription and coding format. The second is the CLAN suite of analysis programs. Statistical analyses of the material were conducted using the CLAN programs Combo, Kw al, and Freq; the results made it possible to draw conclusions about the frequency of the vocabulary and grammatical categories used (MacWhinney 1994). LINKSNIŲ DAŽNUMAS IR DAIKTAVARDŽIO REIKŠMĖ | 61 …verb transitivity, and relate to one another as the nominative subject and the accusative object. The genitive is associated with the nominative and accusative. When attached to verbs, the genitive is functionally closely related to the accusative and can serve as an object. Thus, traditionally in Lithuanian linguistics, the nominative, accusative, and genitive are classified as grammatical cases, while the dative, instrumental, and locative are classified as semantic cases. The most typical syntactic function of the nominative is the subject, and those of the accusative and genitive are objects. However, these are not the only functions of cases; there are many more. For example, in combinations with verbs, the genitive denotes an object, part of an object, or an indefinite quantity. The genitive with a preposition can also serve circumstantial functions, while in noun phrases it can function as an attribute. Besides a direct object, the accusative can express locative and temporal circumstances. The dative expressing an object can also perform different semantic functions: those of finitive, benefactive, and perceptive. Besides its two object meanings (instrument and comitative), the instrumental can also express locative and temporal circumstances. And besides location, the locative can also express time. Thus, cases have primary and secondary meanings. Recent studies of Lithuanian grammar argue that there can be no strict distinction between grammatical and semantic cases, and that “only particular instances of case use can be called grammatical or semantic” (Holvoet, Semėnienė 2004). 3. CASE MEANINGS AND USAGE The category of case, being one of the most complex and also most interesting categories of language, offers researchers opportunities to examine it from various perspectives. Actual usage reveals the multifaceted nature of the case category and its potential to acquire different meanings in different contexts. By analyzing case usage in various contexts, we will try to examine which cases—grammatical or semantic—are used more frequently and with what meanings. Preliminary studies of spoken Lithuanian indicate the following distribution of cases by frequency of use: the nominative is used most frequently, followed by the genitive, the accusative, the dative, then the instrumental and the locative. TABLE 1. DISTRIBUTION OF CASES BY FREQUENCY OF USE (%). CASE NOM. GEN. ACC. DAT. INS. LOC. 46% 19% 21% 6% 4% 3% Case usage is closely related to the speaking situation, context, and the participants in the speech act. Clear differences in case usage have been observed in situa- 62 | INETA SAVICKIENĖ tions where an adult speaks with an adult (SSK)3, with a child (VSK), or where a young child speaks (VK) (see Table 2). The research data show that VSK and VK are much closer to each other in their use of cases (see Savickienė 2000, 2002) than either is to SSK. Despite substantial differences, some similarities can also be noted: the nominative is the most frequently used case in all three groups. The use of the other cases differs. The SSK group uses the genitive much more frequently than the accusative, whereas in VSK and VK the accusative is somewhat more frequent. SSK also uses the dative twice as often, while its use of the instrumental and locative is almost the same as in VSK. All groups use the locative to a similar extent. TABLE 2. FREQUENCY OF CASE USE (%): SSK VS. VSK VS. VK CASE NOM. GEN. ACC. DAT. INS. LOC.SSK 32% 18% 28% 9% 5% 3% VSK 48% 21% 19% 5% 4% 3% VK 59% 19% 15% 4% 2% 2% It can be seen that the nominative is the most frequent (the unmarked member), while at the other end of the scale are the locative and instrumental—the least frequent cases. The locative (the rarest in the entire case system) is considered the most marked member. The results are similar for SSK, VSK, and VK: grammatical cases are used most frequently, while semantic cases remain at the periphery of the system. The frequency of individual cases varies, especially that of the nominative. In terms of frequency of use, this case in VK speech exceeds that in VSK by almost 10 percentage points and that in SSK by as much as 27 percentage points. The frequent use of the nominative in VSK and VK is a specific feature of children’s speech and speech addressed to them, especially during the early period of language acquisition (Savickienė 1999, Voeikova, Savickienė 2001). The data show that grammatical cases, i.e., the nominative, accusative, and genitive, are considerably more frequent than the concrete cases: the dative, instrumental, and locative4. Thus, the functionally marked subsystem of concrete cases is characterized by low frequency. The frequency of grammatical cases differs substantially from that of concrete cases. The frequency of the genitive alone is greater than that of all the concrete cases combined. Trends in case usage in written Lithuanian are similar: grammatical cases are more frequent than concrete cases (Žilinskienė 1979: 78–88). The genitive is used most frequently (43%), while the nominative and accusative are used at similar rates (20% and 18%, respectively) (Gelumbauskaitė 2003). 3 SSK – speech directed to an adult (English adult directed speech, ADS), VSK – speech directed to a child (child-directed speech; English child directed speech, CDS), VK – child language (English child language). 4 Since Kuryłowicz did not distinguish the vocative case, it is not mentioned here either. LINKSNIŲ DAŽNUMAS IR DAIKTAVARDŽIO REIKŠMĖ 63 Statistical data for spoken Slavic languages are similar: Russian: Nom. – 32.6, Gen. – 25.3, Acc. – 22, Dat. – 4.1, Loc. – 10.1, Instr. – 5 (Zemskaja 1979: 74); Polish: Nom. – 34.2, Gen. – 29.8, Acc. – 19.2, Dat. – 4.8, Instr. – 4.4, Loc. – 7.6 (Laskowski 1989: 212). Interestingly, the accusative is more frequent in Polish and Russian, whereas the genitive is more frequent in Lithuanian. Overall case frequency does not tell us everything about the case category. Noun semantics has a major influence on case statistics (Laskowski 1989: 207–226). To test this claim, we need to examine the significance of the semantic opposition “animate / inanimate” for case statistics. The tables below present data separately for SSK, VSK, and VK. TABLE 3. DISTRIBUTION OF CASES BY THE SEMANTIC OPPOSITION ANIMATE / INANIMATE IN SSK (%) Case | Nom. | Gen. | Acc. | Dat. | Instr. | Loc. Animate | 36,32 | 8,24 | 46,31 | 6,48 | 2,17 | 0,48 Inanimate | 11,53 | 19,56 | 45,77 | 1,92 | 14,20 | 7,02 TABLE 4. DISTRIBUTION OF CASES BY THE SEMANTIC OPPOSITION ANIMATE / INANIMATE IN VSK (%) Case | Nom. | Gen. | Acc. | Dat. | Instr. | Loc. Animate | 55,2 | 8,9 | 11,1 | 8,5 | 2,5 | 0 Inanimate | 35,2 | 29,6 | 23,1 | 0,4 | 5,1 | 5,7 TABLE 5. DISTRIBUTION OF CASES BY THE SEMANTIC OPPOSITION ANIMATE / INANIMATE IN VK (%) Case | Nom. | Gen. | Acc. | Dat. | Instr. | Loc. Animate | 65,0 | 8,7 | 9,9 | 6,9 | 1,5 | 0 Inanimate | 44,4 | 29,0 | 18,8 | 0,1 | 3,0 | 3,8 The statistical difference between nouns denoting animate and inanimate entities is very clear. The most frequent case for animate nouns in VSK and VK is the nominative (its frequency is much higher than that of all the other cases combined), whereas in SSK it is the genitive, whose frequency is 64 | INETA SAVICKIENE the nominative by as much as 10%. In the SSK group of inanimate entities, the nominative ranks only fourth—after the genitive, accusative, and instrumental—trailing the most frequent case by as much as 34%. Of the grammatical cases, the accusative is the most marked member in the animate group (used at almost the same rate in all groups: SSK 8.24%, VSK 8.9%, VK 8.7%), while the genitive (VSK 23.1% and VK 18.8%) and nominative (SSK 11.53%) are the most marked among inanimates. The dative of inanimate entities is the most marked member (SSK 1.92%, VSK 0.4%, VK 0.1%), whereas the instrumental and locative are sufficiently frequent in all groups. On the other hand, the frequency of the dative with animate nouns is very high, while the locative is almost entirely unused (except in SSK, where it occurs at 0.48%). The results show clear differences in the use of the dative and locative with animate and inanimate nouns. In the case of the dative, the reason for this difference is that this case most often serves the functions of beneficiary, percipient, or experiencer (for semantic functions, see Jakaitienė 1988; Valeckienė 1998). The situation with the locative is similar to that with the dative, but the locative occupies marginal positions—it is almost entirely unused in the animate subsystem. This is because the most typical function of the locative is to indicate location. Clearly, this function applies only to inanimate entities. Thus, the locative is the most marked case in the animate subsystem, whereas among nouns denoting inanimate entities it acquires a different status. Having discussed case statistics, we can see that case frequency differs considerably depending on the subsystem to which the cases belong. The results confirm the view that a noun’s meaning determines not only the semantics of individual cases but also the possibilities for their use. 4. CONCLUSIONS The case system exhibits marked differences in frequency of use related to the specific nature of spoken language. Having discussed the groups of nouns denoting animate and inanimate entities, we can see that case frequency differs markedly. Noun semantics determines the frequency of case use. However, what matters is not only which cases are most frequently used in conversation. The topic, participants, and situation of the conversation also determine the distribution of cases. Drawing on Jerzy Kurylowicz’s classification of cases into grammatical and concrete cases, we attempted to determine whether the so-called true grammatical cases—the nominative, genitive, and accusative—are most often used in their primary rather than secondary meanings. We would like to summarize the results using the definitions of a “case hierarchy”: “Cases are arranged on a scale according to whether they encode central or peripheral sentence functions” (Holvoet, Semėnienė 2004: 33). LITERATŪRA AMBRAZAS, red., 1994: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. BLOOMFIELD, L. 1935: Language, London: Allen & Unwin. LINKSNIŲ DAŽNUMAS IR DAIKTAVARDŽIO REIKŠMĖ | 65 GELUMBauskaitė, K. 2003: Daiktavardžių linksnių vartojimo dinamika. Magistro darbas, Kaunas: VDU. HOLVOET, A., SEMĖNIENĖ L. 2004: Linksnio teorijos pagrindai. Holvoet, A., Semėnienė, L., red., Gramati­nių kategorijų tyrimai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas (Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai, 2), 11–33. JAKAITIENĖ, E. 1988: Leksinė semantika, Vilnius: Mokslas. KURYLOWICZ, J. 1964: The inflectional categories of Indo-European, Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. LASKOWSKI, R. 1989: Markedness and the category of case in Polish. Tomić, O.M., ed., Markedness in synchrony and diachrony, Berlin etc.: Mouton de Gruyter, 207–226. LYONS, J. 1977: Semantics. Vols. 1–2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MACWHINNEY, B. 1994: The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. PAULAUSKIENĖ, A. 1994: Lietuvių kalbos morfologija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. SAVICKIENĖ, I. 1999: Lietuvio vaiko daiktavardžio morfologija. Dak­taro disertacija, Kaunas: VDU. SAVICKIENĖ, I. 2000: Linksniai šnekamojoje kalboje. Darbai ir dienos 24 (Kaunas: VDU), 89–98. SAVICKIENĖ, I. 2001: Linksniavimo paradigmų formavimasis vaikų kalboje. Lituanistica 3(47), 58–69. SAVICKIENĖ, I. 2002: The emergence of case distinctions in Lithuanian. Voeykova, M. D., Dressler, W. U., eds., Pre- and Protomorphology: Early Phases of Morphological Development in Nouns and Verbs, München – Newcastle: LINCOM Europa (Lincom studies in Theoretical Linguistics, 9), 105–115. SAVICKIENĖ, I. 2003: The Acquisition of Lithuanian Noun Morphology, Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. SLOBIN, D. I. 1985: Introduction: Why study acquisition crosslinguistically? Slobin, D. I., ed., The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition. Vol. 1, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 3–27. ŠUKYS, J. 1998: Lietuvių kalbos linksniai ir prielinksniai: vartosena ir normos, Kaunas: Šviesa. VALECKIENĖ, A. 1998: Funkcinė lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. VOEYKOVA, M. D. 1998: Acquisition of diminutives by a Russian child: preliminary observations in connection with the early adjectives. Gillis, S., ed., Studies in the Acquisition of Number and Diminutive Marking (Antwerp Papers in Linguistics, 95), 97–113. VOEYKOVA, M. D., SAVICKIENĖ, I. 2001: The acquisition of the first case oppositions by a Lithuanian and a Russian child. Wiener Linguistische Gazette 67–69, 165–188. ZEMSKAJA, E. A. 1979: Русская разговорная речь, Москва: Наука. ŽILINSKIENĖ [Жилинскене], V. 1979: Статистический анализ морфологии литовских газетно-журнальных текстов. Автореферат дис. канд. филол. наук, Вильнюс. Ineta Savickienė Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas S. Daukanto g. 28, 44246 Kaunas, Lietuva [email protected] Gauta 2005 05 23