Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos prijungiamieji laiko sakiniai

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA L (2004), 35–53 Subordinate Temporal Clauses in Contemporary Lithuanian JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language The article gives an overview of finite and non-finite adverbial time clauses in modern standard Lithuanian and highlights the similarities and differences between them. Time clauses are classified with regard to the types of temporal relationship (simultaneity or sequence) and their grammatical marking. Special attention is given to such features as: agreement of tense forms in main and subordinate clause (this is characteristic of finite subordinate clauses, whereas non-finite clauses enjoy a relative freedom with regard to tense marking); obligatory subject deletion (in non-finite clauses, but also in certain finite types); agreement of aspect forms in main and subordinate clause; the use of subordinators and other syntactic markers of subordination; relative positioning of main and subordinate clause. ... our understanding is always historically and topographically defined. (SVERDIOLAS 1996: 258) 0. INTRODUCTION “The function of grammar is to encode meanings. Every language has to perform a similar set of tasks. From a universal pool, filled with types of grammatical constructions, each language draws its own sets. Because of the nature of this choice, similar types of meaning may have different grammatical expression in different languages. But the variations are not random. Each type of construction has its own semantic effect, and although a given meaning may be expressed by various constructions in different languages, they will be semantically similar” (Dixon 1995: 175). Special grammatical means are also needed to convey information about time1: a specific temporal meaning is conveyed by using words or phrases reflecting calendar time designation2, as well as the possibilities offered by the grammatical tense category; relative temporal meaning is brought out by comparing the relation of one event3 to another. The sequence of events / time 1 By this, linguistic time is meant, following Elizabeth Traugott’s suggestion to distinguish at least four kinds of time when discussing the subject: physical, psychological, calendar, and linguistic (Traugott 1978: 371). 2 Apie laiką nusakančius leksinius darinius ir jų sinonimiką žr. Valiulytė (1998: 177–333). 3 In this article, “event” is used as a general description of any situation expressed by a predicate, in order to preserve the tradition of Lithuanian grammatical terminology (cf. Ulvydas 1976; Ambrazas 1994, action – Ambrazas 1997; when discussing the usefulness of subordinate temporal clauses, Vitas Labutis uses the notion of fact (Labutis 1998: 291) interchangeably with the notion of action (Labutis 1998: 292)). The term “situation” is chosen by Com- 36 | JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ The relationships can be iconically reflected by the order of the narrative itself; devices indicating completion, coordinating or subordinating markers may be used to convey them (cf. Traugott 1978: 379). By using subordinating devices at one level or another, time is expressed through subordinate temporal clauses. Such temporal measurement is based on an asymmetric relationship between propositions⁴.⁵ The description of subordinate temporal clauses in this article is based on the following postulates: • A complex sentence with subordination⁶ is a sentence consisting of two⁷ syntactically unequal sentences⁸ or clauses⁹. • A sentence is understood as a projection of a proposition, whose basis is a verb expressing a predicate and nouns understood as the predicate’s arguments. The structure of the predicate and its arguments (the proposition) may be supplemented by circumstances, which “express the periphery of the proposition. [...] Adverbs are a category characteristic of circumstances” (Holvoet, Judžentis 2003: 116). rie (1985: 5), Greenbaum (1996: 339–340), naujadarą stevent, kaip bendrą terminą vietoj event ir state, kai nereikia skirti veiksmo nuo būsenos, vartoja Durrell, Brée (1993: 296). Jei reikia detalizuoti, galima kalbėti apie propozicijų sąsają su būsenomis (states), kurios gali būti traktuojamos kaip laikin os ar nuolatinės, su įvykiais / atsitikimais (events), kuriems būdingi pakitimai; veiksmai (actions) gali būti apibūdinami kaip įvykiai, kuriuos atlieka atsakingas veikėjas (agentas), pvz.: „Actions are events for which a responsible agent is identified.“ (Givón 1984: 87). 4 Christian Lehman describes a proposition as the semantic correlate of a sentence (clause) (Lehman 1988: 182), while Peter Hugoe Matthews describes it as the assertion / statement expressed by sentences and notes that the same propositional content of a sentence can be expressed by different sentences (Matthews 1997: 300); Talmy Givón argues that propositional content (as a level of language associated with the sentence) is a necessary parameter for the analysis of language structure (Givón 1979: 3–4), and identifies the sentence, or proposition, as the basic unit for conveying information in language (Givón 1984: 239) or the basic unit in the mental store of information (Givón 1990: 896); John Lyons describes propositions similarly: different sentences in the same language may express the same proposition (Lyons 1993: 142). Propositions may also be evaluated in terms of truth—as true or false (on this, see Lyons 1993: 38 ff.)—and according to what they reflect, a causal relation in reality or in an utterance: as de re and de dicto (Matthews 1997: 87). 5 For the asymmetric—one-way—relationship between two propositions in a complex sentence, see Talmy (1978: 625 ff.). 6 The definition of basic grammatical categories is most problematic; these include the clauses of a complex sentence—the main and subordinate clauses—because there is no clear functional (semantic and/or pragmatic) definition: according to William Croft, they are identified heuristically (Croft 1990: 13); Huddleston (1999: 339) describes the subordinate clause as a category expressing relations in terms of its relationship to the synthetic construction of which it is a part. 7 Vytautas Ambrazas explains the choice of a simplified—two-clause—sentence model for the analysis of complex sentences as follows: “We consider sentences composed of two or more clauses having the grammatical form of a sentence to be subordinate clauses [...]. The nature of the relationship between clauses does not depend on their number; therefore, in what follows, when discussing subordinate sentences, we limit ourselves to sentences composed of two clauses” (Ambrazas 1972: 23). 8 Apie terminų – pagrindinis, šalutinis sakinys sąlygiškumą žr. Ambrazas (1994: 660). Apie sakinio kaip visumos (sentence) ir sakinio kaip sudėtinio sakinio dėmens / dalies (clause) santykį žr. Huddleston (1999: 331, 341). 9 For the use of the concepts of main and subordinate clause in Lithuanian linguistics, see Holvoet, Judžentis (2003: 117). Axel Holvoet’s term “subordinate clause” has a broader scope than the term “subordinate sentence,” since “a subordinate sentence is included in the structure of a complex sentence together with the subordinator; therefore, a subordinate clause in the broader sense can be defined as the whole comprising the subordinate sentence and the subordinator” (Holvoet 2003: 101). LIETUVIŲ KALBOS PRIJUNGIAMIEJI LAIKO SAKINIAI | 37 • A linking word is any word used as an indicator connecting the clauses of a complex sentence (Holvoet, Judžentis 2003: 122). Linking words10 [...] are part of the subordinate clause (Ambrazas 1994: 659–660). • According to the syntactic relation, subordinate clauses can be divided into governed and modifying clauses (Holvoet, Judžentis 2003: 119–120). • According to the verb forms in the subordinate clause, subordinate clauses are divided into finite clauses, based on finite verb forms, and non-finite clauses, based on non-finite verb forms (see Holvoet, Judžentis 2003: 120). This article describes temporal subordinate clauses in contemporary Lithuanian, seeking to highlight precisely the similarities and differences between finite and non-finite clauses, since in Lithuanian linguistics it has traditionally been customary to call only conjunctional subordinate clauses, whose predicate is expressed by a finite verb form, subordinate clauses. This view was, of course, also followed in descriptions of temporal subordinate clauses, cf.: “The clauses reviewed [...] are those with conjunctions introducing subordinate temporal adverbials” (Drotvinas 1962: 249); “only those clauses in which temporal relations are grammatically expressed are to be classified as temporal subordinate clauses” (Ambrazas 1972: 31). Although the possibility of using participial, half-participial, and adverbial-participial adverbials “as equivalents of subordinate clauses in temporal, causal, conditional, etc. subordinate clauses” was acknowledged (Ambrazas 1976: 527), they were nevertheless not called clauses11. In Vytautas Ambrazas’s view, “many adverbial-participial, half-participial, and participial adverbials, by virtue of their function, occupy a sort of intermediate position between sentence constituents and subordinate clauses” [...] and are often used “as synonyms for subordinate clauses. They differ from subordinate clauses, however, in that they have no separate predicate and are more closely connected with the sentence” (Ambrazas 1976: 533). But grammatical descriptions did discuss the similarity between the function of a subordinate temporal clause/clause constituent and that of a temporal adverbial (Ambrazas 1976: 844), and emphasized that “the open temporal construction slot can be filled not only by a clause constituent, but also by its nominalization [...], an adverbial-participial construction [...] or some other temporal adverbial” (Ambrazas 1972: 33)12. 10 Dar apie jungiamuosius žodžius žr. Ambrazas (1999: 284). 11 With the exception of Jablonskis, who divided subordinate clauses into full and contracted clauses, calling participial, adverbial-participial, and half-participial word groups the latter (Jablonskis 1957: 515), but himself admitted that he had done so “merely out of old habit” (!) (Jablonskis 1957: 518). 12 Elena Valiulytė calls a simple temporal adverbial and participial constructions—participial, adverbial-participial, or half-participial temporal adverbials—syntactic variants, as well as a clause in a complex sentence with special conjunctions expressing temporal meaning (Valiulytė 1995: 68). Vitas Labutis formulates it as follows: “The time of a fact expressed by a predicate can be made more explicit by another fact. Participial, adverbial-participial, and half-participial constructions and subordinate predicative clauses (subordinate clauses) are suitable for this purpose” (Labutis 1998: 291). 38 | JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ 1. PRIMARY MEANINGS OF TEMPORAL CLAUSES Temporal subordinate clauses13 MODIFY14 the predicate of the main clause: they specify the circumstances of an event’s realization, expressing the relation of simultaneity or sequence between the events of the main and subordinate clauses. Temporal subordinate clauses can emphasize the continuous/complete (1) or partial (2) simultaneity of the events of the subordinate and main clauses, for example: (1) Mother hums that little song, [while she is angry]. (2) [While travelling], it grew dark; or a sequence, for example: (3) Mother starts singing [when she gets angry]. (4) My brother, [having received his wages], repaid the debt. Alongside the meanings of sequence or simultaneity, temporal subordinate clauses can also convey other parameters hyponymic15 to the general concept of time: moment, duration, and recurrence (Van der Auwera 1999: 11). The expression of hyponymic temporal parameters16 is determined by the particular selection of the predicates in the main and subordinate clauses—the mutual relation between grammatical tense forms17, the compatibility of predicate aspectual meanings with the semantics of the linking word, and other features of sentence structure18. Sometimes a single grammatical expression pattern can have a twofold meaning: temporal subordinate clauses can indicate not only the location of events in a certain order on the timeline, but also a causal19 connection between events. 13 “Clauses whose semantic relations to the main clause are based on the coincidence of the temporal [...] circumstances of both clauses” (Holvoet, Judžentis 2003: 154). 14 In Lithuanian linguistics, the more common term is *šliejimas* (‘adjunction’), described as “a way of connecting words based solely on logical relations and unrelated to changes in form” (Balkevičius 1963: 35); as “the attachment of an invariable dependent constituent [...] reflecting certain semantic relations between the constituents of a phrase” (Balkevičius 1998: 40); and as the most characteristic relation of adverbs to other words in a sentence (Ul vydas 1971: 427). On modification, see Holvoet, Judžentis (2003: 134). 15 Apie hiponimiją žr. Lyons (1993: 291–295). 16 In Traugott’s view, this is related to other linguistic categories: the expression of future-time reference is related to modality, sequence to calculation / enumeration, and aspect to repetition and frequency (Traugott 1978: 372). 17 Leonardas Drotvinas has described Lithuanian temporal subordinate clauses in terms of the mutual relations between the tenses and aspects of the verbs functioning as predicates (Drotvinas 1962: 249–265). In Vytautas Ambrazas’s view, a characteristic feature of temporal subordinate clauses is the coordination of the syntactic time plane (Ambrazas 1976: 845t), as well as the coordination of the tenses and the aspectual relation of the verbs functioning as predicates in the clauses (Ambrazas 1994: 680). 18 On the parallelism between syntactic structure and meaning, and on the fact that syntactically relevant meanings are reflected in sentence structure, see Ambrazas (1972: 30). In addition to conjunctions and intonation, the relations between clauses are indicated by correlative words, clause order, and the grammatical form and meaning of words functioning as predicates (and sometimes as other sentence constituents) (Ambrazas 1994: 658). 19 On the intertwining of the meanings of subordinate / adverbial temporal clauses, see Van der Auwera (1999: 11); on temporal clauses with a mixed function, see Edgren (1971: 224–226), or those with a different (non- LIETUVIŲ KALBOS PRIJUNGIAMIEJI LAIKO SAKINIAI 39 2. GRAMMATICAL FEATURES OF TEMPORAL CLAUSES When discussing temporal subordinate clauses, it is important to note their grammatical features, which reflect the asymmetrical relation20 between the main and subordinate clauses: • the need to coordinate the grammatical tense of the predicates in both clauses; • obligatory subject ellipsis in non-finite subordinate clauses and in some finite clauses (when the temporal relations of an action performed by the same subject are described in relation to the subject expressed in the main clause); • the use of connective words; • possible combinations of the aspectual meanings of connective words and predicates; • the relation of the subordinate clause to the main clause, whether direct or mediated; • the possible positions of the subordinate clause in relation to the main clause. 2.1. Predicates of the clauses In a complex sentence with subordination, the predicate of the main clause can only be a finite verb form, whereas the predicate of the subordinate clause can be either a finite or a non-finite verb form (Halliday 1994: 222; Huddleston 1999: 338). On the basis of this formal feature, subordinate temporal clauses are divided into finite temporal clauses and non-finite temporal clauses—participial, gerundial, and half-participial. The temporal meaning of finite verbs is generally understood as absolute, with the moment of speaking taken as the point of reference (see Comrie 1985: 122, 1999: 365; Šlიზienė 1994: 293), since grammatical tense, like grammatical person, and temporal and spatial adverbs are understood deictically21 (Lyons 1981: 170)—their meaning depends on a point of reference, namely the speaker or the moment of speaking. In complex sentences with temporal subordination, finite verb forms acquire a relative meaning (Šlიზienė 1994: 293) because temporal circumstances are juxtaposed (and the semantic aspects of this juxtaposition are determined and highlighted by the semantics of the connective, which in the case of asyndetic clauses allows the sequence of events to be disregarded in relation to the natural linear ordering of the clauses; cf. Haiman 1985: 18). However, the juxtaposition of temporal circumstances means that the verb in the subordinate temporal clause and the verb in the main clause are in the same grammatical tense (cf. Ambrazas 1997: 738), e.g.: (5) We talk while we eat lunch. temporal) funkcija žr. Edgren (1971: 227–234). Specialių – aplinkybinių – prieveiksminių sakinių porūšį išskiria Greenbaum (1996: 342). 20 The asymmetrical relation of the subordinate clause to the main clause is reflected in the grammatical structure of the subordinate clause: it may use non-finite verb forms or special connective words; word order may be changed, or certain elements may be omitted (Huddleston 1999: 337). 21 The grammatical category of tense may be described as the most widespread temporal reference: “the most pervasive aspect of temporal deixis is ‘tense’” (Levinson 1999: 134). For more on deixis, see Levinson (1999). 40 | JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ (6) We talked while we ate lunch. (7) We would talk while we ate lunch. (8) We will talk while we eat lunch. Non-finite verb forms are characterized by having a temporal meaning that is always relative (Ambrazas 1976: 533), that is, dependent on the grammatical tense in the main clause; this accounts for their partly unrestricted combinability (Haiman 1985: 228): a half-participial (9), gerundial (10), or participial (11) temporal clause can be equally suitable with all grammatical tense variants in the main clause, e.g.: (9) We talk / We talked / We would talk / We will talk [while eating lunch]. (10) [While the neighbors were passionately sorting out their relationship] we have lunch / had lunch / used to have lunch / will have lunch peacefully. (11) [Having talked on the phone with his mother] he can / could / used to be able to / will be able to work peacefully. 2.2. Expression of the subject of the subordinate clause Finite temporal clauses can express the simultaneity or sequence of different actions performed by a single participant, or the simultaneity or sequence of actions performed by different participants. In finite subordinate temporal clauses, the subject is omitted only in the first case—that is, when describing the relationship on the timeline between two different actions performed by the same participant. One of two completely identical subjects (having the same grammatical expression) is usually eliminated, e.g.: (12) [When Ø opened the door], Jonas was astonished. In sentences in which the subjects of the main and subordinate clauses are only semantically identical (i.e., they refer to the same participant but have different syntactic realizations: one is expressed in the dative, required by certain verbs, while the other is in the nominative or is “hidden” in the ending of a finite verb), one of the syntactic subject variants may be omitted, as in sentences (13) or (14); to avoid ambiguity, however, both may also be retained, as in sentence (15): (13) When he succeeds in baking a delicious cake, then he will come too. (14) When Ø succeeds in baking a delicious cake, then he will come too. (15) When he succeeds in baking a delicious cake, then he will come too. Non-finite temporal clauses are characterized by zero expression of the subject: participial and half-participial temporal clauses indicate another action by the participant expressed in the main clause22, emphasizing the temporal relationship between these actions. The missing subject of the subordinate non-finite clause is understood as coreferential with the subject that is expressed 22 Apie identišką subjektą prijungiamųjų dalyvinių konstrukcijų atveju žr. Haiman (1985: 221). LIETUVIŲ KALBOS PRIJUNGIAMIEJI LAIKO SAKINIAI | 41 pagrindiniame dėmenyje (Blake 1994: 111). Tokia giminės, asmens ir skaičiaus koreferencija pagrindinio sakinio veiksniui yra užfiksuota pačių dalyvių23 ir pusdalyvių formose24. Neišpildžius bent vienos koreferentiškumo sąlygos, sakiniai taptų negramatiški, pvz.: (16) *[After talking on the phone with his mother], Jonas will be able to work calmly. (17) *They talk, [while eating lunch]. Participles of this type characteristically require only one obligatory argument, expressed in the dative25; therefore, coreference between the agent of a temporal clause with such a participle and the agent of the main clause is possible only when the agent of the main clause is also expressed in the dative26; this case is required by certain verbs expressing need, necessity, desire, liking, and so on, for example: (18) He needed to/ had to/ happened to/ wanted to/ liked to whine a little too, [to win her favour]. More often, however, the main clause and the subordinate temporal clause with a participle denote actions performed by different agents, for example: (19) [While the neighbours were still quarrelling], we had lunch. (20) We arrived [at sunset]. 2.3. Conjunctions Accepting the premise that absolute synonymy is hardly possible and that different forms have different communicative purposes (Haiman 1985: 19), and that existing differences in form must reflect some differences in meaning (Haiman 1985: 71), one may argue that non-finite temporal clauses can be synonymous with finite clauses (cf. (9) with (5), (6), (7), (8)), but the sequence of actions described by finite temporal clauses can be conveyed somewhat more subtly27 than by non-finite clauses, because certain aspects of temporal meaning are highlighted by an obligatory conjunction (e.g., kai denotes simultaneity, whereas kol 23 “Nominative forms of semi-predicative participles are most often used to differentiate a main and a secondary, or subordinate, action in a sentence that are associated with the same subject. The action that one wishes to foreground is expressed by a finite verb form, while the less emphasized action, related to the main action through temporal, causal, and other relations, is expressed by a participle in the nominative” (Ambrazas 1979: 68). 24 For the view that the use of a participle itself, or “the participial form itself,” marks the subordination of the action it denotes to the action denoted by a finite verb form, see Ambrazas (1979: 68). 25 Apie absoliutinių konstrukcijų periferiskumą (Haiman 1985: 220) ir skirtingus (retais atvejais tapačius) subjektus (Haiman 1985: 221). 26 Such cases of using participial adjuncts in impersonal clauses are described as counterparts, with similar meanings, of adverbial participial or participial adjuncts in personal clauses (Ambrazas 1976: 532). 27 Cf.: “these clauses can express a much more complex time than adjuncts in a simple sentence” (Sirtautas, Grenda 1988: 165). 42 | J Ū R A T Ė P A J Ė D I E N Ė with a positive predicate, marks not only simultaneity but also emphasizes the temporal boundary of the action). Most non-finite temporal clauses have no subordination marker28. The non-autonomy of non-finite clauses is determined by the non-finite verb form itself, whereas the non-autonomy of finite temporal clauses is determined by the obligatory, most often preposed, use of a connective (Ambrazas 1994: 660). Connectives are not only an external marker of subordination but also give the subordinate clause certain29 aspects of temporal meaning. The selection of aspect in verbal forms must accord with the meanings of the connectives. Connectives that can emphasize simultaneity or temporal sequence (depending on the choice of predicates) are the general temporal connectives kai, kada, kuo-met. The duration of an action and its limits can be indicated with kol, iki, ligi. Connectives kai tik, kaip tik, tik, vos, vos tik help emphasize only the immediate sequence of actions (Ambrazas 1994: 683; 1997: 741) and momentary features of actions. 2.4. Combinations of connectives and aspects 2.4.1. FINITE CLAUSES. General temporal connectives kai, kada, kuomet or duration–limit connectives kol, ligi, iki may be used to express relations of complete simultaneity when an activity verb occurs in the subordinate clause and an activity verb in the main clause, e.g.: (21) [When / While / As / As long as / Until / Up to the point that he walks across the yard,] he looks around. If the main clause contains an accomplishment verb, the simultaneity of the actions is partial: (22) [When / While / As / As long as / Until / Up to the point that he walks across the yard,] he looks around. To express a sequence relation, not only a combination of general temporal connectives (23) but also a combination of moment-emphasizing connectives (24) is suitable with an accomplishment verb in the subordinate clause, provided that the main clause also contains an accomplishment verb, e.g.: (23) [When / While / As (I) fell silent,] they began to speak. (24) [As soon as / No sooner than / Only when / Barely had / Hardly had (I) fallen silent,] they began to speak. Duration-expressing connectives are not appropriate in cases where both the subordinate and the main clause contain accomplishment verbs (without negation), e.g.: 28 Apie šią nefinitinių prijungiamųjų sakinių ypatybę žr. Biber (2000: 838), Halliday (1994: 229, 240). 29 Cf.: “Semantic conjunctions indicate subordination and at the same time they express the semantic relation between clauses” (Ambrazas 1997: 721); “the function of [temporal] clauses is generally determined by certain temporal conjunctions or corresponding connectives: kai, kada, kol, iki, ligi” (Valeckienė 1998: 105). LIETUVIŲ KALBOS PRIJUNGIAMIEJI LAIKO SAKINIAI | 43 (25) * [Until I fell silent], they began to speak. Used with conjunctions marking duration and a limit, a verb of instantaneous event aspect denotes an action not as a point but as an interval, into which the action described by the predicate of the main clause, or the moment when it begins, must not fall (according to Croft, the use of event aspect makes it possible to focus on the endpoint of an event and its effect on the patient, whereas verbs of ongoing aspect focus attention more on the action performed by the agent than on the consequences of the action; see Croft 1990: 162); that is, the intervals should not overlap, or the interval and the point should not have any points of contact. It is no longer possible to understand such actions as intervals coinciding in time when the verbs in both clauses occur with negation, because until + a verb of instantaneous meaning with negation changes the action’s semantic field from point-like–instantaneous marking to interval–duration marking with a strictly defined endpoint, while negation on the predicate of the main clause emphasizes the sequence of actions: (26) [Until I did not fall silent], they too did not begin to speak. The property of a negative element, or an element expressing negation, to become the most prominent information segment (Croft 1990: 170) can give sentences different shades of meaning when negation is used with verbs of event aspect with a resultative meaning, but does not negate the predicate, as, for example, in the sentence: (27) Wait, [until trouble happens], but merely marks the limit of the action in the main clause, e.g.: (28)? They beat him [until they killed him]. (29) * They wrote [until / before they finished / wrote it]. Sentences in which the negative verb in the subordinate clause repeats the verb of the main clause are customarily regarded as incorrect and alien to standard language (Ambrazas 1994: 683), since the subordinate clause seems to negate the main clause³⁰. Could their existence perhaps be explained by the ellipsis of a quality modifier? According to Talmy Givón, the functional domain of negation comprises three partly interrelated semantic components: propositional semantics (the reversal of propositional truth / truth value), subjective certainty (or intermediate certainty—the speaker may use an assertion to indicate that an event / state (being discussed) did not occur), and discourse–pragmatic function (the speech act of denial, performed through clearly established / defined sentence subtypes in speech) (Givón 1984: 322). The reversal of propositional truth value in the subordi- 30 The existence of sentences of this pattern is most often explained by the influence of Russian, since in Russian subordinate temporal clauses, the negative particle ne used with the conjunction/conjunctive word poka is considered a structural element of the connective itself, with no negative meaning or negative force; see Belousov (1989: 560). 44 | JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ The negation of the subordinate clause, which creates a contrast with the propositional assertion of the main clause and thus produces an illogical contrast in sentences such as (28) and (29), would be eliminated if a quality modifier appeared in the subordinate clause, e.g.: (28a) He beat him [until he had beaten him to death]. (29a) He wrote [until / until he had written it as he wanted to write it]. With the quality modifier present in these sentences, the negation becomes an additional segmental marker, and this distributes the semantic stresses differently than in structurally analogous sentences without negation; cf. (30) and (31). This is because negation makes the subordinate clause the most important element (the focus),31 emphasizing the qualitative meaning of the result of the action. This is also indicated by the possibility of attaching manner modifiers in sentences (28a) and (29a), whereas the analogous sentences without negation, (30) and (31), emphasize the duration of the process, but do not evaluate the quality of the result achieved: (30) He beat him [until he killed him]. (31) He wrote [until / until he wrote it / finished]. Givón argues that freely optional / facultative adverbial clause arguments most often constitute the focus of new information (they themselves focus new information), and assumes that the logical basis for this behavior is that attaching a facultative argument to a clause must be important as a locus of new information from a communicative point of view (see Givón 1984: 260). 2.4.2. NON-FINITE CLAUSES. In synonymous finite and non-finite subordinate clause variants, analogous verbal forms of progressive or event aspect may be used: (32) [When / whenever / when / while / until it is quiet], they talk. (33) [While I am silent], they talk. (34) [When I fall silent], they talk. (35) [After I have fallen silent], they talk. A non-finite temporal clause may be embedded within a finite temporal clause, for example, between the connective and the predicate, and specify the simultaneity of actions (38), (39) or their sequence (40). In such cases, however, the non-finite subordinate clause (which functions as a temporal adjunct specifying the meaning of the connective), embedded within the finite subordinate clause, is not sufficient to make the sentence complete, because both clauses indicate subordinate actions, and their relative temporal meaning can become clear only when contrasted with the main clause; cf.: (36) He choked when [he laughed while swallowing the first bite]. 31 For the cognitively intelligible connection between the notion of focus and negation as an impulse, and for possible ways of introducing quality parameters, see Lawler, Hoek. LIETUVIŲ KALBOS PRIJUNGIAMIEJI LAIKO SAKINIAI | 45 (37) When [the relatives are having lunch], we make noise, and Mom is displeased. (38) When [you have seen the car], decide whether to buy it and call me. Some conjunctions that emphasize an instantaneous temporal meaning32 can be used in synonymous finite and non-finite temporal clauses, cf.: (39) [As soon as / Just as I fall silent,] they begin to speak. (40) [As soon as / Just as I fall silent,] they begin to speak. Among temporal conjunctions, prieš stands out for the range of constructions it can introduce: it is used only in non-finite temporal clauses with participles or converbs, and it specifies their meaning: when this conjunction is used, the action of the main clause becomes anterior, cf.: (41) [Before going to the dentist,] he changed his clothes. (42) They arrived [before sunrise]. An action expressed by a participial or converbial clause that lacks the conjunction prieš conveys simultaneity with the action of the main clause, cf.: (43) [While going to the dentist,] Mr Bean changed his clothes in the car. (44) They arrived [at sunrise]. To emphasize that the sequence of actions is approaching simultaneity, the compound prieš pat ‘just before’ may be chosen: (45) He found a tinted-glass [just before the sun set]. (46) He went into the hall [just before the lights went out] / [just before the lights were turned off]. For expressing similar “boundary” sequence situations, a nominalized (noun) construction is more often chosen, cf.: just before the solar eclipse, just before the lights-out. 32 The use of auxiliary words to specify temporal meaning in non-finite clauses has been assessed differently in Lithuanian linguistics: Jablonskis, having provided examples of condensed clauses that may “have subordinate-clause connectors” ([...] As soon as the sun appeared, you immediately feel the power of its rays [...]), argues that in condensed clauses “such words as lig, ligi, kol... [..] are merely so-called particles,” since “their function here is simply to help one clause constituent, expressed by other words, to be marked more precisely” (Jablonskis 1957: 518). Ambrazas assigns them the status of conjunctions: “Conjunctions iki, ligi, ligi tik, prieš, etc., are used to define temporal meaning more precisely at the beginning of converbial, participial, or adjectival-participial constructions. [...] It should be noted that the conjunctions iki, ligi markedly modify the temporal meaning of the construction” (Ambrazas 1976: 534). 46 | JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ 2.5. The relationship of the subordinate clause to the main clause A subordinate clause that modifies the entire main clause or the verb of the main clause (rather than a special supporting intermediary functioning as a temporal adjunct in the main clause) is related to it asymmetrically, e.g.: (47) I will not leave [until they pay]. (48) I will leave [when they pay]. A subordinate clause that modifies the main clause not directly but through a correlative word is related symmetrically to that word, e.g.: (49) I will not leave until [they pay]. (50) I will leave only then, [when they pay]. The presence of a correlative word—which may be a temporal adverb with a general deictic meaning, such as then, until then, after that, up to then, at that time (possibly combined with particles only, even)—considerably reduces the grammatical-semantic independence of the main clause; a modifier is essential to it. The correlative word occupies a syntactic position—that of a temporal adjunct. The position of the adverbial antecedent in the main clause may vary, although a tendency is readily observable for the correlative word in a preposed main clause to be placed at the end, since the semantically essential temporal clause that follows it immediately then supplements the antecedent: (51) I will come only then, [when that grituoklis of yours is not there]. (52) I understood the meaning of my words only then, [when she tugged at me]. (53) You will greet strangers after [the hosts have introduced them to you]. (54) This state of uncertainty will continue until [the actual owners establish themselves]. (55) This payment procedure will remain in force until [the law begins to be applied]. A temporal subordinate clause may also be related symmetrically to a contact word with a broader temporal meaning33 or to a phrase denoting temporal concepts, e.g.: (56) He would visit her rarely, [only when he had received a bonus]. (57) The sense of success had completely evaporated by the next morning, [when his head was splitting with pain]. 33 Cf.: “In sentences with when, whenever [...] subordinate clauses are sometimes linked to nouns denoting concepts of time [...]” (Ambrazas 1972: 42–43). On the possibility of interpreting such sentences in two ways—as a second, specifying temporal adjunct or as relative clauses: “sentences whose subordinate clause specifies nouns functioning as temporal [...] adjuncts usually have the internal structure characteristic of sentences with semantic subordination” (Ambrazas 1972: 43). The interpretation of such homonymous sentences is determined by the function of the contact word in the main clause, since the subordinate clause specifies the meaning of the contact word. LIETUVIŲ KALBOS PRIJUNGIAMIEJI LAIKO SAKINIAI 47 When the temporal subordinate clause is eliminated, the main clause does not lose its semantic independence; cf.: (56a) She would visit her rarely. (57a) The feeling of success had completely evaporated by the following morning. Depending on the position of the correlative or contact word / word combination and the subordinate clause, sentences may be described as: ANAPHORIC34 (58) She looked out the window until [it grew completely dark]. (59) She looked out the window until [darkness had turned into something insubstantial] or CATAHORIC35 (60) [Until he saw his chosen one], he did not recover. 2.5.1. THE PREDICATE OF THE MAIN CLAUSE THAT MORE STRONGLY REQUIRES A TEMPORAL REFERENCE. In certain cases, temporal clauses, even without a correlative word, are somewhat more tightly integrated into the complex sentence if describing the situation expressed by the main clause semantically requires a more specific temporal reference conveying a meaning of duration (length of an interval) or a time point, e.g.: (61) The children accompany me [until we reach Bartkienė’s fence]. (62) He usually returns home [at the end of summer]. (63) My brother should feel strong [when he grows up]. (64) That would happen to her [whenever her drunk uncle came through the door]. (65) June is halfway over, [until words]. (A. Marčėnas) In these and similar cases, the main clause requires semantic supplementation (this depends not only on certain semantic and grammatical properties of the verb, but also on features of the structure of the main clause as a whole) — the temporal clause helps to make more specific the overly general meaning of the main clause. An indication of duration is even more necessary when forms of the verbs laukti, trukti ‘wait, last’ serve as the predicate of the main clause, e.g.: (66) He usually waits, [until the long break ends]. (67) He waits, [until the hostess gets up], and only then urges the horse on. 34 Anaphora is a relation between a pronoun and another element occurring in the same or an earlier sentence (Matthews 1997: 18). An anaphoric pronoun is a pronoun or another similar element that can be understood only through its relation to an antecedent. Anaphora is defined as reference to what has been said previously (Lyons 1993: 659). 35 Katafora vadinama nuoroda į tai, kas yra / bus pasakyta vėliau (Lyons 1993: 659). Katafora – tai santykis tarp anaforinės frazės ir jos antecedento, kuris eina vėliau (Matthews 1997: 48), arba dar vadinama atgalinė anafora (backward anaphora) (Matthews 1997: 34). 48 JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ (68) The lesson will last [until the children are able to maintain their attention]. (69) Wrestling matches usually last [until ants catch such fighters]. Sentences in which forms of the verb laukti ‘wait’ serve as the predicate of the main clause, while the subordinate clause begins with the connective kol ‘until’ (Vfin laukti + kol...), are also distinguished by the fact that their interpretation depends on the combination of the grammatical tenses of the verbs in the main and subordinate clauses: they can be interpreted as subordinate temporal clauses when the grammatical tense of the predicates in both clauses is the same/synchronous: (70) Waits [until the lessons end]. (71) Waited [until the lessons ended]. (72) Used to wait [until the lessons ended]. (73) Will wait [until the lessons end]. In cases where verbs of different grammatical tenses are used in the main and subordinate clauses, i.e., a present- or past-tense (simple past/habitual past36) verb in the main clause, but a future-tense verb in the subordinate clause, it is more plausible to interpret the subordinate clause, which formally has the characteristics of a temporal clause, as a complement clause, e.g.: (74) Waited/ used to wait/ waits, [until the lessons end]37. Sentences with future-tense verb forms in both clauses (VFIN futurum laukti, kol VFIN futurum) seem to be interpretable, depending on context, as either temporal or complement clauses, e.g.: (75) Jonas will wait [until the lessons end]. 36 For a discussion of the fact that the past frequentative tense is only “a certain variant of the past tense, traditionally treated as a separate tense,” because “repetition is a meaning of the nature of an action, not of time,” see Šlizienė (1994: 291). 37 For comparison, here are a few examples of sentences (Vfin WAIT, UNTIL + future-tense verb) from the corpus of contemporary Lithuanian texts compiled by the Centre of Computational Linguistics at Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas: There are some that lay their eggs in other birds’ nests, wait until the foster parents hatch them, and then take care of and feed them themselves. Others wait until the little cuckoo grows up and leaves the nest, and only then begin to raise it in their own way. He waited until he was summoned, breathing heavily. He waits until the German gets some sleep. There is no need to wait until Lithuania becomes a wealthy state. We need to be patient and wait until these companies recover and repay their loans. However, the corporation’s executives impatiently await the adoption of agreements between Lithuania and Russia on which goods. Thus, there will no longer be a wait until debts greatly exceed what is manageable. The father just stands in the corner and waits until the black-painted jacket dries, until the woodworms have had their fill and leave our house someday. LIETUVIŲ KALBOS PRIJUNGIAMIEJI LAIKO SAKINIAI 49 Such a model is generally understood as a temporal clause (how long will Jonas wait?), because the predicates in both clauses have synchronous grammatical tense forms, which strongly highlight the temporal relations. The answer to the question What will Jonas wait for? would most likely be expressed only by a noun construction: Jonas will wait for the end of the lessons. 2.6. Position38 relative to the main clause The position of subordinate temporal clauses relative to the main clause is fairly flexible39, so it appears that the choice of position has almost no effect on semantic relations: a subordinate clause denoting an earlier event may follow a main clause denoting later relations on the time scale, because the relation between meanings is determined not by the position of the subordinate clause in the sentence, but by the semantic relation between the conjunctions and the finite and non-finite verb forms that form the basis of the main and subordinate clauses, as well as by the combination of verb aspect and grammatical tense forms in the complex sentence. The order of clauses in a complex sentence40 can help foreground the desired points of focus (on focus structure, see Grote 1998: 22), since the order of elements reflects the order in which information is presented according to its importance / significance in discourse41. A subordinate temporal clause may precede the main clause (76), follow it (77), or be embedded within it (78), if it contains a correlative word or a temporal adjunct that needs clarification: (76) [While I was sleeping,] they climbed into the shed. (77) They climbed into the shed, [while I was sleeping.] (78) Just then, [while I was sleeping,] they climbed into the shed. The subject of finite temporal clauses is omitted when it is identical to the subject of the main clause. Such subject ellipsis in the subordinate clause gives the temporal clause greater positional flexibility if the main clause is extended; consequently, such a subordinate temporal clause can modify not only the verb (or verb phrase)42, but also the entire main clause or some of its constituents, e.g.: (79) Mother, [while she worked at the hospital], often went to visit her aunt. 38 Apie labilią prieveiksminių konstrukcijų poziciją (Sanders 1978); apie tai, kad mobilesnę poziciją gali nulemti tekstiniai ir pragmatiniai faktoriai (Biber 2000: 131); apie laisvą dėmenų tvarką laiko sakiniuose (Ambrazas 1976: 844). 39 For discussion of how many English subordinate clauses can be moved quite freely to another position (together with their subordinating conjunction) and form a sentence that is not entirely synonymous but is at least grammatical, see Haiman (1985: 40–41) 40 “Since the proposition that provides the background is, in principle, always expressed by a subordinate clause with an explicit marker of subordination, there is no need to highlight its status by an additional device such as clause order” (Holvoet 2003: 107); “the arrangement of background and figure in subordinate clauses is grammaticalized” (Holvoet 2003: 106). 41 Apie ikoniškumo principą, žr. Croft (1990: 194), apie ikoniškumo principus sintaksėje ir biologinį ikoniškumo kodų pagrindą, žr. Givón (1990: 966–984). 42 A sentence adverb may be semantically related not only to the verb but also to the sentence as a whole; see Matthews (1997: 338). 50 JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ (80) Mother would often go to her aunt’s while she worked at the hospital. (81) Mother would often go to her aunt’s while she worked at the hospital. (82) While she worked at the hospital, Mother would often go to her aunt’s. The status of temporal adjunct clauses determines their relatively loose connection with the verb they modify. Certain types of information occupy specific positions characteristic of their use, because speakers, wishing to facilitate the listener’s comprehension, place focal / important information where the listener expects to find it (Luchjenbroers 1996: 149). Temporal reference is generally considered important43; therefore, temporal clauses may seem to stand apart from other subordinate clauses functioning as adjuncts / adverbials44 through their apparently stronger integration into the structure of the main clause. According to some researchers, temporal references may be perceived as equivalent to elements with core status45. This “importance coefficient” may depend on the position of the labile construction serving an adjunct / adverbial function, defined in terms of surface-level syntactic functions46. Formally, by distinguishing subordinate temporal clauses solely by their modifying function, one may overlook the importance of the information conveyed when they are unexpectedly inserted into a sentence or placed at its beginning. 3. CONCLUSIONS Temporal subordinate clauses express relations of sequence or simultaneity between actions. Finite temporal clauses with an unexpressed subject (i.e. a subject identical to that of the main clause and therefore omitted) have greater scope for modification: they can focus not only on the verb but also on its arguments or even the entire clause. Finite clauses with different subjects are suitable for indicating a general temporal relation when the temporal reference needs to be presented as simultaneity or sequence of actions. Conjunctions can highlight additional aspects of temporal meaning, for example, emphasizing not only simultaneity but also duration (He watched the show while he ate), highlighting not only immediate succession (Having entered the shop, he burst into tears), but also emphasizing the moment (As soon as he entered the shop, he burst into tears). 43In Edgren’s view, locative and temporal adverbs convey important information, which may be presented as the most important part of the information in the main clause; in a temporal subordinate clause, however, the informational value of the adverbial phrase is lower (Edgren 1971: 239–240). 44For discussion of whether a subordinate clause corresponds to adverbials, and of stylistic transformations resulting from changes in constituent position, see Haiman (1985: 41). 45In her account of the information conveyed by nuclei and modifiers in English examples, Luchjenbroers states that 27% of the cases examined were characterized by temporal references being perceived as equivalent to elements with core status (Luchjenbroers 1996: 149–150). 46Gerald A. Sanders formulates surface-level syntactic functions in the following universals: that in all languages, sentences can begin with adverbial phrases; that all languages have sentences in which adverbial phrases may occur in non-initial position as well as sentence-initial position; and that in almost all, and perhaps all, languages, the more usual (unmarked) position for adverbial constructions in a sentence is non-initial (Sanders 1978: 72–74). LIETUVIŲ KALBOS PRIJUNGIAMIEJI LAIKO SAKINIAI 51 Some non-finite temporal clauses—participial and converbal—are distinguished by their ability to take the connective word before, which cannot connect finite temporal clauses with inflected verb forms or non-finite participial temporal clauses with past simple participles: participial and converbal temporal clauses with the connective word before indicate an earlier action, whereas verbless variants of the same clauses mark relations of simultaneity between actions. A subordinate-clause pattern whose main clause contains inflected forms of the verbs to wait or to last stands out from others in its stronger requirement for semantic supplementation by an indication of time. Like all subordinate temporal clauses, clauses whose main-clause core consists of an inflected form of the verb to wait characteristically have a grammatical tense form synchronous with that of the main-clause verb. If the main-clause predicate VFIN to wait is expressed in the present or past (simple or frequentative) tense, while the subordinate-clause predicate has a future-tense form (until + VFIN FUTURUM), such subordinate clauses generally function as complement clauses, although in terms of the grammatical structure of the subordinate clause they are identical/homonymous with subordinate temporal clauses. LITERATŪRA AMBRAZAS, V. 1972: Lietuvių kalbos prijungiamųjų sakinių struktūriniai tipai. Baltistica 8 (1), 23–48. AMBRAZAS, V. 1976a: Padalyvinės, pusdalyvinės ir dalyvinės aplinkybės. Ulvydas, K., red., Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 3: Sintaksė, Vilnius: Mokslas, 527–540. AMBRAZAS, V. 1976b: Prijungiamieji sakiniai. Ulvydas, K., red., Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 3: Sintaksė, Vilnius: Mokslas, 789–916. AMBRAZAS, V. 1979: Lietuvių kalbos dalyvių istorinė sintaksė, Vilnius: Mokslas. AMBRAZAS, V. 1994a: Sudėtinis sakinys. Prijungiamieji sakiniai. Ambrazas, V., red., Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 658–696. AMBRAZAS, V. 1994b: Veiksmažodžio neasmenuojamosios formos. Ambrazas, V., red., Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 354–385. AMBRAZAS, V., ed., 1997: Lithuanian Grammar, Vilnius: Baltos lankos. AMBRAZAS, V., red., 1999: Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. AUWERA, J. van der, 1999: Adverbs and adverbials. Brown, Miller, eds., 1999, 8–12. BALKEVIČIUS, J. 1963: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos sintaksė, Vilnius: Mintis. BALKEVIČIUS, J. 1998: Lietuvių kalbos predikatinių konstrukcijų sintaksė, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. BELOUSOV, V. N., KOYTUNOVA, I. I., KRUČININA, I. N. ir kt. 1989: Kratkaja russkaja grammatika, Moskva: Russkij jazyk. BIBER, D. et. al. 2000: Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written Language, London: Longman. BLAKE, B. J. 1994: Case, Cambridge: University Press. BROWN, K., MILLER, K. 1996: Syntax: A Linguistic Introduction to Sentence Structure, London and New York: Routledge. BROWN, K., MILLER, J., eds., 1999: Concise Encyclopedia of Grammatical Categories, Amsterdam: Elsevier. COMRIE, B. 1985: Tense, Cambridge: University Press. COMRIE, B. 1999: Tense. Brown, Miller, eds., 1999, 363–368. CROFT, W. 1990: Typology and Universals, Cambridge: University Press. 52 | JŪRATĖ PAJEDIENĖ Dixon, R. M. W. 1995: Complement clauses and complementation strategies. Palmer, F. R., ed., Grammar and Meaning. Essays in Honour of Sir John Lyons, Cambridge: University Press, 175–220. Drotvinas, L. 1962: Apie dabartinės lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos laiko konstrukcijas. Lietuvos TSR MA darbai. Serija A, 1 (12), 249–265. Durrell, M., Brée, D. 1993: German temporal prepositions from an English perspective. Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C., ed., The Semantics of Prepositions. From Mental Processing to Natural Language Processing, Berlin–New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 295–325. Edgren, E. 1971: Temporal clauses in English, Uppsala: Academia Upsaliensis. Givón, T. 1979: On Understanding Grammar, New York, San Francisco, London: Academic Press. Givón, T. 1984. 1990: Syntax. Vols. 1, 2, Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Greenbaum, S. 1996: The Oxford English Grammar, New York, San Francisco, London: Oxford University Press. Greenberg, J. H., Ferguson, Ch. A., Moravcsik, E. A., eds., 1978a: Universals of Human Language 3. Word Structure, Stanford: Stanford University Press. Greenberg, J. H., Ferguson, Ch. A., Moravcsik, E. A.,eds., 1978b: Universals of Human Language 4. Syntax, Stanford: Stanford University Press. Grote, B. 1998: Representing temporal discourse markers for generation purposes. In: Proc. of the COLING-ACL workshop on Discourse Markers and Discourse Relations, Montreal. Haiman, J. 1985: Natural Syntax, Cambridge: University Press. Halliday, M. A. K. 1994: An introduction to functional grammar. 2nd edition, London: Arnold. Haumann, D. 1997: The Syntax of Subordination, Tübingen: Niemeyer. Holvoet, A. 2003: Sujungiamieji ir prijungiamieji sakiniai formos bei funkcijos požiūriu. Holvoet, A., Judžentis, A., red., Sintaksinių ryšių tyrimai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas (Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai, 1), 99–114. Holvoet, A., Judžentis, A. 2003: Sudėtinio prijungiamojo sakinio aprašymo pagrindai. Holvoet, A., Judžentis, A., red., Sintaksinių ryšių tyrimai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas (Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai, 1), 115–172. Huddleston, R. H. 1999: Sentence types and clause subordination. Brown, Miller, eds., 1999, 329–343. Jablonskis, J. 1911/1957: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė. Jablonskis, J., Rinktiniai raštai 1. Sudarė J. Palionis, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 435–549. Labutis, V. 1998: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Lawler, J., Hoek, K. K. Space, Time, and Polarity (Or, Negs in Space!). <www.personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/negsinspace.doc> Lehman, Ch. 1988: Towards a typology of clause linkage. Haiman J., Thompson, S. A., eds., Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 181–225. Levinson, S. 1999: Deixis. Brown, Miller, eds., 1999, 132–136. Lyons, J. 1981: Language and Linguistics, Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press. Lyons, J. 1993: Semantics. Vols. 1, 2, Cambridge: University Press. Luchjenbroers, J. 1996: Diskursyvinį analizį a schematičeskaja struktura. Voprosy jazykoznanija 1996 (2), 141–155. Matthews, P. H. 1997: The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics, Oxford–New York: Oxford University Press. Sanders, G. A. 1978: Adverbial constructions. Greenberg, Ferguson, Moravcsik, eds., 1978b, 51–84. Sirtautas, V., Grenda, Č. 1988: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė, Vilnius: Mokslas. Sližienė, N. 1994: Veiksmažodžio laikas. Ambrazas, V., red., Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 290–304. Sverdiolas, A. 1996: Steigtis ir sauga, Vilnius: Baltos lankos. LIETUVIŲ KALBOS PRIJUNGIAMIEJI LAIKO SAKINIAI | 53 Talmy, L. 1978: Figure and ground in complex sentences. Greenberg, Ferguson, Moravcsik, eds., 1978b, 625–649. Traugott, E. C. 1978: On the expression of spatio–temporal relations in language. Greenberg, Ferguson, Moravcsik, eds., 1978a, 367–400. Ul vydas, K., red., 1971: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 2: Morfologija, Vilnius: Mintis. Ul vydas, K., red., 1976: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 3: Sintaksė, Vilnius: Mokslas. Valeckienė, A. 1998: Funkcinė gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Valiulytė, E. 1995: Sintaksinė laiko raiška. Lituanistica 22, 68–81. Valiulytė, E. 1998: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos sintaksiniai sinonimai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Jūratė Pajėdienė Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, 10308 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected] Gauta 2004 03 23