Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos prijungiamieji laiko sakiniai

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA L (2004), 35-53 The article gives an overview of finite and non-finite adverbial Lietuvių kalbos institutas 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 purpose of grammar is to encode meanings. Each language has to perform a similar set of tasks. From the universal pool, which is filled with types of grammatical constructions, each language draws its own sets. Due to the nature of choice, similar types of meanings may have different grammatical expressions in different languages. But variations are not accidental. Each type of construction has a distinct semantic effect, and although a certain meaning may be expressed by different constructions in different languages, they will have similar semantics" (Dixon 1995: 175). Special grammatical means are also needed when communicating information about time: using words or combinations of words reflecting calendar time? and the possibilities offered by the category of grammatical tense convey a specific time meaning; the relative significance of time is highlighted by comparing the relationship of one action with another. The sequence of actions/- time Linguistic time is in mind, using Elizabeth Traugott’s suggestion to distinguish at least four kinds of time when discussing time: physical, mental, calendar and linguistic (Traugott 1978: 371). [=] Lexical structures denoting time and their synonymy zr. 1998: 177–333. The article describes any situation expressed by a predicate in a generalized way, in order to maintain the tradition of Lithuanian grammatical terminology (cf. : Ulvydas 1976; Ambrazas 1994, action — Ambrazas 1997; Vitas Labutis, introducing the secondary time sentences, uses the concept of fact (Labutis 1998: 291) to mix with the concept of action (Labutis 1998: 292)). The term of the situation is chosen by Com- 36 | JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ Relationships can be iconically reflected by the order of the narrative itself, and their representation can be done by means of derivatives indicating completion, connecting or connectable indicators (see Traugott 1978: 379). When using the means of conjunction of one or another level, the time is described by connective time sentences. Such a measurement of time is based on an asymmetrical propositional relationship." The article describes connective temporal sentences based on the following postulates: + A compound connective sentence is a sentence that consists of two syntactically unequal sentences or elements. e A sentence is a projection of a proposition based on a verb denoting a predicate and nouns that are perceived as arguments of the predicate. The structure of the predicate and its arguments (the proposition) can be supplemented by circumstances that "denote the periphery of the proposition. [...] the category that is characteristic of circumstances [...] are adverbs” (Holvoet, Judžentis 2003: 116). rie (1985: 5), Greenbaum (1996: 339-340), the neologism stevent is used by Durrell, Brée (1993: 296) as a general term in place of event and state, when it is not necessary to distinguish action from state. If it is necessary to detail, it is possible to talk about the connection of propositions with states, which can be treated as temporary or permanent, with events, which are characterized by changes; actions can be described as events performed by a responsible agent, e.g.: “Actions are events for which a responsible agent is identified.” (Givon 1984: 87). 4 Christian Lehmann describes a proposition as a semantic correlation of a clause (Lehman 1988: 182), Peter Hugoe Matthews — as a statement expressed in a sentence and indicates that the same propositional content of a sentence can be expressed in different sentences (Matthews 1997: 300); Talmy Givėon states that the propositional content (as a certain part of language related to the sentence) is a necessary parameter for the analysis of the language structure (Givon 1979: 3-4) and identifies the sentence, or proposition, as the basic unit of information transmission in language (Givon 1984: 239) or the basic unit of mental information storage (Givon 1990: 896); similarly, proposition describes John Lyons: different sentences of the same language can mean the same proposition (Lyons 1993: 142). Propositions can be assessed both in terms of their fairness — as true or false (on this Lyons 1993: 38 et al.) — and in terms of what they reflect: a causal relationship in reality or in a statement: —as de re ir de dicto (Matthews 1997: 87). 3 On the asymmetrical —one-way- —relationship between two propositions in the Sudeten sentence, cf. Talmy (1978: 625tt). The definition of the main grammatical categories is the most problematic, including the elements of the compound sentence — the main and the secondary, 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 secondary sentence as a relational category in relation to the stronger construction of which it is a part. Vytautas Ambrazas explains the choice of the simplified — two-element — sentence model in examining compound sentences as follows: “We consider sentences composed of two or more elements having the grammatical form of a sentence as connective [...]. The nature of the connection of the elements does not depend on their number, therefore, further on, when speaking about connective sentences, we limit ourselves to sentences composed of two elements” (Ambrazas 1972: 23). ; For the conditionality of the terms —main, secondary sentence, see. Ambrazas (1994: 660). For the relationship between a sentence as a whole (sentence) and a sentence as a component part (clause), see Huddleston (1999: 331, 341). For the use of the main and secondary focus and concepts in Lithuanian linguistics, see Holvoet, Yudžentis (2003: 117). Axel Holvoet uses a wider term for the subordinate than the term “subordinate sentence” because “the subordinate sentence is included in the structure of the compound sentence together with the connecting indicator, so the subordinate can be defined in a broader sense as the whole of the connecting sentence and the connecting indicator” (Holvoet 2003: 101). LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE CONJUNCTIVE TEMPO SENTENCES | 37 A conjunction is considered to be any word that is used as an indicator of the connection of elements of a compound sentence (Holvoet, Judžentis 2003: 122). Conjunctive words" [...] are part of the subjunctive (Ambrazas 1994: 659-660). + The secondary elements of a sentence can be divided into controlled and modifying according to their syntactic relationship (Holvoet, Judžentis 2003: 119-120). + According to the verb forms of the subordinate sentence, the subordinate elements of the sentence are divided into finite ones, whose base consists of personified verb forms, and non-finite ones, whose base consists of non-personified verb forms (see Holvoet, Judžentis 2003: 120). This article describes the connective sentences of the contemporary Lithuanian language in an effort to highlight the similarities and differences between finite and non-finite sentences, because in Lithuanian linguistics it is traditionally customary to call connective sentences only conjunctive subordinate sentences, whose predicates are expressed by the personified forms of the verb. Such a provision was clearly observed when describing connective temporal sentences, cf.: „Apžvelgiami [...] sakiniai su jungiamaisiais laiko aplinkybės jungtukais“ (Drotvinas 1962: 249); „to the time-connected sentences only those sentences are to be distinguished, in which the time relationships are grammatically expressed“ (Ambrazas 1972: 31). Although the possibility of using participatory, semi-participatory, participatory circumstances was mentioned, "as the corresponding elements of the subordinate elements of the connected sentences of time, cause, condition, etc." (Ambrazas 1976: 527), they were avoided from being called sentences." In Vytautas Ambrazos- ’s opinion, “many participle, semi-participle and participative circumstances, according to their function, occupy an intermediate position between the parts of the sentence and the subordinate elements of the connective sentence” [...] and are often used “as synonyms of the subordinate elements of connective sentences. However, the subordinate elements of the connective sentence differ from them in that they do not have a separate adverb and are more related to the sentence” (Ambrazas 1976: 533). But in the grammatical descriptions the similarity of the function of the secondary time sentence/- degree and the circumstance of time was discussed (Ambrazas 1976: 844) and it was emphasized that "the free position of the construction of time can be filled not only by the constitutive sentence, but also by its nominalization [...], by the partitive construction [...] or by any other circumstance of time" (Ambrazas 1972: 33)". "For more on conjunctives, see Ambrazas (1999: 284). "" Except for Jablonski, who divided the secondary sentences into complete and summary, calling the latter participative, subordinate and semi-participative groups of words (Jablonski 1957: 515), but he himself admitted that he had done so “only by old habit” (!) (Jablonski 1957: 518). Elena Valiulytė refers to simple temporal circumstances and participle constructions as syntactic variants — participle, participle or semi-participle temporal circumstances, elements of a compound connective sentence with special temporal connections (Valiulytė 1995: 68). Vitas Labutis formulates: "The time of a tacit fact can be highlighted by another fact. For this purpose, participle, participle and semi-participle constructions and secondary predicate elements (secondary sentences) are suitable” (Labutis 1998: 291). t Page 38 | 39 1. THE BASIC MEANINGS OF TIME SENTENCES Conjunctive time sentences "MODIFY" the predicate of the main sentence: they specify the circumstances of the realization of the action — they define the relationship of simultaneity or sequence of the actions of the main and secondary sentences. Conjunctive tenses can emphasize the continuous/complete (1) or partial (2) simultaneity of the actions of the secondary and main sentences, e.g. : (1) Mother tq sings a song, [until she gets angry]. (2) [While driving| in the dark; or a sequence, e.g. : (3) Mom sings [when she gets angry]. (4) The brother, [having received his salary], paid back the debt. In addition to the sequence or simultaneity meanings, other parameters that are hyponymous to the general concept of time can be conveyed by connective time sentences: moment, duration, repetition (Van der Auwera 1999: 11). The presentation of hyponymous temporal parameters is determined by the corresponding choice of the principal and secondary sentence participles — the relationship between the grammatical tense forms", the harmony of the meanings of the predicate verb with the semantics of the connective word and other features of the sentence structure. Sometimes the pattern of a single grammatical expression can have a dual meaning: connective time sentences can indicate not only the localization of actions in a certain order on the time scale, but also the causal connection between the actions. “Sentences whose semantic connections with the main sentence are based on the coincidence of the circumstances of both sentences” (Holvoet, Judžentis 2003: 154). In Lithuanian linguistics, a more common term is merge, described as “a method of joining words based only on logical connections, not related to the change of forms” (Balkevičius 1963: 35); as “the attachment of an invariant dependent element [...], reflecting certain semantic relations between the elements of the compound” (Balkevičius 1998: 40); as the most characteristic connection of adverbs with other words in the sentence (Ulvydas 1971: 427). For modification, see Holvoet, Yudžentis (2003: 134). P See hyponymy. Lyons (1993: 291-295). In Traugott’s view, this relates to other categories of language: the presentation of the future tense reference relates to modality, sequence – to deduction/numeration, aspect – to repetition, frequency (Traugott 1978: 372). Leonardas Drotvinas has described the connective tense sentences of the Lithuanian language according to the relationships between the tense and the adjectives of the verbs acting as adjectives (Drotvinas 1962: 249-265). In Vytautas « Ambraz’s opinion, a characteristic feature of connective time sentences is the coordination of the syntactic time plan (Ambrazas 1976: 845t) and the coordination of the tenses of the verbs acting as subordinates of the subjects and the relationship of the verbs (Ambrazas 1994: 680). On the parallelism of syntactic structure and meaning and the fact that syntactically relevant meanings are reflected in the sentence structure, see Ambrazas (1972: 30). In addition to conjunctions and intonation, the connections of the points are also helped by the words that are used as adjectives, the order of the points, the grammatical form and meaning of the words that are dialects (sometimes other parts of the sentence) (Ambrazas 1994: 658). For the intertwining of the meanings of connective/adverbial time sentences, see Van der Auwera (1999: 11); for time sentences with a mixed function, see Edgren (1971: 224—226) or with another (non19 LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE ADJUSTABLE TEMPORAL SENTS | 39 2. GRAMMATICAL SIGNS OF TEMPORAL SENTENCES When discussing connective tenses, it is important to pay attention to their grammatical characteristics, which reflect the asymmetrical relationshipj® between the elements of the main and secondary sentences: e the need to combine the grammatical tenses of the predicatniuose dėmenyse (kai apibūdinami pagrindiniame sakinyje išreikšto subjekto laiko santyes of both elements; e the obligatory ellipse of the subject in the secondary non-finite elements and in some finite elements by another action performed by the same subject); e the usage of conjunctions; e possible combinations of the verb meanings of conjunctions and predicates; e the relationship of the connecting point, directly or through an intermediary, to the parent point; e the positional possibilities of the connecting point in relation to the main point. 2.1. Predicates of spots The predicates of the main element of a compound connective sentence can only be personified verb forms, the predicates of the secondary element can be both personified and non-personified verb forms (Halliday 1994: 222; Huddleston 1999: 338). According to this formal feature, the auxiliary time sentences are divided into finite time sentences and non-finite — participle, participle, semi-participle — time sentences. The temporal meaning of personified verbs is usually perceived as absolute, taking the moment of speech as the reference point (see Comrie 1985: 122, 1999: 365; Sližienė 1994: 293), because the grammatical category of time (tense), like the grammatical category of person, and the adverbs of time and place are understood deytically" (Lyons 1981: 170) — their meaning depends on the reference point, which is the speaker or the moment of speech. The personified forms of verbs in compound connective temporal sentences due to the comparison of temporal circumstances (and the aspects of the meaning of such comparison are determined and emphasized by the semantics of the connective word, which allows to ignore the sequence of actions according to the natural linear arrangement of the sentence elements in the case of unconnective sentences, cf. Haiman 1985: 18) acquires a relative meaning (Sližienė 1994: 293), but the rapprochement of temporal circumstances means that the verb of the secondary sentence and the verb of the main sentence are of the same grammatical tense (cf. Ambrazas 1997: 738), e.g. : (5) We talk [while/when we eat lunch]. temporal) function see. Edgren (1971: 227–234). Specialy — circumstantial — adverbial sentences subspecies is distinguished by Greenbaum (1996: 342). » The asymmetrical connection of the salutation point with the main point is reflected in the grammatical structure of the secondary point: it can also use non-personalized verb forms or special —conjunctive — words, change the word order or omit certain elements (Huddleston 1999: 337). The grammatical category of time can be identified as the most common time reference: “the most pervasive aspect of temporal deixis is ‘tenseTM (Levinson 1999: 134). See more about deikse. Levinson (1999). 40 | JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ (6) We talked [while /when we had lunch]. (7) We talked while we were eating lunch. (8) We'll talk [while | when we eat lunch]. The characteristic of non-personal verb forms is that their temporal meaning is in the main subject, which leads to their partially free visada yra santykinė (Ambrazas 1976: 533), t. y. priklausoma nuo gramatinio laiko, conjugability (Haiman 1985: 228): a semi-participal (9), participle (10), participle (11) sentence can be equally suitable for all grammatical tense variants in the main sentence, e.g.: (9) Pasikalbame | Pasikalbéjome | Pasikalbédavome | Pasikalbėsime [eiant valgyti pietus]. (10) [Neighbors passionately exploring their mutual relationships) we have lunch / we had lunch | we had lunch | we will have lunch quietly. (11) [On the phone with my mother] he can /could | used to | will be able to work quietly. Finite-time sentences can be used to describe the simultaneity or sequence of different actions performed by one actor or the simultaneity or sequence of actions performed by different actors. The subject is omitted in connective finite-time statements only in the first case—in stating the time-scale relationship of two different actions of the same agent. One of the absolutely identical subjects (with the same grammatical expression) is usually eliminated, e.g.: (12) [When © opened the door], John was astonished. In sentences in which the subjects of the main and secondary elements are only semantically identical (i.e., denoting the same agent, but having different syntactic realization: one of them is expressed as a noun, which is required by certain verbs, and the other as a noun or “hides” in the ending of the personified verb), one of the syntactic variants of the subject can be omitted as in (13) or (14) sentences, but to avoid ambiguity, both can be left as in (15) sentence: (13) When he manages to bake a delicious cake, then D will come. (14) When @ manages to bake a delicious cake, then he will come. (15) When he manages to bake a delicious cake, then he will come. Infinitive temporal sentences are characterized by a zero expression of the subject: participle and semi-participle temporal sentences denote the actor expressed in the main sentence? the next action, highlighting the interrelationship of those actions in the timescale. The missing subject of the connective non-finite point is perceived as correferential to the subject that is expressed » * On the identical subject in the case of connected participle structures zr. Haiman (1985: 221). LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE ADJUSTABLE TIME SENTENCES | 41 in the main subject (Blake 1994: 111). Such a correlation of gender, person and number to the principal clause factor is recorded in the forms of the participants themselves" and semi-participants?**. Without at least one of the co-referentiality conditions, sentences would become ungrammatical, e.g. : (16) *[Having talked to his mother on the phone], John will be able to work peacefully. (17) *They talk while eating lunch). It is typical for the participles to require only one necessary argument, expressed in the noun*, so that the correference of the actor of the participle sentences with the actor of the principal is possible only in those cases when the actor of the principal is also expressed in the noun?*? ; this verb is required by certain verbs with the meaning of need, destiny, desire, trustworthy, etc., e.g.: (18) He needed/was necessary/- had/wanted/liked and paverkšlenti, [to seek her favor]. But most often the main sentence and the subordinate participle time sentence denote actions performed by different actors, e.g.: (19) [While the neighbors were still angry] we had lunch. (20) We came [at sunset]. 2.3. Connective words Assuming that absolute synonymy is hardly possible and that different forms have different communicative purposes (Haiman 1985: 19) and that the existing differences in forms must reflect some differences in meaning (Haiman 1985: 71), it is possible to argue that non-infinite temporal sentences may be synonymous with finite temporal sentences (cf. (9) with (5), (6), (7), (8)), but the sequence of actions described by finite temporal sentences may be conveyed somewhat more subtle®’ than in non-infinite ones, because some aspects of temporal meaning are emphasized by the mandatory conjunction (e.g., when denoting simultaneity, while * “The nominative forms of semi-predikative participants are usually used to differentiate the main and secondary, or secondary, action of the sentence associated with the same subject. The action that is to be raised to the first place is expressed in the personified form of the verb, and the less emphasized action, related to the main action in terms of time, causality, etc., is said in the participle noun” (Ambrazas 1979: 68). For the fact that the use of the participle itself or the “form of the participle itself” indicates the subordination of the action described by it to the action described by the personified form of the verb, see Ambrazas (1979: 68). About the peripheral nature of absolute constructions (Haiman 1985: 220) and different (in rare cases identical) subjects (Haiman 1985: 221). Such cases of use of participle circumstances in impersonal sentences are referred to as equivalents of semi-participative or participative circumstances of similar meaning in personal sentences (Ambrazas 1976: 532). For example, "in these sentences, a much more complex time can be said than in the circumstances of a solid sentence" (Sirtautas, Grenda 1988: 165). 42 | JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ with a positive predicate not only indicates simultaneity, but also emphasizes the time limit of the action). Most non-infinite tense sentences do not have a conjunction indicator®. The non-independence of infinitive elements is determined by the non-personalized form of the verb itself, and the non-independence of finite-time sentences is determined by the compulsory, usually prepositional, use of the conjunction (Ambrazas 1994: 660). Conjunctives are not only an external indicator of connection, but also give the connected sentence certain- ** temporal aspects. The choice of verb forms must be consistent with the meanings of the conjunctives. Conjunctives that can emphasize simultaneity or sequence of time (depending on the choice of predicates) are those that convey the general time meaning when, when, when. The duration of the action can be indicated by the beija limits with till, till, ligi. Only the immediate (Ambrazas 1994: 683; 1997: 741) sequence of actions and the instantaneous characteristics of actions are emphasized by the conjunctives when, as, just, just, just. 2.4. Combinations of conjunctions and verbs 2.4.1. Final sentences. For the relationships of complete simultaneity can be used the general-- time conjunctions when, when, when, or the duration- -limit conjunctions until, until, when there is a verb of the course in the secondary subject and a verb of the course in the main subject, e.g.: (21) [When /When | When | Until | Until | Until goes through the yard), looks around. If the main subject contains the verb of the event object, the simultaneity of actions is partial: (22) [When/When/When/Until/Until/Until goes through the yard], looks around. The sequence relationship can be expressed not only by a combination of conjunctions with a general temporal meaning (23), but also by a combination of conjunctions emphasising the moment (24) with the verb of the event in the secondary subject, if the verb of the event is also in the main subject, e.g. : (23) [When | When/When (I) was silent,) they spoke. (24) [As soon as | Just as soon as | Just | Almost | As soon as (I) stopped speaking- ], they spoke. Conjunctions denoting duration are not suitable in cases where both the $subject and the $object possess verbs of the event (without a negation- ), e.g.: * About this feature of infinitive conjunctions See Biber (2000: 838), Halliday (1994: 229, Plg. : Semantic conjunctions indicate subordination and at the same time they express the 240). semantic relation between clauses” (Ambrazas 1997: 721);,,the function of [time] sentences is usually determined by certain —time —conjunctions or corresponding connecting words: kai, kada, kol, iki, ligi“ (Valeckiené 1997: 100). 1998: 105). 2 LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE ADJUSTABLE TEMPORAL SENTS | 43 (25) * [Until I shut up], they said. The event verb with momentary meaning used with Zyminc conjunctions denotes the action not as a point, but as a section in which the action described by the predicate of the main focus or its beginning moment must not fall (according to Croft, the use of the event verb allows to focus attention on the end point of the event and its effect on the patient, while the course verbs focus attention more on the action performed by the actor than on the consequences of the action, see. Croft 1990: 162), i.e. the segments should not overlap each other, or the segment and the point should not have any contact points. Such actions cannot be understood as time-overlapping sections when the verbs of both démens go with a negation, because until/until- /until + the verb of momentary meaning with a negation changes the action’s meaning field from point-momentary notation to section-duration notation with a strictly defined limit of the action’s end, and the negation at the main démens predicate emphasizes the sequence of actions: (26) [Until /Until /Until I am not silent), they did not start speaking either. The property of a negative element or element with a negative expression to become the most prominent piece of information (Croft 1990: 170) can give different shades of meaning to sentences when the negation is used with verbs of the resulting meaning of the event agent, but they do not have the meaning of the negation of the predicate, as in the sentence: (27) Run, | until trouble did not happen), but only mark the boundary of the action of the main focus, e.g.: (28)? Muse, [until killed)]. (29) * Wrote, [until | until finished | neparasé]. Sentences in which the negative verb of the secondary démence repeats the verb of the principal démence are usually regarded as irregular and foreign to common language (Ambrazas 1994: 683), because their secondary démence as it were negates the principal démence®. Perhaps their existence could be explained by the ellipse of the quality modifier? According to Talmy Givon, the functional domain of the negation comprises three interrelated significant components: propositional semantics (inversion of the propositional truth/statement value), subjective certainty (or intermediate certainty- —the speaker may indicate with his statement that the event/state (of which it is spoken) did not occur) and discursive—pragmatic (the language act of negation performed by clearly defined sentence subtypes in the act of speech) (Givon 1984: 322). The existence of such a model sentence is usually explained by the influence of Russian language, because the particle poka ne of the conjunction/connective word used to form the connective temporal sentences in Russian language is not considered as a structural element of the connective word itself, which does not have a negative meaning/negative charge, cf. Belousov (1989: 560). 50 | JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ (80) My mother used to go [while she worked in the hospital], to see her aunt often. (81) My mother used to visit her aunt often [while she worked in the hospital]. (82) [While working in the hospital], my mother often visited her aunt. The circumstantial status of temporal sentences determines their relatively loose connection with the modifiable verb. Certain types of information occupy specific positions characteristic of their usage, because the speaker, in order to facilitate the listener’s perception process, places the focal/important information where the listener expects to find it (Luchjenbroers 1996: 149). The reference to time is generally considered important”, so time sentences may appear to be distinct from other circumstance/adverb-like sentences by a stronger involvement in the structure of the main sentence. In the opinion of some researchers, time references can be perceived as equivalent to nucleus status elements- ." It is possible that this “significance coefficient” depends on the position of the labile circumstantial/adverbial construction, defined as the syntactic functions of the superficial layer*. Formally performing only the function of a modifier, secondary time sentences can emphasize the importance of the conveyed information, which are unexpectedly inserted into the sentence or moved to the beginning of the sentence. 3. CONCLUSIONS Conjunctive time sentences convey a sequence of actions or a relation of simultaneity. Finite-time sentences with an unexpressed factor (i.e., a factor identical to the factor of the main sentence, therefore eliminated) are distinguished by greater possibilities of modification — they can focus not only on the verb, but also on its arguments or even on the whole sentence. Finite sentences with different subjects are suitable for indicating a generalized time relationship, when the time reference must be presented as simultaneity or sequence of actions. Conjunctives can emphasize additional aspects of the temporal meaning, for example, to emphasize not only simultaneity but also duration (The viewer watched the show, [while eating]), to emphasize not only the immediate sequence ([/going to the store] cried), but also to emphasize the moment ([as soon as he entered Edgren nuomone, vietos ir laiko prieveiksmiai perteikia svarbią informaciją ir tai gali būti perteithe store, cried]). kiama as the most important part of information in the main sentence, but in the connective time sentence the informational value of the adverbial form is less (Edgren 1971: 239-240). For information on whether the conjunctive sentence corresponds to the adverbs, and on stylistic transformations due to changing the position of the subjects, see Haiman (1985: 41). * Luchjenbroers, describing the characteristics of the information transmitted by the kernel and modifiers in English language examples, states that 2796 of the cases studied were characterized by the fact that the time references were perceived as equivalent to the kernel status elements (Luchjenbroers 1996: 149-150). Gerald A. Sanders describes the syntactic functions of the superficial level by the following universalities: that in all languages sentences can begin with adverbial constructs; that all languages have sentences in which adverbial constructions can be in non-initial positions, and that almost all, if not all, languages have adverbial constructions in more common (unmarked) non-initial positions (Sanders 1978: 72-74). LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE CONJUNCTIVE TEMPORAL SENTENCES | 51 Part of the infinitive —participative and participle —temporal sentences are distinguished by the ability to join the conjunctive Word before, with which neither the personified verb forms in the finite temporal sentences nor the past participle participants in the non-finite participle temporal sentences can join: semiparticipative and participle temporal sentences with the conjunctive Word before. The model of the žodžiu prieš nurodo ankstesnį veiksmą, o bejungtukiai tokių pačių sakinių variantai žymi connective sentence, whose main focus has the personifying forms of the verbs wait or last, differs from the others by a stronger semantic addition requirement to indicate the time circumstance. As with all subordinate temporal sentences, sentences whose main element is the personified form of the verb wait are characterized by having a grammatical tense form that is synchronous with the verb of the main element. If the predicate V of the main subject is expressed in the present or past (occasional or frequent) forms, and the predicate of the secondary subject is expressed in the future form (kol + V rururun), such connecting sentences usually perform the function of auxiliary sentences, although according to the grammatical structure of the secondary subject they are identical/homonymous to the secondary sentences. LITERATŪRA AMBRAZAS, V. 1972: Structural types of connective sentences in Lithuanian language. Baltistica 8 (1), 23-48. AMBRAZAS, V. 1976a: Participial, semi-participal and participative circumstances. Ulvydas, K., ed., Lithuanian Grammar 3: Syntax, Vilnius: Mokslas, 527-540. AMBRAZAS, V. 1976b: Connective sentences. Ulvydas, K., ed., Lithuanian Grammar 3: Syntax, Vilnius: Mokslas, 789-916. AMBRAZAS, V. 1979: Historical Syntax of Lithuanian Language Participants, Vilnius: Mokslas. AMBRAZAS, V. 1994a: Compound sentence. Connective sentences. Ambrazas, V., ed., Grammar of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 658-696. AMBRAZAS, V. 1994b: Non-personal forms of the verb. Ambrazas, V., ed., Grammar of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 354-385. AMBRAZAS, V., ed., 1997: Lithuanian Grammar, Vilnius: Baltos lankos. AMBRAZAS, V., ed., 1999: Encyclopedia of Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedias Publishing. AUWERA, J. van der, 1999: Adverbs and adverbials. Brown, Miller, eds., 1999, 8-12. BALKEVICIUS, J. 1963: Syntax of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Mintis. BALKEVIČIUS, J. 1998: Syntax of predicative constructions in Lithuanian language, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. BELousov, V. N., Kovruwova, I. I., KRUCININA, I. N. et al. 1989: Kratkaya russkaya 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. Dixon, R. M. W. 1995: Complement clauses and complementation strategies. PALMER, EF. R., ed., Grammar and Meaning. Essays in Honour of Sir John Lyons, Cambridge: University Press, 175220. DROTVINAS, L. 1962: On the constructions of time in contemporary Lithuanian literary language. Lithuanian SSR MA works. Serija A, 1 (12), 249-265. DURRELL, M., BREE, 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. GI1VON, T. 1979: On Understanding Grammar, New York, San Francisko, London: Academic Press. GivoNw, 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, Tubingen: Niemeyer. HoLVOET, A. 2003: Connective and conjunctive sentences in terms of form and function. Holvoet, A., JudZentis, A., ed., Syntactic Relationships, Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute (Lithuanian Language Grammar Works, 1), 99-114. HOLVOET, A., JUDZENTIS, A. 2003: The description of a compound conjunctive sentence. Holvoet, A., Judžentis, A., ed., Syntactic Relations in Lithuanian, Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute (Lithuanian Language Grammar Works, 1), 115-172. HubpbpLESTON, R. H. 1999: Sentence types and clause subordination. Brown, Miller, eds., 1999, JABLONSKIS, J. 1911/1957: Syntax of the Lithuanian language. Jablonskis, J., Selected Writings 1. Compiled by J. Palionis, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 435-549. LABUTIS, V. 1998: Syntax of Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Vilnius University Press. LAWLER, J., HOEK, 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: 329-343. Language and Lingvistics, Cambridge etc. : Cambridge University Press. Lyons, J. 1993: Semantics. Vols. 1, 2, Cambridge: University Press. LUCHIJENBROERS, J. 1996: Diskursivnyj analiz i schematic¢eskaja struktura. Voprosy lingvistiki 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, C. 1988: Syntax of Lithuanian language, Vilnius: Mokslas. SLIZIENE, N. 1994: Verb time. Ambrazas, V., ed., Grammar of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 290-304. SVERDIOLAS, A. 1996: Emergencies and Safety, Vilnius: Baltos lankos. LITHUANIAN LANGUAGES ADDRESSES TIME SENTENCES | 53 TALMY, L. 1978: Figure and ground complex sentences. in Greenberg, Ferguson, Moravcsik, eds., 1978b, TRAUGOTT, the expression spatio-temporal 625-649. relations E. C. 1978: On language. of in Greenberg, Ferguson, Moravcsik, eds., 1978a, ULvypas, 367-400. K., red., Lithuanian Grammar 1971: 2: Morphology, Vilnius: Mintis. ULvypas, K., ed., 1976: Lithuanian Grammar 3: Syntax, Vilnius: Mokslas. VALECKIENĖ, A. 1998: Functional grammar, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. VALIULYTĖ, E. 1995: Syntactic expression of time. Lituanistica 22, 68-81. VALIULYTĖ, E. 1998: Syntactic Synonyms of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, ir Vilnius: Mokslo enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Jūratė Pajėdienė Received 2004 03 23 Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, 10308 Vilnius, Lithuania [email protected]