Dėl lietuvių kalbos priesaginių denominatyvinių veiksmažodžių semantikos

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA L (2004), 55 – 77 On the semantics of Lithuanian suffixal denominal verbs* Jurgis Pakerys Vilnius University The meanings and categories of Lithuanian denominal and deadjectival verbs have been described more than once. I will argue here that these descriptions could be made more systematic by applying a model of three-mode predication (essive, inchoative and causative) and by analysing syntactic and semantic features of the base words in derivational paraphrases. 1. INTRODUCTION The derivational meanings and categories of denominal and deadjectival verbs have already been described many times in Lithuanian linguistics (Paulauskienė 1971: 192–204, 1994: 265–270; Ulyvdas, ed., 1971: 247–268; Jakaitienė 1972, 1973, 1976: 266–270; Ambrazas, ed., 1997a: 386–394). Nevertheless, relatively little attention has been paid to systematically substantiating the classifications presented and discussing the hierarchical relations among the units identified (an exception is Geniu šienė’s (1983: 61ff., 1987: 155–159) remarks on denominal reflexives). Over the past fifty years, several significant studies have appeared in which the meanings of denominal verbs are systematized on the basis of syntactic-semantic roles, principles of logical analysis are applied, and typological investigations are conducted (Marchand 1964, 1969a, 1969b: 367–371; Clark, Clark 1979; Karolak 1972, Karolak, ed., 1980; Kaliauščenko 1994, 2000). This article aims to draw synthetically on the findings of these works and to offer a few newer proposals. Its purpose is to propose a preliminary syntactic-semantic classification of Lithuanian denominal verbs. It does not seek to present a large body of new material, and mostly relies on examples already in scholarly circulation. In this way, it aims to show how earlier proposals differ from, and resemble, those offered here. At the outset, denominal verbs (DV)1 are interpreted as condensed predicative constructions (2.1); possible types of property predication are analyzed (2.2); the discussion then turns to an analysis of syntactic-semantic functions (3.1–3.4). · I would like to thank Prof. Habil. Dr. Evalda Jakaitienė for her valuable comments. Some of the literature used in this article was difficult to obtain, and I am grateful to Prof. Habil. Dr. Wojciech Smoczyński for making it possible for me to visit the Jagiellonian University in Kraków. I sincerely thank Prof. Habil. Dr. Vincas Urbutis, Dr. Aleksej Andronov, Dr. Jolanta Gelumbeckaitė, and Mikas Vengris for their assistance. 1 Sometimes only nominal verbs are considered denominal. In this article, the class of denominals includes nominal, adjectival and—though such cases are rare—participial, numeral, and pronominal verbs. 56 | JURGis Pakerys 2. FOUNDATIONS OF THE DESCRIPTION 2.1. DV as a predicative construction Marchand aptly observes that “denominative verbs are verbalized sentences” (1969b: 368, cf. 31)2. What the author has in mind here, of course, is not finite sentences—propositions—but predicative structures with nominal arguments, which can be discerned in working paraphrases, for example: 1 (a) to reign ~ to be a KING3 (b) to Lithuanize ~ to cause someone to become a LITHUANIAN, like a LITHUANIAN (c) to camp ~ to be IN A CAMP (d) to film ~ to cause a FILM to begin to exist (e) to flash (of lightning) ~ for LIGHTNING (-strikes) to exist, to begin to exist (appear) These paraphrases and (possible) transformational antecedents of the DV under discussion provide a basis for syntactic-semantic classification. Marchand indicates that the base word in the paraphrase may be a subject or object predicative (1a, 1b), may function as an adverbial (1c), or may function as an object (1d) (1964: 105, 1969a: 155ff., 1969b: 368, 371, cf. 33–38)4. In Marchand’s view, subjects cannot themselves be verbalized for logical reasons: the subject is a qualifying constituent, and therefore cannot itself be turned into its own qualifying constituent (predicate)5. Nevertheless, a certain exception in Lithuanian could be constituted by those DV whose subject may be regarded as incorporated into an existential denominative predicate (1e)6, cf. also: to storm ~ for a STORM to exist, to be bitterly cold ~ for SEVERE FROST to exist; to become day ~ for DAY to begin to exist (appear); to become cold ~ to begin to be (become) COLD. Understandably, this proposal is debatable; the base words here can also be interpreted as predicatives associated with an indefinite subject (see 3.2.1–2 for more detail). It is proposed that subject and object predicatives (Marchand’s first and second types) be combined into a single group, since they essentially perform the same syntactic function: object predicatives should be regarded as causative variants of subject predicatives, cf. to become white ~ to be WHITE (subject predicative) and to whiten ~ to cause someone to become WHITE (causative object predicative; see 3.1 for more detail). Thus, four such models are possible in the paraphrases of DV: (1) the base word in the DV paraphrase is a predicative (subject or object); 2 “Denominal verbs are verbalized sentences”, cf. Karolak (1972: 210). 3 After the symbol ~, possible working paraphrases are given here and below; the base words are distinguished by small capitals. In rare cases, this distinction also draws attention to other elements. 4 For other studies that devote greater attention to the syntactic interpretation of DV, cf. the works of Polish linguists: Grzegorczykowa (1969); Karolak (1972); Karolak, ed. (1980); Bojar (1975); Solecka, Termińska (1979, 1980). 5 „The subject of a sentence is necessarily the determinatum of its verb, therefore it cannot become the determinant in a verbalized sentence“ (Marchand 1969b: 368). 6 On the semantic incorporation of the subject in verba meteorologica-type verbs, see Katkuvienė (1982). DENOMINATYVINIŲ VEIKSMAŽODŽIŲ SEMANTIKA | 57 (2) the base word in the DV paraphrase is the subject; (3) the base word in the DV paraphrase is the object (direct or indirect); (4) the base word in the DV paraphrase is an adverbial. Having passed the most abstract level of syntactic classification7, finer subgroups can be distinguished using a set of more specific semantic roles. This article will make use of the roles of processant, result, content, possession (possessum)8, instrument, locative, temporative, and several others; see 3.2–3.4 for further detail. 2.2. Types of predication Predication is understood as the assignment of a certain property to one or more arguments (Morkūnas, par., 1999: 495). With denominal verbs, properties can be predicated as invariant, variable, or caused, for example: 1) the property is invariant (stative): kvailioti ~ to be a FOOL, behave like a FOOL; baluoti ~ to be, appear WHITE; audroti ~ to be a STORM (to occur); badauti ~ to be experiencing HUNGER; buriuoti ~ to sail using SAILS; žiemoti ~ to spend the WINTER (somewhere); 2) the property is variable, acquired or arising spontaneously (inchoative)9: kvailėti ~ to begin to be a FOOL / FOOLISH; baltėti ~ to begin to be, become WHITE; rasoti ~ to begin to be, appear as DEW; 3) the property is variable, imparted by a specified force (causative): kvailinti ~ to act so that someone begins to be a FOOL / FOOLISH, to turn someone into, regard someone as a FOOL; baltinti ~ to act so that someone begins to be WHITE (whiter); juokauti ~ to act so that JOKES begin to be, JOKES arise. Stative predication (1) is considered basic; inchoative predication (2) is derived from it, and causative predication (3) from the latter; see Table 1. If an inchoative verb has been derived from a particular noun or adjective (baltas → baltėti), the causative derivative can be interpreted in two ways: as a deverbal (baltėti → baltinti ~ to make [something] become WHITE) and as a direct denominal (baltas → baltinti ~ to make [something] begin to be WHITE). TABLE 1. WAYS OF PREDICATING PROPERTIES OF DENOMINAL VERBS Property (x) Invariant Variable acquired imparted Function Fesse(x) Fincho(Fesse(x)) Fcaus(Fincho(Fesse(x))) 7Some researchers of DV do not rely on abstract syntactic functions and classify DV according to the semantic roles that base words play in paraphrases (Clark, Clark 1979: 769–781; Kaliauščenko 1994, 2000). This article does not dispense with syntactic functions, since they reflect the most abstract level of DV classification, at which the links between syntax and word formation are clearly visible. 8What is meant is the part wholly belonging to the owner, the object; compare the possessor role, which characterizes the owner. 9In itself means that the proposition does not specify the cause of the acquisition of the property. 58 | JURGis PAKERYS The threefold predication of properties characteristic of denominative verbs was noted as early as Marchand (1969a: 155f.). It is true that here the author discusses only adjectival derivatives in English, German, and French. Karolak (1972: 214–217; cf. Solecka, Termińska 1979, 1980) and Uluchanov (1977: 117) also discern threefold predication in DV, although the latter does not systematically apply this model in his description of verb meanings (131–193). Kaliauščenko logically posits three further negative variants: ‘not have a property’, ‘begin not to have a property’, ‘cause [someone/something] to begin not to have a property’. The author applies the model of threefold (sixfold) predication when discussing possessive, attributive, locative, state-predicative, and, in part, event DV (Kaliauščenko 1987, 1994: 40–77, 98–102, 108–114; 2000: 22–44, 56–59, 63–67). 3. MAIN TYPES OF DENOMINATIVE VERBS 3.1. Predicative DV In their paraphrases, the base words are obligatory subject or object predicatives10, by which properties are predicated statively (2 a, b), inchoatively (3 a, b), and causatively (4 a, b): 2 (a) Petras is acting foolishly ~ Petras is a FOOL, behaves like a FOOL (b) The fields are turning white ~ The fields are, appear WHITE 3 (a) Petras is becoming foolish ~ Petras is becoming FOOLISH, turning into a FOOL (b) The cloth is whitening ~ The cloth is becoming WHITE 4 (a) Birutė is making Petras foolish ~ Birutė considers (makes) Petras a FOOL (b) Ona is whitening the cloths ~ Ona makes the cloths WHITE / so that the cloths become WHITE The properties predicated by these verbs are usually expressed by nouns (a) or adjectives (b); participles also occur occasionally (to be mischievous ~ to be, behave like a MISCHIEVOUS PERSON, to be debauched ~ to be, behave like a DEBAUCHED PERSON), as do numerals (to come first ~ to be FIRST) or pronouns (to make one’s own ~ to act so as to become ONE’S OWN). If the base word is a noun, the verb may draw not on all its semantic features (2 a), but only on some of them, for example, speaking or movement: to speak like a Samogitian ~ to speak like a SAMOGITIAN, to move like a tortoise ~ to move like a TORTOISE. When examining cases in which a property is predicated on the basis of similarity, researchers often establish separate subgroups or define special semantic functions (cf. fsim, Solecka, Termińska 1979: 58, 1980: 20–22). It is worth noting that nouns with derived meanings sometimes already rely on a relation of similarity, so that no such relation need be discerned in verbs derived from them; for example, to ape may be linked directly to beždžionė ‘someone who imitates others, puts on airs’, rather than to beždžionė ‘a mammal resembling a human in its bodily constitution (Simia)’ (LKŽI(2) 793). In other words, comparison 10 Apie laisvuosius ir būtinuosius predikatyvus žr. Holvoet (2003). DENOMINATYVINIŲ VEIKSMAŽODŽIŲ SEMANTIKA | 59 The function is not always discernible in the structure of the DV itself; its base words may also be regarded as its result. Denominal verbs of the essive type (2a) have also been proposed as agentive, since in their paraphrases their base words have agent roles (Clark, Clark 1979: 773ff.): 5 (a) Jonas papjovė karvę (b) John did to the cow the act that one would normally expect [a butcher to do to a cow] It is tempting to call such verbs agentive, since an active subject lies at the heart of their semantics. Nevertheless, this is inaccurate—the base word does not designate the subject itself, but rather forms part of a phrase describing the subject (5b). Thus, syntactic analysis carried out before the study of semantic roles blocks an unsuitable interpretation of the derivative. Kauzatyvinius (4 a) tipo atvejus kai kurie tyrėjai laiko tikslo (goal) veiksmažodžiais (Clark, Clark 1979: 774t.). Tai suprantama, nes kauzatyvai (kaip ir (3 a) tipo inchoatyvai) suponuoja tam tikrą veiksmo (vyksmo) ribą, kurią tinka laikyti siekiamu rezultatu (tikslu). Pagrindinė predikatyvinių inchoatyvų ir kauzatyvų funkcija – žymėti tam tikrus virsmus, transformacijas, kai objektas įgyja (jam suteikiama) naujų ypatybių (3 a, b; 4 a, b), tad juos dar galima vadinti transformaciniais rezultatyvais. Šie DV artimiausi objektiniams ir subjektiniams rezultatyvams, pavyzdžiui: eiliuoti ~ daryti, kurti EILES (eilėraščius), filmuoti ~ daryti, kurti FILMĄ, juokauti ~ daryti (krėsti) JUOKUS, rūdyti ~ RŪDIMIS atsirasti, pleiskanoti ~ PLEISKANOMS atsirasti ir kt. (žr. plačiau 3.2.2, 3.3.1). Pagrindiniai predikatyvinių ir subjektinių / objektinių rezultatyvų skirtumai tokie: 1) Subject and object resultatives predicate the spontaneous emergence (rust, flakes) or creation (lines, a film, jokes) of a certain new entity, whereas predicative resultatives predicate a transformation of the object (2a, b; 3a, b); 2) Predicative causatives cannot be intransitive. Nevertheless, it is difficult to draw a strict boundary between the attribution of properties and the emergence or creation of a new object. Some denominal predicative verbs can also be interpreted as object resultatives whose direct objects play the role of source (“material”), cf.: 6 (a) to group people ~ to turn people into GROUPS, to give people the properties of GROUPS: to make, create GROUPS out of people; (b) to sacrifice money ~ to turn money into a SACRIFICE, to give money the properties of a SACRIFICE: to make, create a SACRIFICE out of money; (c) for potatoes to become carbonized ~ for potatoes to acquire the properties of CARBON: for CARBON to form, emerge from potatoes. DVs meaning ‘to treat or call someone what the base word denotes’ require separate comment, for example: dėdžiuoti ‘to call someone UNCLE’, tujinti ‘to address someone as TU, to use second-person singular forms that imply the pronoun TU’, tamstinti ‘to call someone TAMS- 60 | JURGיס PAKERYS TA’. The working meaning of these DV may seem somewhat removed from that of other predicative causatives (‘to cause someone/something to become something (of a certain kind)’). The only difference here is that becoming is caused by acts of thought (‘to consider as’) or performative acts (‘to call’). Marchand is therefore entirely justified in classifying verbs of address among complement-predicative verbs (1964: 110, 1969b: 369). Other researchers proceed less systematically: they discern instrumentality (Clark, Clark 1979: 777 classify the English verb sir ‘to address as sir, to call sir’ in the phrase sir the general as miscellaneous [instruments]) or group ‘naming’ verbs into a separate speech group, although they describe ‘considering, treating’ verbs among predicative causatives (Kaliuščenko 1994: 68ff., 104; 2000: 38, 60)11. Distinguishing a group of predicative Lithuanian DV is not new; it was already discussed in Geniusienė’s studies (1983: 61, 1987: 156). It is true that only deverbal nouns are called predicative here, for example: svečiuotis ‘to be a guest’: svečias; gimin iuotis ‘to be, become relatives’: giminė; cukruotis ‘to turn into sugar’: cukrus. In Jakaitienė’s works, the syntactic aspect of the verbs in question is not emphasized: predicative verbs are assigned to the categories of correspondence and state (their opposition is based on subject activity: inactivity, cf. advokatauti: juoduoti), inchoatives to change of state, and causatives to the factitive category (Jakaitienė 1973: 64–66, 1976: 269; Ambrazas, ed., 1997: 387–393; cf. Ulvydas, ed., 1971: 248ff., 252–255, 258ff., 262, 264ff., 267; Paulauskienė 1994: 266–270). 3.2.1. THE PROBLEM OF DISTINGUISHING SUBJECTIVE DV. It has already been mentioned (2.1) that it is unusual to distinguish subjective DV and, in Marchand’s view, logically impossible as well12. It should be noted that Marchand describes English verb formation (1969b), while in his articles (1964, 1969a) he studies German and French DV alongside English ones. All these languages have dummy subjects (dummy subjects), so the author remarks that verba meteorologica can be interpreted as predicative verbs (1964: 116), cf. Clark and Clark’s paraphrase: It is raining ~ It (the weather) is doing the activity that one would normally expect [rain to do]. Despite this observation, Marchand nevertheless classifies the verbs in question as object verbs13. Lithuanian has no words that perform the function of a dummy subject, so a syntactically subjective interpretation of some DV is not precluded. That their base words do not perform a predicative function in paraphrases can be established by means of negative transformations; compare (7b) and (8b): 7 (a) Yesterday it stormed ~ Yesterday there was A STORM (b) Yesterday OF A STORM there was none 11 The predicative DV discussed in this article are called attributive in Kaliuščenko’s classification, whereas verbs motivated by names of actions, states, and the like are regarded as predicative (see 1994: 94ff., 2000: 54ff.). 12 Subjektinių anglų kalbos DV grupę skiria Kuricyna (1985: 70t.), bet ji šį terminą taiko tiesiog intranzityviniams veiksmažodžiams aprašyti (angl. to vagabond, to seal, to panic ir pan.). 13 Incidentally, Clark and Clark also discern a semantic role of the object here: “there are a few element verbs, which are still another kind of object verb” (Clark, Clark 1979: 780). DENOMINATYVINIŲ VEIKSMAŽODŽIŲ SEMANTIKA | 61 8 (a) A wolf is an ANIMAL (b) A wolf is not an (herbivorous) ANIMAL (*A wolf is not an (herbivore) ANIMAL-GENITIVE) As can be seen, the nominal part of the predicate is not marked with the genitive in negative propositions, so it is entirely justified to discern a syntactic subject (rather than a predicative) in nominative sentences with existential semantics. This approach was proposed, for example, by Balkevičius (1963: 147ff.), though with exceptions (149ff.). One exception rule reads: “The nominative in a nominative sentence, as the predicative center, is to be considered a state nominative (predicate) [...], when the function of that nominative is analogous to the function of predicates in other sentences in the context.” Commenting on the example FROM THE ROOFS DRIP, on the ground are POOLS, the author states that “the main parts of adjacent sentences [...] teška, klanai [...] are homogeneous, since they denote several parallel phenomena” (Balkevičius 1963: 151, cf. 142). Nevertheless, treating the word klanai ‘pools’ as a subject would in no way undermine the parallelism of the phenomena: after all, alongside teškėti ‘to drip’ there is the verb būti ‘to be’, cf. FROM THE ROOFS DRIPPED, on the ground POOLS WERE. Thus, the essential question here is the interpretation of the verb būti ‘to be’: negative transformations nevertheless provide stronger support for an existential meaning than for the function of a predicative copula. The existential semantics of nominative sentences is also noted in the “Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian,” which describes them as follows: “Such sentences report a thing or phenomenon, name its EXISTENCE” (Ambrazas, ed., 1997: 617; emphasis added – J. P.). These sentence patterns are, however, still presented with a predicative copula (Vf₍cop₎ Nₙ). “The Grammar of the Lithuanian Language” even describes a separate subgroup of existential nominative sentences (Ulvydas, ed., 1976: 628ff.). This existential interpretation of būti ‘to be’ may also be applied to cases in which non-agreeing adjective forms are used: (9) At home it was getting colder ~ At home it began to be (become) COLD The fact that non-agreeing forms can function as subjects was noted long ago; cf. the examples given by Jablonskis (1911: 19 = 1957: 453): From here ALL GOOD things are already flowing; THERE IS NO LACK OF DOUBLE; EVIL may happen; From of old the YOUNG is born. Nevertheless, examples of type (9) are usually described as containing a predicative copula; see, for example, Ambrazas, ed., 1997: 617 (Vf₍cop₎ Adj₍neutr₎/Adv). What arguments might be offered for comparing these sentences with sentences of type (7), interpreted existentially? Negative transformations have no probative force here, since non-agreeing forms are not inflected. It is true that in some cases the masculine singular genitive of an adjective is used instead of the expected non-agreeing form (see Paulauskienė 1994: 216ff.), but these forms are not associated with negation; cf.: at home it was COLD; at home it was not COLD; *at home there was no COLD-GENITIVE. On the other hand, it has been noted that these non-agreeing forms can be replaced by abstract nouns derived from adjectives; it is stated that “the non-agreeing form denotes a state as a thing” (Paulauskienė 1994: 215), cf.: In the forest it is completely QUIET; In the forest there is complete QUIETNESS. Thus, structurally, sentences of type (9) correspond to the type (7) sentences discussed above. Moreover, the meaning ‘exist’ of the verb būti in both sentence types indicates that it is directly linked to locative (and temporal) adjuncts; cf. the oft-quoted passage from a poem by Salomėja Nėris: Autumn in PARIS. Wet. In the BOULEVARDS it is bright. In the unmarked word-order pattern of sentence constituents— 62 | J U R G I S P A K E R Y S A variant with an adjunct at the beginning is also possible: Yesterday there was a storm; It was quiet in the forest. It is worth noting that this order corresponds to existential constructions with an indefinite-quantity argument, for example, There were children in the yard. Thus, in some respects, sentences of types (9) and (7) (respectively, denominative verbs) are similar. Understandably, the identification of syntactic subjects in the sentences discussed, with nouns and especially with non-agreeing adjective forms, is debatable and merits closer investigation14. Among earlier studies of DV, attention should be drawn to Geniusienė’s proposal to distinguish subject-reflexive DV, for example, šmeklotis ‘to be, to appear as a šmekla’ (1983: 61, 1987: 157). The author is referring here to a semantic subject role, however, rather than to a syntactic subject. Kaliauščenk(o) (1994: 109–114, 2000: 63–67) describes verbs denoting natural phenomena as a separate group of “event verbs” (событийные глаголы, Ereignisverben) and does not identify a subject in their paraphrases (1994: 109, n. 28; 2000: 63, n. 24)15. 3.2.2. THE SEMANTICS OF SUBJECT DV. It has already been mentioned that in paraphrases of these DV, the base words occupy the position of the subject (syntactic subject), for example: 10 (a) it is stormy today ~ today there is (exists) STORMINESS (b) it is already dawning ~ DAY is beginning to exist (to emerge) (c) it is getting light early now ~ LIGHT is beginning to exist early now / LIGHT is appearing (d) the gate is rusting ~ RUST is beginning to form (appear) on the gate The existence of the subjects of these DV is characterized either as stative (10 a) or inchoative (10 b, c, d). Stative predicates denote natural forces and spontaneous phenomena, which researchers of semantic functions describe in terms of the roles of processant or state/process patient (Jakaitienė 1988: 62; Slížienė 1994: 20). Inchoative predication denotes the emergence or formation of a particular result (cf. the notion of resultative patient: a REVOLT broke out in the city, Slížienė 1994: 20). In some cases, it is difficult to draw a strict boundary between subject stative and inchoative DV. For example, the propositions there is lightning in the distance, the sea is rough can be paraphrased in two ways: there is LIGHTNING in the distance: LIGHTNING is beginning to occur in the distance; there are WAVES in the sea: WAVES are beginning to form in the sea. Stative subject DV are often impersonal, but sometimes they open a subject position, occupied either by a tautological subject (the type the storm is storming, the lightning is flashing; see more examples in Katkuvienė 1979: 43ff.), or by another noun indicating a place (the sky is flashing with lightning). If a subject used in this position plays the role of a causative agent, it is not appropriate to regard such a verb as a subject DV, for example: Whoever climbs too high into the black clouds, THUNDER often commands him to return with its lightning (LKŽXX 73; emphasis mine – J. P.). Therefore, the verbs žaibuoti1 ‘for lightning to occur, to appear’ and žaibuoti2 ‘to cause lightning to occur (to appear)’ should be distinguished. 14 It should not be forgotten that the part-of-speech status of non-agreeing forms themselves is also problematic; see Kazlauskas’s remarks as early as 1965: 175ff. If these forms are not to be considered adjectives, then they need not be discussed at all in the classification of their denominative verbs. 15 Dėl subjektinės pamatinių žodžių funkcijos galimybės dar žr. Kaliauščenk(o) (1994: 39t., 2000: 21). DENOMINATYVINIŲ VEIKSMAŽODŽIŲ SEMANTIKA | 63 Inchoative subject DV are characterized by result semantics and are comparable to object resultative DV (see 3.3.1). Object resultative DV differ in that their propositions specify the force that causes the verbalized result (cf. those mentioned above žaibuoti, and žaibuoti2). In the case of subject inchoative DV, that force is not specified, so they are often impersonal. If the subject position is opened in the argument structure of such a DV, in the paraphrase it corresponds to a position with locative or benefactive (addressee, recipient of the action) semantics (the subject position in the paraphrase is occupied by the base word), for example: LAUKAI rudenėja ~ LAUKUOSE ima būti ruduo; VARTAI rūdija ~ ANT VARTŲ ima būti (randasi) rūdžių; LANGAI rasoja ~ ANT LANGŲ ima būti (susidaro) rasa; PETRAS prakaituoja ~ PETRUI ima būti (randasi, išsiskiria) prakaitas. Admittedly, some cases are debatable—for instance, if in the last example Petras is interpreted as the cause of sweat appearing, the causer (cf. Petras išskiria PRAKAITĄ), the verb prakaituoti could be classified among object resultative verbs (3.3.1). Nevertheless, Petras is not a direct causer of the sweat here; his activity in relation to the sweat is not conscious, purposeful, or controlled, so a causative interpretation is questionable (cf. other uncontrolled results: veidas strazdanoja(si) ~ ant veido atsiranda STRAZDANŲ; žaizda kraujuoja ~ žaizdoje atsiranda KRAUJO, saulė SPINDULIUOJA ~ iš saulės randasi SPINDULIAI)16. For similar reasons, a small group denoting ‘the appearance of offspring’ can also be assigned to subject inchoative DV: ėriuotis, paršiuotis, veršiuotis, and so on. The reflexive marker is apparently also to be regarded here as an indication of spontaneous emergence17. It should be noted that the semantically similar non-reflexive vaikuoti can open a position for a tautological object: Vaikų nevaikuok, kol neišgysi (LKŽXVII 904). The verbs discussed here are often described by researchers in terms of the logical-semantic notion of object. Decisions concerning verba meteorologica have already been mentioned above; we therefore consider proposals concerning examples of the type veidas strazdanoja(si), Petras prakaituoja, karvė veršiuojasi. Marchand discusses them in the subsection on resultative objects, which includes more specific groups for excretion (of what), covering (with what), bearing young, and others (1964: 116; 1969b: 370). In Clark and Clark’s article, spontaneous and caused results are presented in a single goal group (goal), which also includes predicative DV (see Clark, Clark 1979: 774ff.). In his group of object reflexives, Geniu Šienė lists the verb veršiuotis and the Latvian verbs sakņoties (: sakne), pumpuroties (: pumpurs); Lithuanian geležiuotis ‘to rust’ is listed among the instrumental verbs (1983: 61ff., 1987: 157). In the section on object DV, Kaliuščenko describes a subgroup denoting the excretion of substances or other things into the environment, which includes the verbs kraujuoti, veršiuotis, and so on (1994: 80ff., 2000: 45ff.). A possessive-type relation may arise between things that appear and their locations or recipients. Kaliuščenko’s decision to distinguish a subgroup of quasi-possessive DV is therefore quite logical; it includes verbs such as plunksnuotis, lapoti, kirmyti, and so on (1994: 45ff., 2000: 25ff.). Admittedly, in the author’s classification this subgroup belongs not to object DV but to a separate section on possessive DV (cf. 3.3.3). 16 Apie veiksmų (ne)kontroliavimą žr. Holvoet (1991: 60t., 163t.). 17 Some proposals also interpret the subject of DV here as an active agent, a causer, rather than a benefactive (Solecka, Termińska 1980: 23). 64 | JURGis PAKERYs In Lithuanian linguistics, it is not customary to distinguish subject DV. Nevertheless, the paraphrases and working definitions of meanings provided suggest that a subject interpretation of the DV discussed would not be ruled out; cf.: “Noun-based verbs with the suffix -(i)uoti may denote [...] the SPONTANEOUS EMERGENCE or EXISTENCE of the phenomenon or thing designated by the base word, e.g.: banguoti, debes(i)uoti, dūmuoti, gaisruoti, garuoti, kraujuoti, pūliuoti, speiguoti, spinduliuoti, žaibuoti” (Ul vydas, ed., 1971: 248, cf. 254, 258, 262; emphasis mine—J. P.); “[verbs denoting a change of state] denote an action that occurs spontaneously, that is, a process during which something gradually changes its state or slowly comes into being”; “[verbs denoting a state] denote the existence of something” (Ambrazas, ed., 1997: 390, 393; cf. Jakaitienė 1973: 35, 43; Paulauskienė 1994: 267ff.). 3.3. Object DV In their paraphrases, the base words are direct or indirect objects, for example: 11 (a) Ieva films ~ Ieva creates a FILM (b) Students do sports ~ Students engage in SPORT (c) Onutė is afraid of the wolf ~ Onutė experiences FEAR of the wolf (d) Petras had ~ Petras begins to have more WEALTH (e) Mikas fishes with a rod ~ Mikas uses a FISHING ROD Based on the semantics of the object, the following groups of these verbs can be distinguished: resultative (11a), content (11b, c), possessive (11d), and instrumental (11e). 3.3.1. RESULTATIVE DV. The semantic role of Result is not understood uniformly by everyone; at times its transformational aspect is emphasized more strongly, cf.: “Result [...] [is] a function characteristic of the thing into which another thing is transformed or made to transform” (Šlizienė 1994: 22). It was noted above (3.1) that prototypically transformational results are classified here as predicative DV, while object resultatives are those DV whose base words in paraphrases denote concrete and abstract objects that are created (cf. the notion of a resultative patient—Šlizienė 1994: 20), for example: 12 (a) The boys joke ~ The boys create (make) JOKES (b) Jonas films ~ Jonas creates (makes) a FILM From the perspective of predication, object resultatives should be regarded as causative (‘to act so that the thing designated by the base word begins to exist’). They are related to subject resultatives by complementary distribution: the causer is unspecified in the latter, but specified in the former. It should be noted that causative resultative DV can also govern direct objects which, in the paraphrases, yield this position to the result denoted by the base word and themselves occupy the position of indirect objects, for example: DENOMINATYVINIŲ VEIKSMAŽODŽIŲ SEMANTIKA | 65 13 (a) Smoking harms health ~ Smoking causes DAMAGE TO HEALTH (b) Father furrows potatoes ~ Father makes FURROWS FOR THE POTATOES (c) Grandmother smokes bees ~ Grandmother lets (makes) the bees SMOKE (d) The old man smokes a pipe ~ The old man lets (makes) SMOKE by means of a PIPE The result of causative object verbs may also be used tautologically as a direct object (cf. tautological subjects of subject verbs), for example: (e) Ona sings a merry SONG; Ieva films a new FILM Examples (13 a–d) clearly show the distinction between object and predicative results: in paraphrases with make, turn, the direct objects governed by the latter retain (or can retain) this position; cf. (6 a–b) and the impossible paraphrases of (13 a–d): *make damage to health, *make furrows for the potatoes, *turn the bees, the pipe into smoke. Somewhat problematic are those DV whose base words can denote both the result of an action (nomen resultati) and the action itself (nomen actionis), cf. darbuotis and DARBAS₁ ‘result of purposeful activity’, DARBAS₂ ‘purposeful activity, working’. Judging by the semantics of the verb darbuotis, the result is not foregrounded; only the activity itself, the occupation, matters, so this DV cannot be considered resultative. In some cases, the semantics of the result of an action may have faded considerably, cf. verbs of movement: šuoliuoti ~ make LEAPS, žingsniuoti ~ make STEPS. Naturally, there are also intermediate cases where it is impossible to decide definitively whether the base word is foregrounded as a result or as the activity itself, its content (cf. content verbs – 3.3.2), for example: maištauti ~ foment, make a REBELLION / participate in a REBELLION, engage in REBELLION; kerštauti ~ take REVENGE / engage in REVENGE. The resultative object DV discussed above are distinguished most clearly from predicative object verbs by Marchand (1964: 115–117, 1969b: 370ff.). He also assigns to the former verbs motivated by action nouns, for example: English curtsy ‘make a curtsy’: curtsy ‘curtsy’; German streiken ‘to strike’: Streik ‘strike’ (see also 1964: 105ff.). Sometimes resultative object and predicative DV are presented together in a single group—that of purpose (goal)—with certain semantic subgroups and separate subdivisions for transitive and intransitive verbs (Clark, Clark 1979: 774ff.). The group of object DV is distinguished in Geniušienė’s studies (1983: 61, 1987: 157). At least some of the cases presented here can be interpreted as resultative, for example, garsiuotis (‘make sounds’). The author does not regard reflexive DV derived from nomina actionis and nomina resultati as object verbs, but sees here semantic equivalence (though a grammatical—part-of-speech—difference), for example: darbuotis: darbas, galynėtis: galynės ‘wrestling, competing’, revanšuotis: revanšas, tyčiotis: tyčios ‘mockery’, aikštytis: aikštis ‘whim, caprice’¹⁸ (1983: 62, 1987: 157ff.). The DV that Kaliauščenko considers resultative in this article are assigned a threefold (sixfold) predication mo- 18 Greta pateikiama pora ryžtis: ryžtas (1987: 158) interpretuotina atvirkščiai – čia daiktavardis išvestas iš veiksmažodžio. 66 | JURGIS PAKERYS delio netaiko ir juos aprašo bendroje objektinių veiksmažodžių grupėje (1994: 77–82, 2000: 44–47). In Lithuanian linguistics, object resultatives are usually described as a factitive category (sometimes alongside predicative causative DV) (Ambrazas, ed., 1997: 387–389; cf.: Ulvydas, ed., 1971: 248, 253ff., 258, 262, 265; Jakaitienė 1973: 64, 1976: 269; Paulauskienė 1994: 266–268). 3.3.2. CONTENT DV. In their paraphrases, the base words denote the content of actions, processes, or states that the subject engages in (14 a), participates in (14 b), or experiences (14 c, d): 14 (a) Rimas studies ~ Rimas engages in STUDIES (b) The director attends meetings ~ The director participates in a MEETING, engages in a MEETING (c) Mother grieves ~ Mother experiences GRIEF (d) Ona admires the sculpture ~ Ona experiences the sculpture’s BEAUTY Usually these verbs predicate contents in an essive manner, but causatives also occur, for example: Mother shames her son ~ Mother makes her son feel, experience SHAME (cf. gėdytis ~ experience SHAME); I neither starved nor wasted my children (LKŽ1(2) 544) ~ I did not force my children to endure HUNGER (cf. badauti ~ experience HUNGER). The examples show that causatives are characteristic of experiential-content verbs. In paraphrases of some reflexive DV, the experienced content is most appropriately expressed by impersonal adjective forms, for example: Vytautas is embarrassed to speak in public ~ It is EMBARRASSING for Vytautas to speak in public; Birutė is horrified by contemporary art ~ Contemporary art is HORRIFYING to Birutė. For this reason, a subject interpretation could be applied (see 3.2.1 on DV based on impersonal adjective forms). On the other hand, a predicative interpretation is also possible: Vytautas is SHY about speaking in public (essive predication)19, Birutė considers contemporary art HORRIFYING (causative predication)—cf. Geniušienė 1983: 62, 1987: 159; Ambrazas, ed., 1997: 409. For a causative predicative interpretation, cf. also: biaurėtis, gardžiuotis, šlykštėtis ‘consider UGLY’, ‘consider TASTY’, ‘consider DISGUSTING’ (Geniušienė: ibid.). In rare cases, the base word indicates a place where some (unspecified) content is experienced, for example: sielotis ~ experience something in the SOUL [anxiety, agitation], širdyti(s) ~ experience something in the HEART [anger, fury]20, viduriuoti ~ experience something in the GUT [malaise]. These verbs are close to locative verbs (see 3.4.1). When discussing resultative DV, it was already mentioned that sometimes no strict boundary can be drawn between content and result verbs. If the base word is derivationally or semantically a name for an action or state and has no resultative meaning, it is more appropriate to consider its derivative an object content verb, for example: atostogauti, kovoti, panikuoti, prekiauti (engage in an activity related to goods as finished ob- 19 The derivational relationship between drovetis and drovus may also be reversed if the adjective is interpreted as a deverbal: ‘one who IS SHY’ (cf. lakus: lėkti). 20 Verbal derivation is also possible: širdyti(s): širšti. DENOMINATYVINIŲ VEIKSMAŽODŽIŲ SEMANTIKA | 67 jects, rather than manufacturing or producing goods), pusryčiauti (to engage in breakfast, to take part in eating it, rather than to prepare it), rungtyniauti, sportuoti, etc. The group of objective content verbs is distinguished by only some researchers. Marchand (1964: 117) proposes treating verbs such as English weekend ‘spend the weekend’, vacation ‘spend a vacation’, duel ‘fight a duel’, German frühstücken ‘have breakfast’, French banqueter ‘feast, attend a banquet’, and others, as resultative, that is, as treating an entire process or activity as a result. English lunch ‘have lunch’ and feast ‘feast’ are also considered objective in the study by Clark and Clark (Clark, Clark 1979: 780), but are assigned to the smaller miscellaneous groups, where they form the meals subgroup (miscellaneous; meals). English weekend, vacation, and the like are classified here as duration verbs (duration) (cf. temporal DV, 3.4.2). In Kaluščenko’s studies, content-type DV are discussed in the predicative subsection21 (1994: 94–102, 2000: 54–59), and a threefold predication scheme is applied to the verbs of state discussed there. DV similar to examples of the sielotis, viduriuoti type are not assigned here by the author to this category; they are listed among DV that do not fall into the larger types (1994: 115, 2000: 67). In Lithuanian studies, objective content verbs are customarily described as state (alongside essive predicates), participation, occupation, or factitive DV (Jakaitienė 1973: 66ff., 1976: 269ff.; Ambrazas, ed., 1997: 389, 393ff.; cf. Ulvydas, ed., 1971: 248, 253ff., 262; Paulauskienė 1994: 268). 3.3.3. POSSESSIVE DV. In their paraphrases, the base words denote objects related to the subject through relations of possession, or possessive relations. The predication of these verbs may be essive (15 a, b), inchoative (15 c, d), or causative (15 e, f, g): 15 (a) lobiuoti ~ to have LOBIO (‘wealth’)22 (b) galioti ~ to have GALIĄ (‘power’) (c) turtėti ~ to begin to acquire WEALTH (d) lobėti ~ to begin to acquire LOBIO (‘wealth’) (e) turtinti ~ to cause someone to begin to have WEALTH (f) protinti ~ to cause someone to begin to have INTELLIGENCE (g) ginkluoti ~ to cause someone to begin to have WEAPONS The possessive relation, in the broad sense, expresses the connection between a whole and a part. In the DV under consideration, the base words denote the part, while the whole (the possessor) is denoted by the subject or, with causative verbs, the direct object. The dependent object can be described as having the semantic role of a possessee, or possessed entity (cf. the role of the possessor—the owner or holder). The semantics of the possessive relation is broad. Its features can also be discerned within the domain of resultative subject DV, if the verbs strazdanoti(s), plunksnuotis, kirmyti are paraphrased as to begin to have FRECKLES, FEATHERS, WORMS23. At least condition- 21 The author acknowledges that this designation is not entirely appropriate, since predicativity (predicative status) is characteristic of all verbs. 22 ‘to be wealthy, rich, to live well’ (LKŽVII 638). 23 A hyphen separates the part of the stem that carries over into the derivative (here, shortening of the base stem may be discerned). 68 | JURGis PAKERYS Possessive relations can also be discerned in some causative-resultative cases; compare the following paraphrase of example (13 b): The father causes the potatoes to have FURROWS. The notion of possession applied to the DV discussed in this subsection is somewhat narrower, being limited to cases in which the objects are not considered to be created or to come into existence spontaneously. Of course, intermediate cases are unavoidable, especially if the inchoative DV is based on an abstract noun. For example, there is no doubt about ginkluoti ‘arm’: WEAPONS are not made or created here, but merely transferred or handed over to someone. On the other hand, the abstract, uncountable possessive objects of turėti ‘have’ and lobėti ‘become rich’—wealth and treasure—can be understood both as objects acquired and as results that come into being. Perhaps the interpretation in terms of a possessive relation could be supported by prefixed derivatives of these verbs, which indicate the gradual loss of an object (the termination of a possessive relation), since, it seems, such derivatives do not occur among resultative DVs; compare iš-protėti ‘lose one’s MIND’, nu-turėti ‘lose one’s WEALTH’, but nu-pleiskanoti *‘lose one’s FLAKES’ (‘FLAKES appear’). Sometimes the termination of a possessive relation can be marked even without a prefix; compare lukštenti ‘make [something] have no HUSK’ (for a possible locative interpretation, see 3.4.1); šakoti ‘make [something] have no BRANCHES’ (‘prune’, LKŽXIV 423); plunksnoti ‘begin to have no FEATHERS’ (‘shed feathers, moult’, also ‘grow feathers’, LKŽX 355; incidentally, the prefixed iš-plunksnoti indicates the emergence of a result: ‘become covered with feathers’, LKŽ, ibid.). Whether the criterion in question is indeed suitable for distinguishing inchoative possessive and resultative verbs should be investigated separately. Another problem relevant to formations of the turėti ‘have’, lobėti ‘become rich’, protinti ‘make wise’ type is the interpretation of the base word’s class. If these verbs are related to adjectives (LOBUS ‘rich’, TURT-ingas ‘wealthy’, PROT-ingas ‘intelligent’—with stem shortening in derivation assumed), they should be regarded as predicative inchoatives and should not be assigned directly to possessive DVs. There are few essive possessive DVs (compare also valioti ‘have WILL’ meaning ‘strength’, and šlovėti ‘have GLORY’, whose motivation has become obscure). Typological studies show that the most frequent are causative possessives (Kaliuščenko 1994: 52, 2000: 29). Besides ginkluoti ‘arm’, usually cited in studies of DVs, the following may be mentioned: (i)galoti ‘grant POWER, cause someone to have POWER’, compare at-/iš-galoti ‘deprive of POWER’ (LKŽIII 70); garbinti ‘honour’ ‘grant HONOUR’ (but compare the adjective GARBUS ‘honourable’); šlovinti ‘glorify’ ‘grant GLORY’ (but compare the adjective ŠLOVUS ‘glorious’). DVs motivated by concrete nouns include balnoti ‘saddle (a horse)’, vainikuoti ‘crown (a winner)’, žieduoti ‘ring (birds)’, rėminti ‘frame (a picture)’, stiklinti ‘glaze (a veranda)’: put (“grant”) a SADDLE on a horse, a CROWN on a winner, RINGS on birds, FRAMES on pictures, and insert GLASS in a veranda. A large proportion of possessive causatives consists of verbs denoting the smearing or covering of objects with something, or the placing of something in them, for example: 16 (a) dervuoti ‘tar’ a boat ~ cause a boat to have TAR / coat a boat with TAR (b) tapetuoti ‘wallpaper’ a room ~ cause a room (its walls) to have WALLPAPER (c) druskinti ‘salt’ meat ~ cause meat to have SALT / put SALT into meat (d) chloruoti ‘chlorinate’ water ~ cause water to have CHLORINE / put CHLORINE into water A sizeable group of verbs denoting searching and seeking to acquire something can also be classified as possessive causatives: uogauti ‘pick berries’, grybauti ‘pick mushrooms’, vėžiauti ‘catch crayfish’, and so on. Unlike other possessives, these verbs- DENOMINATYVINIŲ VEIKSMAŽODŽIŲ SEMANTIKA 69 …verbs are distinguished by the possibility of intransitivity. This can be explained by the fact that the causer and the caused possessor coincide in the semantics of these verbs: 17 Jonas grybauja ~ Jonas (agent) causes [Jonas (possessor)] to have, acquire GRYBŲ (possessed object) Just as the causer and possessor coincide here, so too do the subject and dative of dative transitive reflexives (Geniušienė 1987: 126ff.). It is possible that the reflexive marker of some prefixed verbs of striving to acquire expresses a benefactive, cf.: 18 (a) Ona sewed a dress for her daughter (b) Ona sewed herself a dress (c) *Ona sewed herself a dress for her daughter 19 (a) Mother gathered a full jug of berries for the children (b) Mother gathered herself a full jug of berries (c) *Mother gathered herself a full jug of berries for the children Cf. also: Not only for YOURSELF but also for the CHILDREN one must gather berries (LKŽXVII, 479; emphasis and reading are mine – J. P.). Geniušienė also draws attention to the benefactive meaning of the reflexive marker in the verb pa-si-grybauti, explaining its meaning as ‘pick mushrooms FOR ONESELF for a while’ (1987: 137; emphasis mine – J. P.). This issue warrants closer examination separately. The class of possessive DV is not distinguished in many studies. First, it should be noted that Marchand (1964: 111ff., 1969b: 369ff.) regards some of the DV discussed here (the type ginkluoti, dervuoti) as non-objective but adverbial (adverbial complements). The author notes that these verbs of provision, or ornative verbs, are close to instrumental verbs and could even constitute a subgroup of them (1964: 111; cf. the base words of the verbs chloruoti, bintuoti, druskinti as instruments for particular purposes). On the other hand, it is clear that Marchand also correctly identifies the possessive nature of the verbs in question—as is evident from the categorical paraphrases ‘to provide with’, ‘to deprive of’ (privative verbs of the lukšten- type). Marchand interprets verbs of striving to acquire (the type grybauti) as resultative object verbs (1964: 116, 1969b: 370), since the author considers the objects acquired to be the consequence or product of a particular activity. In Clark and Clark’s study, all the DV discussed here, except for the grybauti type, are presented in the section locatum verbs, that is, as verbs denoting the putting of something somewhere or, conversely, its removal (Clark, Clark 1979: 769–771). This analysis is also well-founded, since the relationship between possession and location is well known (Lyons 1967; Clark 1978; Freeze 1992). The Clarks place verbs of striving to acquire among the more specific groups and call them crop verbs (crops). The authors astutely observe that these partly resemble negative locatum verbs (Marchand’s privative verbs), since they denote taking something from somewhere, although the location need not be specified (cf.: Roger hayed the top field ~ Roger caused it to come about that [hay was not in the top field], without a locative phrase – Roger hays for a living; Clark, Clark 1979: 780). Kaliuščenko discusses possessive DV as a separate group and applies to it a three- 70 | JURGis PAKERYs pos (šešeriopos) predikacijos modelį (1994: 41–58, 2000: 22–32). Kvaziposesyvi- niams inchoatyviniams DV iliustruoti autorius pateikia ir lietuvišku (šiame straips- nyje subjektiniais rezultatyvais laikomu) pavyzdžiu: lapoti ‘imti turėti lapų, įgyti la- pų’, žolėti ‘žole apaugti’, be to, šiai grupei priskiria ir kai kuriuos gamtos reiškinių veiksmažodžius, pavyzdžiui, vok. sich bewölken ‘debesuotis’. Siekimo įgyti DV autorius aprašo prie objektinių, kur išskirti ir smulkesni medžiojimo, rinkimo, ėjimo ko gauti pogrupiai (1994: 83–86, 88; 2000: 47–50). Tik paskutinį pogrupį (‘eiti ko (gau- ti)’) autorius laiko artimą lokatyviniams posesyvams. Su posesyvumo semantika susiję ir dvi Soleckos bei Termińskos skiriamos funkcijos (1980: 24t.). Dalies funkcija fpars vartojama apibūdinti pamatinio žodžio žymimo objekto susilietimui, susijungi- mui su visuma, pavyzdžiui: le. plombować ‘plombuoti’ (PLOMBA tampa danties dali- mi), szczotkować ‘valyti, šukuoti (šepečiu)’ (šepetys, šukos – le. SZCZOTKA – liesdamas plaukus ar kitus objektus būna jų dalimi); le. policzkować ‘mušti į veidą, skelti antausį’ (tam tikru momentu veikėjo kūno dalis paliečia veikiamojo veidą, skruostą – le. POLICZEK, akimirka būna jo dalimi, plg. lie. snukiuoti, žr. 3.4.1) (Karolak, red., 1980: 53tt., 65tt., 89tt.). Tikrojo posesyvumo funkciją fposs siūloma taikyti tokiems DV kaip svečiuotis, žiemoti, dienoti (‘leisti kur DIENĄ’), interpretuojant buvimą kur nors kaip tam tikrą priklausymą kam nors (Solecka, Termińska 1980: 25). In Lithuanian studies, it is not customary to distinguish a category of possessive DV. That possessive semantics has been recognized can be inferred from the descriptions of some categories; for example, galioti is listed under ‘[f]eel, HAVE, experience what is expressed by the base word’ (Jakaitienė 1976: 270; emphasis mine – J. P.). Other DV considered possessive in this article are assigned to the resultative category and presented in subgroups such as smearing, covering, and searching, collecting, etc. (Ambrazas, ed., 1997: 388ff.; cf. Jakaitienė 1973: 64–66, 1976: 269ff.; Ulvydas, ed., 1971: 248, 252ff., 261; Paulauskienė 1994: 267–269). 3.3.4. INSTRUMENTAL DV. In their paraphrases, the base words denote tools with which certain actions are performed, for example: 20 (a) The carpenter planes the board ~ The carpenter acts on the board by PLANING, uses a PLANE to process the board (b) Jonukas plays the violin beautifully ~ Jonukas beautifully acts (plays) with a VIOLIN (c) The athletes fence with foils ~ The athletes act (on one another) with FOILS (d) Ona combs her hair ~ Ona acts (on herself) with a COMB (e) Bronė talks a lot ~ Bronė acts a lot with her TONGUE (f) Petras drives well ~ Petras acts well with / makes use of a STEERING WHEEL (g) The children ski ~ The children make use of SKIS Instrumental DV predicate the use of tools in an essive manner, but occasional causatives also occur, for example: smuikuodinti, (su-)šukuodinti (LKŽXIII 204, xv 335)²⁴. Doubt- 24 Indeed, sušukuodinti is illustrated in the dictionary with a somewhat confusing example: She herself does not comb the wool; her daughter-in-law has it combed. Since the person caused to act is specified and occupies the subject position (daughter-in-law), sušukuodinti cannot be regarded as causative here; the expected construction would be: She does not comb the wool herself, but has it combed—the daughter-in-law does everything for her. DENOMINATYVINIŲ VEIKSMAŽODŽIŲ SEMANTIKA | 71 Whether they can be directly related to the base nouns is another matter; the relationship here is intermediate: smuikuodinti: smuikuoti: smuikas. When discussing instrumental DVs, the notion of an instrument should not be restricted to concrete nouns; more abstract means of action should also be included, for example: protauti, galvoti ~ naudotis PROTU, GALVA. Cases describing activity involving certain substances (for example: dervuoti, chloruoti, druskinti) form an intermediate link between possessive causatives and instrumental DVs; these substances can be interpreted as instruments, for example: Mes nuodijame tarakonus ~ Mes veikiame tarakonus NUODAIS. Attempts have been made to draw a clearer boundary between such cases; for instance, it has been observed that in English instrumental verbs are incompatible with the privative prefixes de- and dis- (Clark, Clark 1979: 779, citing Marchand 1969b: 134f.), cf.: unbutton ‘to unfasten’ (reversive instrumental verb): debutton ‘to deprive of buttons, tear off the buttons’ (privative verb). There is probably little need to make a very sharp distinction between the cases under discussion. After all, using a means on a particular object generally entails spatial contact between the means and the affected object; cf. the discussion by Solecka and Termińska (1980: 24f.) already cited. Some cases can therefore be interpreted in two ways, especially when the base word denotes a substance that becomes inseparably combined with the object during the action: cementuoti pamatus ~ dėti CEMENTO į pamatus (daryti, kad pamatai turėtų CEMENTO) ar veikti pamatus CEMENTU (cf. nuodyti tarakonus ~ daryti, kad tarakonuose atsirastų NUODŲ / kad tarakonai savyje turėtų NUODŲ / veikti tarakonus NUODAIS). All researchers distinguish an instrumental category of DVs, although not all include in it DVs involving action with substances (type klijuoti, cementuoti). Marchand discusses instrumental formations in the section on circumstantial DVs (1964: 112–114; 1969b: 369f.) and notes the affinity of ornative DVs with this group. As already mentioned, the study by the Clarks separately analyzes similarities and differences between instrumental and locative DVs. The authors are reluctant to recognize as instruments objects that become an inseparable part of the results of an action (1979: 778), yet their list of instrumental DVs includes English glue ‘klijuoti’, cement ‘cementuoti’, etc. Kaliuščenko does not examine this problem separately, but likewise lists klijuoti among instrumental DVs (1994: 91, 2000: 52), while formations of the type auksuoti, druskinti are discussed under possessive causatives (1994: 52f., 2000: 29f.). In Geniušienė’s studies, the following are given as instrumental verbs: geležiuotis ‘to rust (become covered with iron)’, pečiuotis ‘to jostle with one’s shoulders’ (1983: 61f., 1987: 157). In Lithuanian scholarship, the group involving applying, coating with substances, or putting them somewhere is discussed under the category of resultative DVs, whereas DVs based on the names of specific tools are assigned to the instrumental category (Jakaitienė 1973: 64f., 1976: 269; Ambrazas, ed., 1997: 388, 390; cf. Ulvydas, ed., 1971: 248, 253f., 262, 265; Paulauskienė 1994: 267f.). 3.4. Circumstantial DVs In their paraphrases, the base words function as circumstantials and are expressed by cases or prepositional constructions. These DVs specify the spatial setting of actions (21a) or their time (21b), for example: 21 (a) Tourists are camping by the lake ~ Tourists are (living) IN A CAMPSITE by the lake 72 | JURGis PAKERYS (b) Storks winter in Africa ~ Storks are in Africa IN WINTER The semantic roles of space and time could also be combined into one—the spatiotemporal role—since time is referred to as a location within a temporal dimension. Among some of the DVs discussed earlier are those that specify manner and can be paraphrased using adverbs or cases semantically close to them. Cf. the following paraphrases of the predicative and resultative DVs mentioned above: 22 (a) Petras acts foolishly ~ Petras behaves FOOLISHLY: behaves like A FOOL (b) The horse gallops ~ The horse runs IN LEAPS: makes LEAPS Nevertheless, no separate subgroup of manner-circumstantial DVs will be distinguished here; the manner-circumstantial nuance should be regarded as secondary. 3.4.1. SPATIAL DVs. In their paraphrases, the base words usually denote places where something is located (23a), or where something is caused to be located (23b, c), for example: 23 (a) Ona visits her uncle ~ Ona is in her uncle’s YARD (visiting) (b) Construction workers store the materials ~ The construction workers make the materials be IN THE WAREHOUSE (warehouses) (c) Rescuers remove obstacles ~ Rescuers make the obstacles be ASIDE, put them ASIDE Essive predication is rare; cf. also aikštėti ~ būti AIKŠTĖJE, namuoti ~ būti NAMIE, NAMUOSE (LKŽ I(2) 36, VIII 537; Ulvydas, ed., 1971: 248, 258)²⁵; also noteworthy is the synchronically unanalyzable medžioti ~ būti MEDYJE ‘in the forest’. Clear inchoative formations are difficult to identify; cf. the adverbial verb artėti ~ imti būti ARTI, ARČIAU (causative formation artinti ~ daryti, kad būtų ARTI). Cases with directional semantics, or directivity toward an endpoint (23b, c), also include rare verbs for striking a particular part of the body, for example: snukiuoti ~ veikti (kumštį) SNUKIO link, mušti į SNUKĮ; ausiuoti ~ veikti (kumštį, delną) AUSIES link, mušti į/per AUSĮ. These DVs (see more examples in Jakaitienė 1973: 44) should semantically be regarded as causatives, since it is not the subject itself that moves in a particular direction, but rather an object under its control (caused to move), for example, a fist. There are spatial DVs whose base words play the semantic role of Path in paraphrases, for example, gruodenti ~ judėti GROUDU, važiuoti per GRUODĄ. Closely related are verbs based on prepositions, for example, skersuoti, which can predicate the path essively or causatively; cf. skersuoti per lauką ~ eiti SKERSAI lauko: skersuoti kamuolį ~ versti kamuolį judėti SKERSAI (futbolo aikštės). Since the preposition skersai also denotes a location, a causative formation is possible: skersinti ~ daryti, kad kas būtų SKERSAI (ko), ‘to do something (put, load) across something’ DŽ⁷ 701. The conception of spatial DVs varies relatively little in the literature. Attention should be drawn to the so-called privative verbs (‘to cause something not to have something’), which 25 The verb aikštėti is also attested with an inchoative meaning: ‘to emerge into the open, become clear’ (LKŽ I(2) 36). DENOMINATYVINIŲ VEIKSMAŽODŽIŲ SEMANTIKA 73 Marchandas turbūt neatsitiktinai pateikia iškart po lokatyviniu (1964: 115). Jau minėta, kad posesyvumas ir lokatyvumas glaudžiai susiję, todėl angl. shell = lie. lukštenti tipo DV galima interpretuoti dvejopai: kaip neigiamuosius posesyvinius (‘daryti, kad neturėtų LUKŠTO’) ir kaip neigiamuosius lokatyvinius (‘daryti, kad nebūtų LUKŠTĖ’). Matyt, todėl Clarkų studijoje šiaip jau panašūs pavyzdžiai yra atsidūrę skirtingose vietose: shell the peanuts ‘lukštenti žemės riešutus’ prie locatum (pogrupis ‘not-on’), shell the peas ‘lukštenti žirnius’ prie location (pogrupis ‘not-in’) (1979: 770, 773), plg. dar lie. išprotėti ‘imti neturėti (netekti) proto’: (metaforiškai) ‘išeiti iš proto’ (neigiamas posesyvas: neigiamas lokatyvas). Tarpinių atvejų galima nurodyti ir daugiau, pavyzdžiui, su erdve susijusios dalyvavimo ar patiriamų būsenų situacijos, plg. tokias galimas parafrazes: posėdžiauti ~ būti POSEDYJE / užsiimti POSEDŽIU, baimintis ~ būti BAIMĖJE, būti apimtam (erdvinis veiksmažodis) BAIMĖS. Išimtimi laikytina predikatyvinio svečiuotis ~ būti SVEČIU galimybė būti parafrazuotam lokatyviškai: būti SVEČIUOSE. Veiksmažodžio keliauti interpretacija irgi gali būti dvejopa: būti KELYJE (vieta) ir naudotis KELIU (priemonė, instrumentas). In Lithuanian studies, it is unusual to distinguish a category of spatial DV, although locative meanings are sometimes mentioned (Ulvydas, ed., 1971: 248). The locative subgroup is described by Geniušienė (1983: 62; 1987: 157), although she does not provide Lithuanian reflexive denominatives with this meaning. 3.4.2. TEMPORAL DV. In paraphrases of these derivatives, the base words denote temporal concepts and fulfil the semantic role of a temporative, for example: 24 (a) To spend the summer in the village ~ to be in the village IN SUMMER (b) To spend the evening by the lake ~ to be by the lake IN THE EVENING The DV in question denote not only the time of an action but also imply an activity characteristic of that time; for example, summer implies rest and vacation, while evening implies rest, entertainment, or work at home. Suffixal verbs with temporal semantics can also be derived from nominal adverbs denoting a particular relative point in time (these derivatives are no longer considered denominatives): 25 (a) The train is running late ~ The train is at a point in time that is LATE (i.e. behind the scheduled, reference point in time) (b) Why are you sowing peas so early? (LKŽI(2) 145) ~ Why are you sowing peas at a point in time that is too EARLY? (i.e. preceding the scheduled, reference point in time) Some such verbs allow not only stative but also causative predication variants, for example: to make early, to make late ~ to cause something to be EARLY (earlier), LATE (later). The latter can also be associated with the adjectives EARLY, LATE (EARL-y, LATE) and regarded as predicative. The temporal DV group is not large, so not all authors distinguish it. For instance, Marchand treats the English words weekend ‘spend the weekend’, vacation ‘take a vacation’, and honeymoon ‘spend the honeymoon’ as objective resultatives, because they refer to an acti- 74 | JURGIS PAKERYS It as i to a certain result26. In Clark’s study, the same DV are presented in a separate duration (duration) group (Clark, Clark 1979: 773). In Kaliuščenko’s works (1994: 105–108, 2000: 61–63), the tripartite (six-part) predication model is not applied to temporative DV, since denominal inchoative and causative derivatives apparently did not occur. Admittedly, Lithuanian dienoti, presented in one of the subgroups with the meaning ‘to become warm’ (1994: 107, 2000: 62), could also be interpreted as inchoative. In the Lithuanian studies tradition, the work-time category is not distinguished, but this meaning is mentioned for derivatives in -uoti and -oti (Ulvydas, ed., 1971: 248, 254; Paulauskienė 1994: 267). Jakaitienė classifies DV (vasaroti, žiemoti) under the broader category of state (1973: 36). The verb atostogauti, like English vacation, is interpreted in two ways: as a time verb (Paulauskienė 1971: 195) and as a verb of participation or being somewhere (Jakaitienė 1973: 49, 1976: 269; Ambrazas, ed., 1997: 394). 4. CONCLUSIONS 1. When classifying Lithuanian denominal verbs, it is appropriate to apply tripartite predication and syntactic-semantic criteria (see Table 2). TABLE 2. SYNTACTIC-SEMANTIC CLASSIFICATION OF LITHUANIAN DENOMINAL VERBS ACCORDING TO PREDICATION TYPES (PŽ – BASE WORD) Predication type | Stative | Inchoative | Causative Syntactic-semantic properties of the base word Predicative | kvailioti: kvailys | kvailėti: kvailys | kvailinti: kvailys | baltuoti: baltas | baltėti: baltas | baltinti: baltas Subject Processant | audroti: audra Result | dienoti: diena Object Result | juokauti: juokai Content | badauti: badas | gėdinti: gėda Possession | galioti: galia | turėti: turtas | ginkluoti: ginklas Instrument | meškerioti: meškerė 26 Cf. regarding weekend: “the weekend is, through the action, as it were, first created as something living; it first comes into existence in the action” (Marchand 1964: 117). DENOMINATYVINIŲ VEIKSMAŽODŽIŲ SEMANTIKA 75 CONTINUATION OF TABLE 2 Syntactic-semantic properties of the base word Predication type Stative Inchoative Causative Circumstance Space to camp: camp to store: warehouse Time to winter: winter 2. The system of three types of predication consists of a basic stative predication (a property is possessed), from which an inchoative predication is derived (a property is acquired), and from the latter, a causative predication (a property is imparted). Properties or complexes of properties predicated by denominal verbs are designated by their base nouns. 3. Syntactic-semantic features are identified by taking into account the functions of the base word in working paraphrases. 4. The most abstract level of syntactic roles in the classification of denominal verbs consists of the functions of predicates, subjects, objects, and adverbials. 5. Subject denominal verbs have semantic subtypes of processants and results. 6. Object denominal verbs have four semantic subtypes expressed by direct and indirect objects: results, contents, possessions, and instruments. 7. Adverbial denominal verbs have two subtypes: spatial and temporal. ABBREVIATIONS DŽ⁴ – Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian (ed. S. Keinys), Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing, 2000. LKŽ – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language I–XX, I–II2 (eds.: J. Balčikonis, J. Kruopas, K. Ulvydas, V. Vitkauskas), Vilnius, 1941–2002. LITERATŪRA AMBRAZAS, V., red., 1997: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. BALKEVIČIUS, J. 1963: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos sintaksė, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. BOJAR, B. 1975: Polskie czasowniki z wbudowanym argumentem. Polonica 1, 167–186. CLARK, E. V. 1978: Locationals: existential, locative and possessive constructions. Greenberg, J. H., ed., Universals of Human Language 4: Syntax, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 85–126. CLARK, E. V., CLARK, H. H. 1979: When nouns surface as verbs. Language 55 (4), 767–811. FREEZE, R. 1992: Existentials and other locatives. Language 68 (3), 553–595. GENIUŠIENĖ, E. [GENJUŠENE, Ė.] 1983: Рефлексивные глаголы в балтийских языках и типология рефлексивов, Вильнюс: Вильнюсский университет. GENIUŠIENĖ, E. 1987: The Typology of Reflexives, Berlin, New York, Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. 76 | Jurgis Pakerys Grzegorczykowa, R. 1969: Czasowniki odmienne we współczesnym języku polskim, Wrocław, Warszawa, Kraków: Ossolineum. (Prace językoznawcze, 53). Holvoet, A. 1991: Transitivity and Clause Structure in Polish. A Study in Case Marking, Warszawa: Slawistyczny Ośrodek Wydawniczy. (Prace Slawistyczne, 95). Holvoet, A. 2003: Laisviejį predikatyvai ir jų sintaksiniai ryšiai. Holvoet, A., Judžentis, A., red., Sintaksinių ryšių tyrimai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla (Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai 1), 67–78. [Jablonskis, J.] 1911: Rygiškių Jonas, Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė 1, Seinai. Jablonskis, J. 1957: Rinktiniai raštai 1 (sudarė J. Palionis), Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. Jakaitienė, E. 1972: Dėl priesaginių veiksmažodžių darybinių reikšmių. Baltistica 8 (1), 49–54. Jakaitienė, E. 1973: Veiksmažodžių daryba. Priesagų vediniai, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas. Jakaitienė, E. 1976: Žodžių darybos tipai ir kategorijos. Jakaitienė, E., Laigonaitė, A., Paulauskienė A., Lietuvių kalbos morfologija, Vilnius: Mokslas, 251–278. Jakaitienė, E. 1988: Leksinė semantika, Vilnius: Mokslas. Kaliuščenko, V. D. 1987: Типология локативных, посессивных и атрибутивных отсубстантивных глаголов. Вопросы языкознания (1), 93–105. Kaliuščenko, V. D. 1994: Типология отыменных глаголов. Донецк: Донеччина. Kaliuščenko, V. D. 2000: Typologie denominaler Verben, Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Karolak, S. 1972: O znaczeniach czasowników odmiennych. Wierzbicka, A., red., Semantyka i słownik, Wrocław, Warszawa, Kraków, Gdańsk: Ossolineum. (Z dziejów form artystycznych w literaturze polskiej, 27). Karolak, S., red., 1980: Semantyczno-syntaktyczny słownik słowiańskich czasowników odmiennych, Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski. Katkuvienė, L. 1979: Lietuvių kalbos beasmeniai veiksmažodiniai sakiniai, žymintys gamtos reiškinius. Kalbotyra 30 (1), 39–47. Katkuvienė, L. 1982: Apie lietuvių kalbos beasmenių sakinių su verba meteorologica semantinę struktūrą. Sintaksės ir semantikos klausimai. Respublikinės mokslinės konferencijos, skirtos TSRS įkūrimo 60-mečiui, pranešimų tezės (red. K. Župerka), Šiauliai, 29–30. Kazlauskas, J. 1965: Mokslinė lietuvių kalbos gramatika [rec.: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1 (red. K. Ulvydas), Vilnius: Mintis, 1965]. Pergalė 10, 172–176. Kuricyna, L. A. 1985: Особенности отыменного конверсионного образования глаголов. Семантика и функционирование английского глагола, Горький, 69–76. Lyons, J. 1967: A note on possessive, existential and locative sentences. Foundations of Language 3, 390–396. Marchand, H. 1964: Die Ableitung desubstantivischer Verben mit Nullmorphem im Englischen, Französischen und Deutschen. Die Neueren Sprachen 10, 105–118. Marchand, H. 1969a: Die Ableitung deadjektivischer Verben im Deutschen, Englischen und Französischen. Indogermanische Forschungen 74, 155–173. Marchand, H. 1969b: The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation. A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach, München: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Morkūnas, K., par., 1999: Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija (parengė K. Morkūnas), Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Paulauskienė, A. 1971: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodis, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas. Paulauskienė, A. 1994: Lietuvių kalbos morfologija. Paskaitos lituanistams, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Slizienė, N. 1994: Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių junglumo žodynas 1: A–M, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Solecka, K. M., Termińska, K. 1979: Próba definicji semantycznych. Јужнословенски филолог 35, 55–64. Solecka, K. M., Termińska, K. 1980: Definicje semantyczne. Karolak, red., 1980, 17–28. DENOMINATYVINIŲ VEIKSMAŽODŽIŲ SEMANTIKA | 77 ULUCHANOV, I. S. 1977: Словообразовательная семантика в русском языке, Москва: Наука. ULVYDAS, K., ред., 1971: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 2: Morfologija (Veiksmažodis, prieveiksmis, dalelytė, prielinksnis, jungtukas, jaustukas, ištiktukas), Vilnius: Mintis. ULVYDAS, K., ред., 1976: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 3: Sintaksė, Vilnius: Mintis. Jurgis Pakerys Baltistikos ir bendrosios kalbotyros katedra Vilniaus universitetas Universiteto g. 5, 01513 Vilnius Gauta 2004 03 17