Būdvardžio derinimas ir būdvardžio bevardės giminės problema

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLVIII (2003), 119–136 Adjective Agreement and the Problem of the Neuter Gender of Adjectives* Loreta Semėnienė Institute of the Lithuanian Language, Vilnius The article deals with the forms traditionally described in Lithuanian grammar as ‘neuter’ forms of the adjective. This problem is considered in connection with the broader issue of the gender agreement of adjectives. Whereas in traditional Lithuanian grammar agreement is viewed as one of the types of syntactic relationship, it is here described as a formal marker of syntactic relationship. The distinction between controller gender and target gender (as formulated by Corbett) is introduced. The gender system is different for (a) substantivized adjectives, which are marked for animacy vs. inanimacy, with a further differentiation between masculine and feminine for animates (the forms described as neuter are actually marked as inanimate), and (b) non-substantivized adjectives, whose gender forms are determined by agreement. The latter distinguish three target genders, the neuter form being used to agree with inanimate substantivized adjectives and inanimate pronouns as agreement controllers, but also as default agreement forms in those cases where the position of the controller is occupied by a word not marked for gender. The Lithuanian gender system can thus be described as one with three target genders and three controller genders, though neuter controllers are relatively rare. 0. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 0.1. Several conceptions have been proposed in Lithuanian linguistics of the forms traditionally called neuter forms of adjectives1. Some authors (Ulvydas, ed., 1965: 478; Jakaitienė, Laigonaitė, Paulauskienė 1976: 64; Valeckienė 1984; Tekorienė 1990; Paulauskienė 1994: 211; Ambrazas, ed., 1994: 168; Ambrazas, ed., 1997: 134, etc.) classify such adjective forms as adjectives, others (Kazlauskas 1968: 324, Girdenis, Žulys 1973: 208, Paulauskienė 1983: 209) consider them adverbs, and still others regard them as a separate category (Mustėikis 1972: 241–249). At present, there is no universally established and accepted conception of the forms traditionally called neuter adjective forms, and their place in the grammatical classification of words remains a matter of debate. * I thank Prof. Axelii Holvoet for his valuable comments and assistance in preparing the article. The author is also grateful to Prof. G. G. Corbett, with whom some theoretical problems concerning the description of the gender system of Lithuanian adjectives were discussed. The main claims of the article were presented at a theoretical seminar held on 17 December 2002 by the Department of Grammar of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. 1 Terjes Mathiasseno (1996: 62) nuomone, sinchroniniu požiūriu tokias formas geriau tiktų vadinti nekaitomomis formomis. 120 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ 1. THE CONCEPTION OF NEUTER ADJECTIVE FORMS IN LITHUANIAN GRAMMARS 1.1. As stated in the academic Grammar of the Lithuanian Language (Ulvydas, ed., 1965: 478), the Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian (Ambrazas, ed., 1994: 168), and the Lithuanian grammar written in English, Lithuanian Grammar (Ambrazas, ed., 1997: 134) (the author of the adjective chapter is Adelė Valeckienė), Lithuanian adjectives have three gender forms: masculine, feminine, and neuter². In the grammars mentioned, neuter adjective forms are contrasted with masculine and feminine forms in terms of their syntactic functions and the nature of their meaning. A contrast between generalized and non-generalized properties is posited between neuter adjective forms and masculine and feminine adjective forms. In the Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian (Ambrazas, ed., 1994: 169), it is stated that, unlike masculine and feminine adjective forms, which denote a property associated with a particular object, neuter adjective forms are generally not associated with nouns and express a property in a generalized way. However, the academic Grammar of the Lithuanian Language (Ulvydas, ed., 1965: 526) states that neuter adjectives express a property detached from an object, or, more precisely, a phenomenon similar to that expressed by adjectival nouns with an abstract meaning. Unlike masculine and feminine adjective forms, neuter adjective forms function as modifiers in a sentence. 2. THE CONCEPTION OF ADJECTIVE NEUTER FORMS IN INDIVIDUAL MONOGRAPHS 2.0. Adèle Valeckienė (1984) and Dalija Tekorienė (1990) also classify the adjective’s neuter gender under the adjective’s gender category in their monographs³. 2.1. In her monograph The Grammatical System of the Lithuanian Language (1984: 175, 185–186), Valeckienė states that neuter-gender adjectives belong to adjectives as forms of the gender category; however, since Lithuanian has no neuter-gender nouns, they agree with neuter pronouns. The author also notes that the system of the adjective’s degree category includes not only masculine and feminine forms but also neuter forms. Masculine and feminine forms, together with neuter forms, encompass the entire system of gender inflection in adjectives. Lacking an attributive function 2 Pasirodžius pirmam Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos tomui, Jonas Kazlauskas (1965: 175) suabejojo būdvardžio bevardės giminės formų traktuotės loginiu adekvatumu. Jo teigimu, jei būdvardžio giminė priklauso nuo daiktavardžio giminės, o lietuvių kalboje nėra bevardės giminės daiktavardžių, tai apibūdinti bevardės giminės formą kaip būdvardžio bevardę giminę, vadinasi, daryti loginę klaidą – arba būdvardžio apibrėžime, kur sakoma, kad lietuvių kalbos būdvardis derinamas su daiktavardžiu gimine, skaičiumi ir linksniu, arba neteisingai suprantant bevardės giminės formą. 3 Vytautas Sirtautas also supported the neuter gender in his article “On the Adjective Gender Category” (1968: 135–137). The author notes that neuter adjectives may in some cases be independent, that is, govern nouns (trumpa dienos), and in other cases dependent, that is, form a predicative construction (bet ne tai įdomu). BŪDVARDŽIO DERINIMAS IR GIMINĖ 121 these forms are peripheral within the adjective’s gender category, and their use is limited. Neuter adjective forms form an opposition with masculine and feminine forms, bear the feature of agreement, and can be transformed into masculine and feminine forms without a difference in meaning (cf. Ambrazas, Sližienė, Valeckienė 1974: 178). The author concludes that masculine and feminine forms encompass the entire system of gender inflection in adjectives only together with neuter forms (Valeckienė 1984: 186–187; see also 1998: 244–248). 2.2. In order to demonstrate that neuter adjective forms belong to the adjective’s gender category, Tekorienė expands, in her monograph Neuter Adjectives (1990), the definition of the adjective found in similar form in many grammars and textbooks (an adjective is an independent part of speech consisting of words that denote a property and are inflected for gender, number, and case (Ambrazas, ed., 1994: 167)). The author’s definition of the adjective includes words that express not only an attributive but also a predicative property. It is stated that “adjectives are words used as modifiers and as the nominal part of the predicate, which have the categorial meaning of a property. All adjectives have masculine and feminine forms, inflected for case and number and agreeing with a noun. Some qualitative adjectives also have an invariable neuter form, used as the nominal part of the predicate when the subject is expressed by nominal words that lack gender meaning, or when there is no subject at all and it is not specified” (Tekorienė 1990: 67–68). Thus, neuter adjective forms, like masculine and feminine forms, are assigned to the same class of words expressing a predicative property. According to the author (Tekorienė 1990: 67), neuter adjective forms have a nongender meaning and can be opposed to masculine and feminine adjective forms according to the general gender–nongender semantic feature. Tačiau reikėtų sutikti su Aldona Paulauskiene (1994: 219), kad šitaip išplėtus būdvardžio sąvoką neįmanoma nustatyti ribų tarp būdvardžio ir kitų kalbos dalių, galinčių eiti tariniu ir taip pat, kaip ir būdvardžio bevardės giminės tipo formos, žymėti subjektui būdingą būseną, plg.: Man reikia. Man gera. Man garbė. Kyla klausimas – argi šie visi predikatai yra būdvardžiai? Todėl tradicinėje morfologijoje, skiriančioje kelias požymį reiškiančias kalbos dalis, Paulauskienės manymu, būdvardžio apibrėžimo negalima plėsti. O neišplėtus apibrėžimo sunku būdvardžio bevardės giminės formas laikyti būdvardžiais, nes jos nelinksniuojamos ir neina derinamuoju pažyminiu, vadinasi, neturi būdingiausių šios kalbos dalies ypatybių4. 3. THE CONCEPTION OF ADJECTIVE NEUTER FORMS IN LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE MORPHOLOGY TEXTBOOKS 3.1. Evalda Jakaitienė, Adelė Laigonaitė, and Aldona Paulauskienė understand adjective neuter forms somewhat differently in Lithuanian Language Morphology (1976: 63– 4 Paulauskienė (1994: 217–219) kritikuoja ne tik Tekorienės, bet ir Valeckienės būdvardžio bevardės giminės formų sampratą. 122 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ 64). The authors note (the author of the “Adjective” chapter is Adelė Laigonaitė) that such neuter adjective forms should be called non-gendered adjective forms and that, in general, they do not indicate a property of an object, but only a certain abstract state5. It is also stated that the place of neuter adjective forms in the system of other adjective forms is highly unusual, since they do not form any grammatical opposition to masculine and feminine adjectives. Therefore, there is no basis for including these adjective forms in the category of gender6. For this very reason, according to the authors, classifying neuter adjective forms as adjectives in present-day Lithuanian can only be a provisional measure (cf. Michelini 1988: 53–58). 3.2. Paulauskienė also regards neuter adjective forms as non-gendered in Lietuvių kalbos morfologijoje (1994: 211–217; see also Paulauskienė 2001: 138–139). The author calls non-gendered adjective forms, like forms of degree and pronominal forms, which are internal grammatical categories of the adjective, non-agreeing adjective categories, i.e. categories without counterparts in the system of grammatical categories of the noun. Such non-agreeing adjective categories are contrasted with agreeing adjective categories (case, number, gender), which are syntactic in nature and reflect the adjective’s relation to the noun. Paulauskienės (1994: 208–209) teigimu, kiek skaičių turi daiktavardis, tiek skaičių rodo ir būdvardis. Tai, kas pasakyta apie būdvardžio skaičių, tinka ir linksniui, ir trečiajai derinamajai kategorijai – giminei. Vadinasi, jei yra dvi daiktavardžio giminės, turi būti ir dvi derinamojo žodžio – būdvardžio – giminės. Autorės žodžiais tariant (Paulauskienė 1994: 210), niekaip teoriškai nepaaiškintas daiktavardžio ir būdvardžio giminių nesutikimas ir niekaip nepaaiškinta, kodėl grynai derinamoji kategorija turėtų priklausyti nuo būdvardžio reikšmės. Juk matom, kad kitos dvi derinamosios kategorijos (linksnis ir skaičius) visiškai nepriklauso nuo to, ką reiškia būdvardis. Nuo būdvardžio reikšmės nepriklauso vyriškoji ir moteriškoji giminė. O gal ta forma dabar jokios giminės nežymi? Gal ji negimininė? – klausia Paulauskienė Lietuvių kalbos morfologijoje. 4. OTHER CONCEPTIONS OF NEUTER ADJECTIVE FORMS 4.0. Other conceptions of the traditionally termed neuter adjective forms have also been subject to critical assessment. 4.1. One conception of neuter adjective forms holds that, since neuter adjective forms, like adverbs, are formed no less regularly from the same qualitative adjectives, and also have the same comparative form and 5 Šią sampratą kritikavo Valeckienė (1984: 183–187), Tekorienė (1990: 15). 6 Tokios pat nuomonės laikosi ir Tatjana Bulygina (1970: 35–36). Autorė, aptardama lietuvių kalbos būdvardžius, teigia, kad būdvardžio bevardės giminės formos nesudaro priešpriešos kitoms būdvardžio (vyriškosios ir moteriškosios giminės) formoms nei pagal giminę, nei pagal skaičių, nei pagal linksnį. Tokios būdvardžio formos yra tikras kokybinių vyriškosios giminės būdvardžių kamienas. Skirti būdvardžio bevardės giminės formas prie būdvardžių (vyriškosios ir moteriškosios giminės) yra tiek pat pagrindo, kiek ir kokybinius prieveiksmius, turinčius tų pačių būdvardžių kamieną. BŪDVARDŽIO DERINIMAS IR GIMINĖ 123 can usually be used in predicative constructions, they may therefore be considered adverbs (Kazlauskas 1968: 324; Girdenis, Žulys 1973: 208; Paulauskienė 1983: 209)7. The author of the “First Lithuanian Grammar,” Danielius Kleinas, also classified neuter adjective forms as adverbs (Balčikonis, ed., 1957: 432, 538). 4.2. Kazys Musteikis (1972: 241–249) proposed treating neuter adjective forms as a separate part of speech—words of the category of state. According to the author, when neuter nouns disappeared from Lithuanian, neuter adjectives moved into another part of speech, the category of state, and the meaning of property was replaced by an abstract meaning of state8. Musteikis (1972: 249) concludes that distinguishing the category of state as a separate part of speech is entirely objective, since it is distinguished (like every part of speech) on the basis of differences in meaning, morphological features, and syntactic functions. 4.3. As can be seen, all the conceptions of neuter adjective forms briefly mentioned here have been criticized, and to date none has become established or universally accepted. 5. THE CONCEPT OF AGREEMENT 5.1. Returning to the issue of neuter-gender adjective forms, the category of gender itself and the syntactic relations of adjectives with the words that determine their gender form are important. 5.1.1. The category of gender is twofold: it encompasses both words with an inherent gender category (nouns) and words with a non-inherent gender category (adjectives). Nouns, having an inherent gender category, are distinguished above all in their prototypical realizations into two semantic genders—masculine and feminine (vyras, tėvas, brolis, gaidys vs. moteris, motina, sesuo, višta and so on). The gender of such nouns is motivated. The semantic gender of these nouns generally coincides with the morphological gender of the noun9. These nouns contrast to some extent with nouns of asemantic gender, that is, those whose gender is unmotivated. Nouns denoting things have unmotivated gender. Such nouns are assigned to one gender or the other on the basis of morphological gender features. On the other hand, the inherent gender category of a noun determines the morphological gender features of other words through syntactic relations. Unlike the noun, the adjective’s gender is a non-inherent category10, determined by agreement with another word. The system of adjective gender forms, in addition to agreement with 7 Pastarąją sampratą kritikavo Valeckienė (1984: 187–188). 8 Šiai sampratai prieštaravo Kazlauskas (1965: 176), akademinės Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos pirmo tomo autoriai (Ul vydas, red., 1965: 35–37), Ambrazas, Sl žienė, Valeckienė (1974: 180), Valeckienė (1984: 188–199), Paulauskienė (1994: 214–215). 9 Daiktavardžio semantinė ir morfologinė giminė suprantama kaip Artūro Judženčio (2002: 39–49) straipsnyje. Minėtame straipsnyje taip pat plačiau žr. apie daiktavardžio semantinės ir morfologinės giminės nesutapimus. 10 Except for adjectives used substantivally, which have an inherent gender category. 124 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ a noun (or another word used substantivally) determining the choice of masculine and feminine adjective forms, e.g., namas dar nėra senas, diena graži, also includes a third form—the neuter—used when there is no noun with which it could agree, e.g., skaityti – įdomu, and so on. 5.1.2. In discussions of neuter-gender adjective forms, it is often claimed that in sentences where they are used, the syntactic relation differs from that found when masculine and feminine adjective forms are used. It is held that neuter-gender adjective forms do not agree¹¹ but are adjoined¹² (Mathiassen 1996: 68–69; Ulvydas, ed., 1965: 478; cf. Labutis 1998: 41). The claim that in sentences such as skaityti – įdomu there is an adjacency relation is based on the fact that the infinitive is indeclinable and has no gender form, that is, it lacks the morphological features (gender, number, case) traditionally considered most characteristic of agreement as one type of syntactic relation. Apparently, because neuter-gender adjective forms do not agree, it has been proposed that they should be excluded from the category of adjective gender altogether (Paulauskienė 1983: 209, 1989: 178–196; Bulygina 1970: 35–36; cf. Jakaitienė, Laigonaitė, Paulauskienė 1976: 63). In fact, the syntactic relation is the same both between masculine and feminine adjectives and nouns, and between neuter adjectives and the words associated with them. The difference rests on the morphological properties of the words linked by the syntactic relation. In other words, the agreement of one word’s form with another word reflects the syntactic relation between them, but it is not itself one of the types of syntactic relation (as are government and adjacency). Agreement is merely a formal indicator of the syntactic relation between two words, expressed through their morphological properties. From what has been said, it should be clear that, unlike in previous Lithuanian linguistics, agreement is understood in this article as a morphosyntactic phenomenon. Agreement (English agreement) is the selection of certain semantic or formal features of one word on the basis of the formal features of another word (Steele 1978: 610)¹³. Thus, on the basis of the definition of agreement as a morphosyntactic phenomenon, alongside masculine and feminine nouns that determine the choice of the corresponding masculine and feminine adjective forms, a third type of controller (the infinitive and so on) must be recognized, determining the choice of the neuter adjective form used as a predicate. This adjective form must be defined as a gender form that— 11 In Lithuanian linguistic scholarship agreement is usually described either as a subordinating relation in which the dependent word acquires the forms of the word governing it (Balkevičius 1963: 28; Sirtaūtas, Greda 1988: 38), or as a relation in which the forms of the dependent word (cf. agreeing word (Tekorienė 1990: 62)) adapt (Ulvydas, Ambrazas, Valeckienė, eds., 1976: 11), are adjusted (Gaivenis, Keinys 1990: 47), are matched (Labutis 1998: 31), or are selected (Ambrazas, ed., 1994: 480) according to the head word (cf. word governing agreement (Tekorienė 1990: 62)). Thus, in Lithuanian linguistics, agreement is understood as one of the types of syntactic relation, alongside government and adjacency. For a more detailed discussion of concepts of agreement in Lithuanian syntax and its scope, see Vaskelaitė (1996: 66–86). 12 Adjacency itself is defined differently in the principal grammars of Lithuanian (cf. Ambrazas, ed., 1994: 481–482; Ulvydas, Ambrazas, Valeckienė, eds., 1976: 12–17). 13 Susan Steele derinimo apibrėžimu remiamasi G. G. Corbetto (1991: 105, 1999: 105) darbuose (plg. Moravcsik 1978: 333; Lehfeldt 1980: 259; Corbett 1986: 996). Corbettas (1991: 225–226) atskirai dar skiria semantinį ir sintaksinį (gramatinį) derinimą. BŪDVARDŽIO DERINIMAS IR GIMINĖ | 125 since it belongs to the same morphological gender category as the masculine and feminine forms of the adjective. A word whose form determines agreement relations is called an agreement controller (English agreement controller, agreement trigger) (Corbett 1986: 996, 1999: 103) in the linguistic literature. A word whose form is determined by agreement relations is called an agreement target14 (English agreement target) (Corbett 1986: 996, 1999: 103). The genders of words that determine agreement are called controller genders (English controller genders). The genders of words determined through agreement with controller genders are called target genders (English target genders) (Corbett 1999: 150–151). In discussing the gender category and agreement, it is important to distinguish words whose forms can determine agreement from words whose forms are determined by agreement. 5.2. Nouns, nominal pronouns, and nominal adjectives can serve as agreement controllers in Lithuanian (see also below). With regard to such independently used pronouns that occupy the agreement-controller position, e.g., tas, ta, šitas, šita and the like, the animate / inanimate semantic opposition is distinguished. SCHEME 1. PRONOMINAL GENDER SYSTEM The animate / inanimate semantic opposition is also distinguished in nominal adjectives (see below). Adjectives, adjectival participles, adjectival pronouns, some numerals, numeral pronouns, verbs, and other forms are among the agreement targets in Lithuanian (cf. Corbett 1991: 106–115). As can be seen, the number of agreement targets in Lithuanian is greater than the number of agreement controllers (cf. Corbett 1991: 159; Tekorienė 1986: 45; Moravcsik 1978: 363–364). 5.3. This article will discuss in greater detail the relation of nominal adjectives occupying the agreement-controller position to their targets, and the relation of adjectives, as agreement targets, to their controllers. 14 I thank Dr. Artūras Judžentis for proposing the Lithuanian terms derinimo valdiklis, derinimo gaviklis. 126 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ 6. ADJECTIVE (MASCULINE, FEMININE, AND NEUTER) IN THE AGREEMENT CONTROLLER POSITION 6.0. As mentioned, when discussing the nominal pronouns tas, ta, tai, šitas, šita, and so on, occurring in the agreement controller position, a semantic opposition between animate and inanimate is distinguished (see also Valeckienė 1984: 43–47, 137–142; 222ff.), consisting of two members. The masculine and feminine forms of nominal pronouns most often refer to animate entities (a person, an animal, or a group thereof), expressed in the preceding context by nouns, whereas the neuter forms of the pronouns mentioned usually refer to inanimate entities (an object or a phenomenon), expressed by phrases, separate sentence constituents, or broader context in the preceding text, e.g.: (1) The detective watching over the fugitive withdrew from the tree. The former tore himself away from the fence, the latter from the wall of the house KT. (2) Dad responded understandingly to his little daughter’s grief: “And do you know what kind of girl is beautiful? The one who smiles, isn’t frowning, is gentle and polite, studies well, writes neatly, helps Mom peel potatoes, and dusts the furniture every day” KT. (3) There Izolina let out a sob, but I reacted to it indifferently, as I would have reacted to the murky patches that had appeared briefly in that little stream KT. 6.1. In discussing nominal adjectives (both masculine and feminine forms as well as neuter forms) in the controller position, it is likewise possible to speak of a semantic opposition between animate and inanimate, consisting of two members. Substantivally used masculine and feminine adjective forms, which usually denote an animate entity (a person or animal, or a group thereof), are opposed to neuter adjective forms, which most often denote an inanimate entity (an object or a phenomenon) (cf. pronouns in 6.0) (see also Valeckienė 1984: 97–101, 1998: 247), e.g.: (4) There is no room left here for a pedestrian even to put a foot down, not to mention that he breathes air thick with burnt gasoline and unfiltered oil. But pedestrians aren’t pushovers either; they bravely weave among those cars, risking their lives KT. (5) The stranger slowly got ready, placed her luggage by the bench, and sat down as if hesitating KT. (6) I eat both dairy and green things GRZ. LKŽ IX 919. (7) I was always mistaken when I thought ill or well of people KT. Nominal adjectives denoting an inanimate entity can be used interchangeably in nearly all cases, both in the masculine adjective form—as the unmarked member—and in the neuter adjective form, e.g.: (8) The good can be heard from afar, but the bad even farther bk. (9) In this case, it would appear that the greater evil serves to establish a greater good or to eliminate a greater evil. Ultimately, moral evil is sin or abomination KT. BŪDVARdŽIO DERINIMAS IR GIMINĖ 127 (10) However, despite their enormous power, means of communication are and will remain only means, that is, tools that can be used for good or for evil KT. (11) Let us not grow weary of doing good, – Cardinal V. Sladkevičius urged in his closing remarks KT. (12) That does not mean that he rushes straight over to him and says: “Here I am, Canderi, with evil and good!” KT. Cf.: (13) Evil is not eternal KT. (14) You see, I wish you not only no evil, but good KT. (15) Envy turned into anxiety, the sway of a branch into an ominous sign... KT (16) I feel as if someone is stabbing me when I hear such nonsense about what I consider sacred ŠRAG SD 21. In such cases, when substantivized adjectives can be understood as both animate and inanimate, when referring to something inanimate, A. Valeckienė (1984: 141) suggests that neuter adjective forms are preferable, e.g.: (17) No one sees the good, the bad – everyone KT. Cf.: (18) Three dwarfs, three sages, would settle every dispute: they punished the bad and praised the good KT. 6.1.1. From a syntactic perspective, a substantivized masculine adjective form in the agreement controller (subject) position determines the masculine gender of the adjective in the agreement target position (see sentence 4). The same applies to neuter adjective forms in the controller position. Their form determines the form of the agreement target (see sentence 13). In other words, a masculine or neuter adjective form in the agreement target position is syntactically—that is, according to morphological gender features—agreed with the corresponding substantivized masculine, feminine, or neuter adjective form in the agreement controller position. Substantivized neuter adjective forms, like substantivized masculine and feminine adjective forms (see sentence 9), can have agreeing modifiers—substantivized forms or adjective pronouns, and neuter forms of passive participles (cf. Paulauskienė 2001: 138; Valeckienė 1984: 99), e.g.: (19) This interaction must be developed in every way, recalling its age-old roots, remembering all that is good15 and rejecting the deceit and evil that have appeared in our history, so that hand in hand with hope we may enter the third millennium KT. 15Sentences such as the latter can be interpreted in two ways. Both a neuter adjective form and a preposed neuter pronoun form can be understood as the agreement controller, e.g.: For all that is sublime, new, and good was kindled in someone’s imagination KT: How shall I repay the Lord for all the good he has done for me? KT. However, it would probably be reasonable to argue that the head of the phrase all that is good is good, since cf. all people, but not *all of good, unlike the phrase something new (cf. something new), where the head is the pronoun something. 128 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ (20) O nauja, kaip žinoma, tai užmiršta sena KT. (21) Dažnai pasirodo, kad visa, kas nauja, tai gerai užmiršta sena KT. 6.2. In summary, it may be said that nominal adjectives (both masculine and feminine, as well as neuter), when occupying the position of an agreement controller, determine the form of their agreement targets. 7. MASCULINE AND FEMININE ADJECTIVES IN THE POSITION OF AN AGREEMENT TARGET 7.1. Considering separately the agreement of masculine and feminine forms of adjectives occurring in the position of an agreement target with their controllers—nouns and pronominal nouns—we can distinguish the following cases of agreement in gender16: 1) when a noun has a masculine morphological gender form, the adjective also takes the masculine form, “copying” the agreement featuresagreement features (i.e. gender, number, and case) of the masculine noun. When a noun is of feminine morphological gender, the adjective likewise takes the feminine form (see also Judžentis 2002: 42–45; cf. Sirtautas 1978: 66), e.g.: (22) Bet Tadukas nori, kad jį ilgiau pažiūrėtų: jo laivas ne tik gražus, bet ir didelis... KT. (23) 1944-ųjų pavasaris buvo šiltas, gražus, ankstyvas KT. (24) Ji nepakrutėjo, tad teko gėlę įkišti jai į tarpuprirščius: – Šviežia, graži [gėlė], neškite į namus... KT. (25) Buvo graži, saulėta diena KT. (26) O kai mokinio drabužiais apsirengiau, visos kaip vištos sukudakavo: tikras vyras, tikras gimnazistas, gražus bernaitis! KT. (27) Aistė visi giria – ji gabi ir stropi mergaitė KT; 2) when a noun has feminine morphological gender but denotes a male person, the adjective agrees with the noun according to semantics and takes the masculine form (see also Judžentis 2002: 42–43), e.g.: (28) Dėdė visada geras, todėl Vaišniukas mėgino visus jo pageidavimus pildyti KT. (29) Tėtė buvo santūresnis, konservatyviškesnis, ir mokėdavo savo mintį griežtai formuluoti KT. (30) Vaidila, tikras vaidila yra dabar žilaplaukis vargonininkas Jonas Gregoravičius KT; 3) when a noun denoting persons of either sex (English double gender nouns) has masculine or feminine morphological gender according to its negative characteristics, the adjective agrees with it semantically and accordingly takes either masculine or feminine forms (cf. Sirtautas, Grenda 1988: 39; Tekorienė 1986: 45, 1990: 63–64), e.g.: 16The agreement of adjectives with their controller in number and case will not be discussed in greater detail in this article. BŪDVARDŽIO DERINIMAS IR GIMINĖ 129 (31) The old man lamented the collapse of his reputation, the shame at the end of his career, and so on. “Well, think, use your head, you old fool! How could you save your reputation?!” I thought, gritting my teeth KT. (32) I went into that salon—and was astonished: the fool had been gray-haired, impossible to drive away with beans, but now—black locks gleaming, mill wheels behind the ears—you wouldn’t recognize him KT. (33) I am shy, but when I gain courage, I become insolent, a real brazen-faced person KŠ VŽV 274; It should be noted that sometimes an adjective modifying a noun denoting persons of either sex can agree both syntactically and semantically, for example: (34) Kostas is still the greatest of the family KT. (35) I’ve got money, you see, so I’m also a dear member of the family... KT; 4) when an indeclinable noun is conventionally assigned masculine or feminine morphological gender, the adjective accordingly takes either masculine or feminine forms (see Judžentis 2002: 44; cf. Labutis 1998: 32–33), for example: (36) Karmin breathed more easily; he had grown tired of the meaningless interview KT. (37) It was here that we finally met Irina Alberti-Ilovajskaja, here in the cozy foyer, and our unhurried conversation about everything took place KT. However, current usage includes cases in which agreement does not follow the noun’s conventionally assigned morphological gender, for example: (38) Spacious three-storey foyer is quite suitable for exhibitions KT. Cf.: (39) On the first floor there will be a spacious vestibule, a café for students, a bookshop, etc. KT. (40) Narrow is the hall around which the rooms are grouped KT. Attention should be drawn to cases of agreement in which the adjective’s gender form agrees with the morphological features (gender, number) of a “hidden” (Eng. reluctant) controller17 (cf. Sirtautas 1978: 58), for example: (41) Most of the horses were young, poorly broken in—those not working during the winter were allotted only half a ration of fodder KT. (42) Most of them [the women] were grateful, felt happy, as if he had opened up a new, wondrous world to them, but he did not want to live in it; it was too cramped for him KT. (43) O antra vertus, dauguma žmonių yra ne tik sveiki, bet ir pakankamai talentingi, kad turėdami paskatų ir iniciatyvos turėtų ir galėtų pakankamai gerai gyventi visuomenėje KT; 17 Reluctant controllers (English reluctant controller) are those whose morphological features are not expressed in the external structure, but with whom the target is in fact in agreement (Corbett 1986: 1007) 130 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ 5) when personal pronouns occur in the controller position (I, you, etc.), the adjective agrees with them semantically, i.e., the sex of the referent indicated by the pronoun is taken into account (cf. Tekorienė 1990: 63–64), e.g.: (44) “And I was not left indebted to her,” Zuza replied, and the two of them kissed publicly at the same time, without the matchmaker’s prompting—something that had never happened in the history of Šilai village for ages KT. (45) “I am very shy, so go and invite both parents to Julytė’s wedding as my representative, as in-laws KT. (46) Tai gal tu buvai artima su tuo senu burtininku? Ilgai tylėjo Zuza, kol atsakymą surado beprotiškai nelauktą: – Buvau KT. (47) Mums gyvas tu, tėte, reikalingas KT. (48) Zuza pakėlė galvą, ašarom paplūko: – Katarsėli, kodėl tu toks geras buvai per sapną ir toks žiaurus dabar? KT; 6) when personal pronouns that inflect for gender occur in the controller position, he, she, the adjective agrees with them syntactically, i.e., according to the pronoun’s morphological features, e.g.: (49) Tears appeared in the old man’s eyes. He was defiantly proud and pathetic KT. (50) When I got back, barely able to drag my feet, I checked the drawer and sighed with relief: it was empty KT. (51) Life with Zuza will be hard for you. She is good, but capricious KT. (52) Anupras took Kristina’s hand. It was cold as ice KT. (53) Motociklu, o kas ir traktoriuku dardina šaknytu miško keliuku, baigdami iškratyti Vinčuko dvasią, kurios, anot jo, jau pilna Labanoro giria ir todėl ji – nebenugalima, nemirtinga... KT; 7) when in the controller position there are indefinite pronouns that are not inflected for gender and refer to an indefinite person or living being, e.g.: someone, no one, something, who knows what, and so on, the adjective is then syntactically agreement-marked with them (cf. Ulvydas, Ambrazas, Valec-kienė, eds., 1976: 11–12), i.e. according to the pronoun’s morphological features (see also below), e.g.: (54) Who can be cowardly, timid? KT. (55) Someone treacherous has already sunk their claws in, wounded the soul KT. (56) And don’t think that someone owes you anything; act as if you yourselves were in debt KT. (57) With tear-filled eyes, she looked at her son-in-law, and then the thought came to him that someone strange, distant, and terrifying was walking through their forests and fields; no one had yet seen him or encountered him anywhere, but he was right here, visiting every homestead KT. (58) No one is to blame that the world is as it is and can only be. No one is to blame if Nani feels so bad right now KT. (59) Don’t cry, darling; no one is worth your tears KT. BŪDVARDŽIO DERINIMAS IR GIMINĖ 131 7.2. To summarize the relationship between masculine and feminine forms of adjectives occurring in the agreement target position and their controllers, it can be said that they generally agree with one another syntactically or semantically. 8. ADJECTIVES OF THE NEUTER GENDER IN THE CONTROLLER POSITION OF AGREEMENT 8.0. Given that masculine and feminine adjective forms are syntactically or semantically in agreement with their controllers, one might assume that neuter adjective forms occurring in the agreement-receiver position are also in some way or other in agreement with their controllers. 8.1. In the controller position of neuter adjective forms, in addition to a neuter adjective form (see 6.1.1), there may be: a noun (more precisely, a noun in the nominative or genitive case), certain pronouns, a verb infinitive, a subordinate clause, a converbal construction, or a null subject, e.g.: (60) I don’t care about money, truth matters to me... Dv BD 65. (61) Tam [įsivaizduoti] buvo reikalinga gilaus susikaupimo ir didelių valios pastangų M-Pt AŠ 188. (62) This may be dangerous for his life LR 2000 06 24. (63) It was unsettling for him to feel all this within himself M-Pt AŠ 427. (64) It was already clear that dawn was breaking KT. (65) Senam kunigui skaudu matant, kaip žmonės, sekmadienį bažnyčioje priėmę sakramentus, į rinkimų urną meta biuletenį už apsisaukelus KT. (66) Clean, empty, two quiet little people perhaps in white beds, reading newspapers, staring at the ceiling or sleeping KT. (67) He [Liudas] felt so good and at peace with his sadness M-Pt AŠ 73. 8.2. More specifically, when considering the agreement of neuter adjective forms with the aforementioned word forms in the controller position, the following cases of agreement can be distinguished: 1) when the controller position contains neuter adjectives or neuter pronouns, the neuter adjective form agrees according to morphological features, i.e. syntactically (Balkevičius 1963: 129; Sirtautas 1978: 67; Ambrazas, ed., 1994: 168; Ambrazas, ed., 1997: 135–137; Valeckienė 1998: 248; cf. Ulvydas, ed., 1965: 478, 526), e.g.: (68) This may be dangerous for his life LR 2000 06 24. (69) Everything is very tasty KT. (70) All this is wonderful KT. (71) One thing is clear: Tašyk was frightened by Ildefonsas... KT; 2) when the agreement controller has no morphological gender (an infinitive, a subordinate clause, a participial construction, or a null subject), then 132 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ the neuter form of the adjective is construed with the controller as a implicit18 (English default) form, e.g.: (72) Errare humanum est – to err is human KT19. (73) It is absurd that even today the top of the King Sᒪᶜ Rₘ 225. (74) Longing is a measure of the capacity for feeling: “You look, you listen... and you feel good, and pleasant, and blessed, and long for something...” KT; 3) as mentioned, in cases where the controller position contains a masculine or feminine noun, an adjective of the corresponding gender is generally expected in the agreement target position (see 7.). When a neuter adjective form occurs in the agreement target position, this is a case of neuter agreement, and the semantic differences concern the noun in the controller position. In other words, when a noun of either morphological gender agrees with a neuter adjective, the noun does not denote a specific thing but represents a propositional argument (Corbett 1991: 216–218; see also Moravcsik 1978: 337–338, 342; cf. Valeckienė 1998: 248; Tekorienė 1987: 170, 1990: 43–44; Ulvydas, Ambrazas, Valeckienė, eds., 1976: 372; Jablonskis 1957: 465), e.g.: (75) But Giedrė is not interested in children Kš ŽK 198. In the last sentence, the neuter form of the adjective describes a certain implicit action, i.e. engaging with, talking about, and so on, children is not interesting; it is associated with the thing denoted by the noun in the plural nominative. A noun denoting a propositional argument can also occur in the agreement target position and agree with a neuter pronoun form, where normally one would expect agreement with a neuter adjective form, e.g.: (76) In the deep foundations of being there is no anxiety. There, everything is an eternally bright silence KT; 4) when the agreement controller position contains indeclinable indefinite pronouns that denote an indefinite thing or phenomenon, e.g. what, nothing, something, whatever, and so on, they agree with a neuter adjective form (cf. Mathiassen 1996: 232; Tekorienė 1986: 45) (cf. 7.1. (7)), e.g.: (77) Everything that is human is not alien to me KT. (78) Children do not really like eating what is healthy, but whatever is tasty and healthy is expensive KT. (79) Still nothing was clear, but a thought began to boil in the brain KT. 18 I thank Dr. Artūras Judžentas for suggesting a Lithuanian equivalent for the English term. 19 Cf. sentences in which the controller position is occupied by an infinitive and an adverbial construction associated with it, e.g.: Basam vaikščiot po rugieną dagu SNT. LKŽ II 212; Noternye basam stovėti dilgu RŠ. LKŽ II 552. BŪDVARDŽIO DERINIMAS IR GIMINĖ 133 (80) So, is something seriously wrong if this newfangled lifestyle taboo has been broken? KT. (81) But I explained to her that the events at Samaritan Hospital are hardly a source of joy for any of us; they are nothing extraordinary, because the Lord created surgeons to be his helpers on Earth KT. (82) The doctor and Ona thought that something was really wrong with me and took me to the psychiatric hospital in that same ambulance KT. 9. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 9.1. The adjective, as both a controller and a target of agreement, has three gender forms: masculine, feminine, and neuter. 9.2. In discussing the agreement of Lithuanian adjectives with controllers, a distinction should be made between agreement controllers that have one or more morphological genders and non-prototypical agreement controllers that lack morphological gender. The former are nouns, nominal pronouns, and nominal adjectives. Non-prototypical agreement controllers are infinitives, subordinate clauses, adverbial participial constructions, and null subjects. 9.3. On the basis of the agreement criterion, the following cases can be distinguished in the agreement of adjectives (masculine and feminine, and neuter) with a controller: a) masculine and feminine adjectives agree syntactically or semantically with nouns in their morphologically masculine or feminine forms, with the corresponding forms of nominal pronouns, and with masculine and feminine forms of nominal adjectives; b) neuter adjectives agree syntactically with neuter forms of pronouns and nominal adjectives. With non-prototypical controllers (infinitives, subordinate clauses, null subjects, etc.), neuter adjective forms agree as implicit forms. 2 DIAGRAM. ADJECTIVE AGREEMENT WITH CONTROLLERS 134 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ 9.4. Taking into account the syntactic position of the adjective in the sentence, first of all, non-nominal and nominal adjectives should be distinguished. According to the syntactic criterion of agreement, the former would then be divided into masculine and feminine forms of the adjective, as well as neuter forms, which differ from one another in terms of agreement by their controllers; the latter, i.e. nominal adjectives, would then be divided into two groups according to the semantic animate / inanimate opposition. SCHEME 3. THE ADJECTIVE GENDER SYSTEM (ACCORDING TO SYNTACTIC POSITION) ŠALTINIAI bk – bendrinė kalba. Dv BD – Liudas Dovydėnas. Broliai Domeikos, 1996. Kš ŽK – Raimondas Kašauskas. Žaliuojančios kalvos, 1982. KŠ VŽV – Raimondas Kašauskas. Visi žemės vaikai, 1995. KT – Kauno Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto Kompiuterinės lingvistikos centro dabartinės lietuvių kalbos tekstynas. LKŽII, IX – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas, 1969, 1973. LR – Lietuvos rytas. M-Pt AŠ – Vincas Mykolaitis-Putinas. Altorių šešėly, 1979. Slc RIII – Mykolas Sluckis. Raštai, t. 3. 1989. ŠRAG SD – Šatrijos Ragana. Sename dvare, 1969. LITERATŪRA AMBRAZAS, V., red., 1994: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. AMBRAZAS, V., ed., 1997: Lithuanian Grammar, Vilnius: Baltos lankos. AMBRAZAS, V., SLIŽIENĖ, N., VALECKIENĖ, A. 1974: Keletas svarstytinų lietuvių kalbos morfologijos klausimų. Baltistica 10 (2), 177–186. BALČIKONIS, J., red., 1957: Pirmoji lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. BŪDvardžio derinimas ir giminė 135 Balkevičius, J. 1963: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos sintaksė, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. Balkevičius, J. 1998: Lietuvių kalbos predikatinių konstrukcijų sintaksė, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Bulygina, T. V. 1970: Морфологическая структура слова в современном литовском литературном языке (в его письменной форме). Жирмунский, В. М., Артюнова, Н. Д., ред., Морфологическая структура слова в индоевропейских языках, Москва: Наука, 7–71. Corbett, G. G. 1986: Agreement: a partial specification, based on Slavonic data. Linguistics 24 (6), 995–1023. Corbett, G. G. 1991: Gender, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corbett, G. G. 1999: Introduction. Folia Linguistica 33 (2), 103–107. Gaivenis, K., Keinys, S. 1990: Kalbotyros terminų žodynas, Kaunas: Šviesa. Girdenis, A., Žulys, V. 1973: [rec.] Lietuvių kalbos gramatika, 1965, t. 1; 1971, t. 2. Baltistica 9 (2), 203–214. Jablonskis, J. 1957: Rinktiniai raštai 1, sudarė J. Palionis, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. Jakaitienė, E., Laigonaitė, A., Paulauskienė, A. 1976: Lietuvių kalbos morfologija, Vilnius: Mokslas. Judžentis, A. 2002: Naujac žvilgsnis į lietuvių kalbos daiktavardžių giminės kategoriją. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 46, 39–47. Kazlauskas, J. 1965: [rec.] Mokslinė lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Pergalė 10, 172–176. Kazlauskas, J. 1968: [rec.] Lietuvių kalba tarybiniais metais. Baltistica 4 (2), 322–327. Labutis, V. 1998: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Lehfeldt, W. 1980: Управление, согласование, примыкание в русском языке. Russian Linguistics 4 (3), 249–267. Mathiassen, T. 1996: A Short Grammar of Lithuanian, Slavica Publishers, Inc. Michelini, G. 1988: „Bevardė giminė“ lietuvių kalboje. Kalbotyra 39 (1), 53–59. Moravcsik, E. A. 1978: Agreement. Greenberg J. H., ed., Universals of human Language 4. Syntax, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 333–374. Mustეikis, K. 1972: Сопоставительная морфология русского и литовского языков, Vilnius: Mintis. Paulauskienė, A. 1983: Lietuvių kalbos morfologijos apybraiža, Kaunas: Šviesa. Paulauskienė, A. 1989: Gramatinės lietuvių kalbos vardžodžių kategorijos, Vilnius: Mokslas. Paulauskienė, A. 1994: Lietuvių kalbos morfologija: Paskaitos lituanistams, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Paulauskienė, A. 2001: Lietuvių kalbos kultūra, Kaunas: Technologija. Sirtautas, V. 1968: Dėl būdvardžio giminės kategorijos. Kalbotyra 19, 135–137. Sirtautas, V. 1978: Pagrindinių sakinio dalių derinimas, Vilnius: Lietuvos TSR aukštojo ir specialiojo vidurinio mokslo ministerijos Leidybinių redakcinė taryba. Sirtautas, V., Grenda, Č. 1988: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė, Vilnius: Mokslas. Steele, S. 1978: Word order variation. Greenberg J. H., ed., Universals of human Language 4. Syntax, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 585–623. Tekorienė, D. 1986: Derinimas. Mūsų kalba 5, 43–46. Tekorienė, D. 1987: Pagrindiniai sakinių modeliai su predikatinėmis negimininėmis būdvardžio formomis. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 26, 165–170. Tekorienė, D. 1990: Bevardės giminės būdvardžiai, Vilnius: Mokslas. Ul vydas, K., red., 1965: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1, Vilnius: Mintis. Ul vydas, K., Ambrazas, V., Valeckienė, A., red. 1976: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 3, Vilnius: Mokslas. Valeckienė, A. 1984: Lietuvių kalbos gramatinė sistema. Giminės kategorija, Vilnius: Mokslas. 136 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ VALECKIENĖ, A. 1998: Funkcinė lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. VASKELAITĖ, R. 1996: Žodžių ryšių problemos lietuvių kalbos sintaksėje (magistro darbo rankraštis), Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas. LKŽ I–xx – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1–2, Vilnius: Mintis, 1968–1969; 3–6: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1956, 1957, 1959, 1962; 7–9: Mintis, 1966, 1970, 1973; 10–15: Mokslas, 1976, 1978, 1981, 1984, 1986, 1991, 16–17: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1995, 1996; 18: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 1997; 19: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 1999; 20: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 2002. Loreta Semėnienė Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, 2055 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected] Gauta 2003 03 25