ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA

XLVI (2002), 39–47

A New Look at the Category of Noun Gender in Lithuanian^*

Artūras Judžentis

Lithuanian Language Institute, Vilnius

The article deals with the interrelationship between morphology and semantics as factors defining the grammatical gender of Lithuanian nouns and its syntactic manifestations. Gender, as a grammatical category, is defined in terms of inflectional paradigms and agreement features. Most Lithuanian nouns are not inflected for gender but exist in one gender form. Human nouns denoting occupations as well as agent nouns are usually inflected for gender. The gender of indeclinable nouns (usually of foreign origin) is based either on their natural gender or on convention. Lithuanian also has nouns whose morphological and semantic gender do not coincide. In the case of human (or animate) nouns, agreement is usually determined semantically. Certain agent nouns and nouns denoting occupations allow both semantic and formal agreement.

1. The category of noun gender in Lithuanian is expressed by inflectional forms of nouns and their relationship with agreeing words (cf. Laigonaitė 1961: 122, 1965: 164; Stundžia 1979: 82, 1980: 81; Paulauskienė 1983: 174). This makes it possible to examine this category from morphological and syntactic perspectives, which are closely interrelated (cf. Stundžia 1979: 82–83).

2. The category of noun gender examined from the morphological perspective below is referred to simply as morphological gender (cf. the terms masculine vs. feminine gender, equated with masculine vs. feminine declension type in T. Bulygina’s study (1970: 28). Morphological gender applies only to declinable nouns, since indeclinable nouns have no morphological markers of the gender category (cf. Balkevičius 1976: 24).

2.1. Inflectional forms of nouns are grouped into regularly recurring sets—declension paradigms. Morphological gender in nouns consists of two mutually opposed classes of declension paradigms. These may be called by the traditional terms masculine and feminine. The declension paradigm is a necessary and fully sufficient basis for determining the morphological gender of a noun.

In contemporary standard Lithuanian, nouns declined according to paradigms 1–5 and 10–11 (the paradigms are numbered as in Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian: Laigonaitė 1994: 69–79) are morphologically masculine (langas, kelias, brolis, sūnus, sodžius, dantis, vanduo, etc.). Nouns declined according to paradigms 6–9 and 12

Some of the claims presented in this article were discussed at a theoretical seminar organized by the Grammar Department of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language on March 12, 2002. I thank Dr. Daiva Murmulaitytė and Dr. Rita Miliūnaitė for their assistance in preparing this publication.

40 |

ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS

(ranka, vyšnia, bitė, širdis, sesuo, duktė, etc.) are morphologically feminine. The noun žmogus, whose singular is inflected according to paradigm 4 and plural according to paradigm 8, is heterogenous in present-day Lithuanian: it has masculine singular forms and feminine plural forms¹. Among the declensions, pluralia tantum nouns (durys, sultys, etc.) are feminine and belong to paradigm 9, whereas consonant-stem pluralia tantum nouns (pluralia tantum) may be either feminine (kepeny­s, smegenys, šermenys) or masculine (ašmenys, metmenys, semėnys); they belong to paradigm 11.

2.2. In Lithuanian grammatical works, the formal criterion for the gender of nouns denoting objects and actions or properties conceived as objects is generally considered to be the noun stem and the endings of certain cases (the singular nominative and genitive), that is, the declension (Ambrazas, ed. 1997: 98; Laigonaitė 1961: 126, 1965: 167, 1976: 34, 1994: 63; Valeckienė 1967: 109–111, 1998: 234, 1999: 216; similarly Otrębski 1956: 4). Cf.:

Masculine nouns include:

a) nouns with the singular nominative ending -(i)as, -is or -ys, and the genitive ending -(i)o;

b) nouns with the singular nominative ending -(i)us, and the genitive ending -(i)aus;

c) nouns with the singular nominative ending -uo, and the genitive stem-final segment -en, -n and ending -s;

d) a few nouns with the singular nominative ending -is, the genitive ending -ies, and the dative ending -iui <...>.

Feminine nouns include:

a) most nouns with the singular nominative ending -(i)a, and the genitive ending -(i)os;

b) most nouns with the singular nominative ending -ė, and the genitive ending -ės;

c) nouns with the singular nominative ending -is, the genitive ending -ies, and the dative ending -iai;

d) a few nouns with the singular nominative ending -uo, and the stem-final segment -er in other cases. (Laigonaitė 1994: 63–64).

The classification presented shows that nouns of the consonant-stem declension are heterogeneous with respect to gender: some are feminine, while others are masculine. Endings of other cases, especially the singular dative, are also used to determine the gender of these nouns (cf. Valeckienė 1999: 217). Nevertheless, the clear association in present-day Lithuanian between the gender of nouns and their inflectional paradigms in Lithuanian

¹ In Old Lithuanian writings, feminine words often agree with the plural forms of this noun (cf. Palionis 1967: 130).

ŽVILGSNIS Į DAIKTAVARDŽIŲ GIMINĖS KATEGORIJĄ | 41

In descriptions of grammatical structure, this seems insufficiently emphasized (T. Bulygina’s 1970: 27 study is an exception).

2.3. In determining the gender of nouns denoting people and other living beings, semantics is more important than morphology; therefore, in Lithuanian, the following are also considered masculine: “isolated nouns with the singular nominative ending -a and genitive ending -os that denote male persons: barzdyla, vaidila, viršila” and “rare nouns with the singular nominative ending -ė and genitive ending -ės that denote male persons, e.g.: dailidė, dėdė, tėtė” (Laigonaitė 1994: 64; similarly, Laigonaitė 1961: 127, 1965: 168, 1976: 34–35, 1985: 82–83; Ambrazas, ed. 1997: 99).

The semantics and morphological gender of these nouns do not correspond: their inflectional paradigm is characteristic of feminine nouns, yet they denote male persons². Such nouns occur in many languages of the world, since there is no direct causal relationship between the category of biological sex and the category of grammatical gender (cf. English grammatical category of gender, grammatical gender and notional category of gender, notional gender, German Sexus, natürliches Geschlecht and Genus, grammatisches Geschlecht).

For other Lithuanian nouns whose semantic³ and morphological genders do not correspond, see below.

2.4. Most Lithuanian designations for people by profession, type of activity, etc. have masculine and feminine forms, e.g.: mokytojas – mokytoja, vairuotojas – vairuotoja, valytojas – valytoja, sargas – sargė. The masculine forms denote male persons, while the feminine forms denote female persons. The nature of the gender category of these nouns is explained in various ways in studies of Lithuanian grammar.

A. Laigonaitė regards these nouns forming pairs as different lexemes and discusses them together with words of different roots that are opposed in gender, such as father – mother, as well as masculine and feminine lexemes related by derivational rather than inflectional relations and sharing the same root, such as father-in-law – mother-in-law (1961: 123, 1985: 81, 1994: 62–63; similarly, Ambrazas, ed. 1997: 97). In A. Paulauskienė’s Morphology of the Lithuanian Language (1994), intended for students of Lithuanian, the forms making up pairs are likewise considered separate words, and the lexical nature of the grammatical gender category of nouns is highlighted: “Pairs of personal names show that the distinction between genders is lexical by nature, but formalized” (Paulauskienė 1994: 160). A. Valeckienė holds a similar view: according to usage and derivation, such nouns “are not forms of one noun inflected for gender, but two separate masculine and feminine nouns” (Valeckienė 1998: 236). The author emphasizes that such nouns “constitute not a grammatical (gender) category, but a derivational ‘category of persons’” (ibid.: 239). In the Encyclopedia of the Lithuanian Language (1999), the description of such nouns is not unequivocal: “In Lithuanian there are personal

² J. Otrębski regarded such nouns as having a feminine form but a masculine “inherent” gender (1956: 5).

³ Here and henceforth, semantic gender refers to the sex of the people or animals denoted by nouns.

42 |

ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS

and nouns denoting living creatures <…>, whose distinct [gender] forms constitute pairs sharing the same lexical stem” (Valeckienė 1999: 217).

A somewhat different view on such masculine and feminine forms is presented in A. Paulauskienė’s Outline of Lithuanian Morphology (1983). This study considers the possibility of treating them as two different forms of the same word, “but then the definition of gender would have to be changed—it would have to be said that nouns denoting inanimate objects belong to one gender or another, whereas nouns denoting animate objects (primarily persons) have forms of both genders” (Paulauskienė 1983: 177). The author emphasizes the regular, consistent, and systematic relationship between designations for persons of different genders based on their activity or positions held. In the monograph Grammatical Categories of Lithuanian Nominal Parts of Speech (1989), A. Paulauskienė says such correlated feminine and masculine nouns “recall forms of the same word” (1989: 173–174).

V. Urbutis’s view, set out as early as 1965 in the Grammar of the Lithuanian Language, seems especially significant for resolving the gender problem of the nouns under consideration. In the section on noun formation, they are discussed as designations based on sex difference: “The forms of both genders here constitute one word, one noun with forms of two genders (substantivum mobile), cf.: gydytojas, -a, iškyšėlis, -ė, kirpėjas, -a <…>. The formation of feminine forms of such nouns, as something not belonging to word formation, is not discussed here” (1965: 416–417). These ideas are repeated verbatim in the single-volume academic grammar (Urbutis 1994: 142). The case is different with some animal names (elnias – elnė, lokys – lokė, etc.). Their masculine forms are considered both general species names and specific names for males, i.e. independent designations based on sex difference—derivatives formed with the suffix -ė (Urbutis 1965: 418, 1994: 143).

Because of their regularity and meaning, the gender forms of Lithuanian nouns denoting persons by sex may be considered inflectional, and the corresponding nouns as inflecting for gender. The masculine and feminine genders of such nouns are expressed by different declensional paradigms.

3. When the category of noun gender is examined from the syntactic perspective, attention is focused on the forms of words that agree with nouns. Some nouns take masculine adjectives, words used adjectivally, and pronouns, while others take feminine forms.

In some studies examining the grammatical structure of contemporary Lithuanian, agreement is considered the principal, decisive indicator of grammatical gender in nouns (Bulygina 1970: 28–29; Valeckienė 1998: 232–233, 1999: 217). It is precisely on the basis of the forms of agreeing words, rather than the sex of the referents, that A. Valeckienė classifies nouns such as vaidila, tetė, dėdė and the like as masculine, rather than feminine: “some masculine nouns have a stem characteristic of the feminine; in such cases their gender is determined only syntactically (e.g., geras dėdė, garsus vaidila)” (1999: 217).

3.1. The agreement of modifiers with nouns is of two kinds.

In some cases, agreement is based on the form of the head word. This is formal, or simply syntactic, agreement (English syntactic agreement). All nouns denoting inanimate objects and phenomena, or animals not distinguished by sex, exhibit syntactic agreement.

With nouns denoting persons or living beings, modifiers are usually agreed according to the sex of the nouns’ referents. This is what is known as semantic agreement.

ŽVILGSNIS Į DAIKTAVARDŽIŲ GIMINĖS KATEGORIJĄ | 43

mas (Eng. semantic agreement). In semantic agreement, the gender of nouns always corresponds to the gender established in the more customary way in Lithuanian linguistics—that is, directly on the basis of noun semantics (cf. Ambrazas, ed. 1997: 97–98; Laigonaitė 1961: 122–125, 1965: 165–167, 1976: 33, 1994: 62–63; Paulauskienė 1983: 176–180, 1989: 174–175, 1994: 158–161; Valeckienė 1998: 234–236, 1999: 217). The difference is that when words agree according to the biological sex of a noun’s referent, this is not done directly but through syntactic relations based on semantic relations between the things denoted by words, which convey the reality we perceive and interpret.

3.2. In contemporary Lithuanian there are nouns whose agreement patterns cannot be determined unambiguously. These are nouns that have forms of one morphological gender but, on the basis of negative traits of character or appearance, denote persons of either sex. In phrases with such nouns, the gender of dependent words is selected according to semantics and is masculine in some cases and feminine in others. G. Corbett calls such nouns hybrid nouns (see Corbett 1991: 66ff.). He notes that in many languages of the world, hybrid nouns are often words used figuratively or simply stylistically marked (ibid.: 257–258).

In Lithuanian, examples include masculine morphological-gender nouns strakalas, makalas and the like, and feminine morphological-gender nouns akiplėša, džiūsna, mėmė and others: toks strakalas and tokia strakalas, didelis akiplėša and didelė akiplėša, visiškas mėmė and visiška mėmė.

In Lithuanian linguistics, the term common gender is used for the gender of these nouns (see Jablonskis 1922/1957: 196; Balčikonis 1982: 17; Laigonaitė 1961: 10, 1965: 169, 1994: 64; Valeckienė 1998: 240); in the academic Russian grammar the corresponding term is общий род (Laigonaitė 1985: 84), while in English it is common gender (Ambrazas, ed. 1997: 101)⁴. Some authors use the Latin term substantiva communia (Stundžia 1980: 85).

The term common gender has been criticized repeatedly, and its abandonment has been proposed. The argument is that the nouns in question are, in each specific case, either masculine or feminine (Girdenis, Žulys 1973: 208); that their gender is indicated by the situation, context, and agreeing words (Paulauskienė 1983: 181–182, 1994: 166); and that when the context is unclear, substantiva communia are perceived by Lithuanian speakers as masculine nouns (Stundžia 1980: 85). In J. Otrębski’s view, substantiva communia have a single form for grammatical gender, usually feminine, but two “natural” genders—masculine and feminine: “w litewskim istnieją rzeczowniki, o dwu rodzajach naturalnych” (1956: 5). In her Functional Grammar of Lithuanian, A. Valeckienė explains such nouns as an instance of form neutralization (1998: 240).

3.3. For some hybrid nouns, the agreement type cannot be determined unambiguously even in specific cases where the sex of the persons they designate is known. Modifiers agreeing with such nouns may be of one gender, while predicatives may be of another. Substantive pronouns referring to these nouns may also be of a different gender from the agreeing

⁴ The use of this term in Lithuanian linguistics, from D. Klein’s grammar to the present day, is surveyed by B. Stundžia (1980: 79–80).

44 |

ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS

modifiers. Hybrid nouns of this type are also found in contemporary Lithuanian—some designations of persons according to their activity or profession. For example, the noun modelis, used in the sense ‘a person who displays clothes created by fashion designers’ and denoting a female person, may take agreeing words in either the masculine or feminine gender, cf.:

Geriausiai apmokamas modelis Naomi Campbel atrodė gerokai pavargusi (VDU Lithuanian Corpus).

In this case, the modifier agrees with the noun syntactically, according to its form, whereas the predicative agrees semantically, according to the referent’s sex. Such cases of agreement in contemporary Lithuanian have not yet been sufficiently studied.

3.4. According to the agreement of dependent words, all nouns in contemporary Lithuanian—both declinable and indeclinable—fall into two groups. For the latter, the expression of syntactic relations is the sole indicator of gender.

The gender of indeclinable nouns denoting people is determined on semantic grounds. For example, pronouns, adjectives, and adjective-like words agreeing with the noun ledi take feminine forms (brangioji ledi ‘dear lady’), whereas words agreeing with the nouns atašė, konferansjė may be masculine in some cases and feminine in others (naujasis karo atašė, elegantiška kultūros atašė ‘the new military attaché, an elegant cultural attaché’, and so on).

For other indeclinable nouns, gender may be assigned on the basis of associations prompted by their meaning or phonetic form. For example, speakers may associate taksi ‘taxi’ with the word automobilis ‘car’ and treat it as masculine (baltas taksi ‘a white taxi’), or with the word mašina ‘machine, car’ and treat it as feminine (balta taksi ‘a white taxi’). Alternatively, the word fojė ‘foyer’ may be treated as a feminine noun because its ending resembles the feminine ending -ė of declinable nouns (erdvi fojė ‘a spacious foyer’).

In Standard Lithuanian, the gender of indeclinable nouns denoting objects or abstract concepts is selected according to the norm established by linguists, that is, by convention: nouns ending in the vowels -o, -u, or -i are considered masculine, e.g., naujas manto, įdomus interviu, geltonas taksi ‘a new manteau, an interesting interview, a yellow taxi’, while nouns ending in the vowel -ė are considered feminine, e.g., nauja ateljė, ankšta kupė ‘a new atelier, a cramped coupe’ (cf. Laigonaitė 1961: 129–130, 1965: 169, 1985: 84, 1994: 64; Ambrazas, ed. 1997: 100–101; Valeckienė 1998: 234; for a different view, see Balkevičius 1976: 24–26).

A. Paulauskienė does not discuss the gender of indeclinable nouns separately; she even questions whether indeclinable nouns exist in Lithuanian at all: “the fact that a noun has no case endings does not mean that it is altogether indeclinable. Its case distinctions are shown by the endings of agreeing words” (1989: 171); “they have an unchanging form <…>, but that does not mean that they are indeclinable” (2001: 6). When declined, such words take the endings of one gender or the other according to the resemblance of their final sound to the endings of declinable nouns, or according to their meaning (ibid.).

In contemporary Standard Lithuanian, there is a tendency to regularize the use of indeclinable nouns borrowed from other languages: masculine gender is assigned not only to nouns ending in -o, -u, or -i, but also to those ending in -ė and -a, e.g.: Akcentas – platus koljė; Pradėti

ŽVILGSNIS Į DAIKTAVARDŽIŲ GIMINĖS KATEGORIJĄ | 45

various drapes were made; the collection of jewelry intended to create the image of a true lady is complemented by a feminine fur boa decorated with crystals (Vaskelaitė 2001: 48–50)⁵.

4. In terms of gender, Lithuanian contrasts masculine and feminine words with different roots, such as vyras – moteris, jautis – karvė, šuo – kalė ‘man – woman, bull – cow, dog – bitch’, and so on.

A. Laigonaitė regards such nouns as semantic counterparts of different grammatical genders (1961: 123 and 125). They form pairs of related meanings; in such nouns, “the difference in sex <…> is expressed not only morphologically but also lexically” (1976: 33, 1994: 62–63; similarly, Ambrazas, ed. 1997: 97). A. Paulauskienė describes these words as correlated in terms of gender (1989: 175, 1994: 161). A. Valeckienė calls such pairs of words denoting people and animals, with different lexical stems and contrasted in terms of gender, gender-opposed pairs (1998: 235).

5. Nouns with the same root that form pairs contrasted in terms of gender, e.g., katė – katinas, avis – avinas; uošvis – uošvienė, Klimas – Klimienė; briedis – briedė, vilkas – vilkė ‘female cat – tomcat, ewe – ram; father-in-law – mother-in-law, Klimas – Mrs Klimas; female elk – male elk, she-wolf – wolf’, and so on, are related by word-formation rather than inflection.

A. Valeckienė likewise regards such pairs of nouns denoting people and animals by sex as members of lexical and derivational categories (cf. 1998: 234–236). A. Paulauskienė also treats these pairs as forms or words correlated in terms of gender and related through suffixal or ending-based derivation (1983: 179–180, 1989: 173 and 175, 1994: 158–159 and 161). A. Laigonaitė calls these words masculine and feminine counterparts (1961: 125); their “different gender is indicated only by affixes—the ending, and sometimes the suffix and the ending” (1976: 33, 1994: 63; cf. also Ambrazas, ed. 1997: 97).

6. Briefly, the gender category of Lithuanian nouns can be described as follows: Gender is a grammatical category of nouns, expressed through different declension paradigms and through relations with agreeing words. Its nature is best revealed by the interaction of the morphological and syntactic aspects.

Only declinable Lithuanian nouns have morphologically expressed gender. Most do not inflect for gender, but have forms of one gender—masculine or feminine. Many Lithuanian nouns denoting people by profession, type of activity, and so on do inflect for gender, e.g.: mokytojas – mokytoja, vairuotojas – vairuotoja, valytojas – valytoja, sargas – sargė.

For most Lithuanian nouns, semantic and morphological gender coincide. Nouns of this kind denoting people and some animals belong to the semantic agreement type; others belong to the syntactic agreement type. Only a small proportion of nouns denoting people have different semantic and morphological gender. These nouns fall into three groups:

a) nouns of feminine morphological gender denoting males (vaidila, dėdė, etc.) agree according to semantics;

⁵Like indeclinable nouns, symbolic names of various companies, teams, and events are used in contemporary language. Recent observations of the use of such names show that adjective-like words agree with them according to the sex of the people they name (cf.: “Modern Talking“ šįkart buvo originalesni ir Kas atsitiko toms „Spice girls“, ‘Modern Talking were more original this time’ and ‘What happened to those Spice Girls’, according to the morphological gender of related words known or presumed with varying certainty (Atrodo, niekas nevelavo į jau burzgiantį „Neoplan“ [bus]; tarptautinė žiuri [commission]), according to the resemblance of the ending to the endings of declinable nouns (“Cosa nostra“ turbūt niekada nebus sunaikinta ‘Cosa Nostra will probably never be destroyed’) (Vaskelaitė 2001: 46–48).

46 |

ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS

b) masculine (strakalas and others) or feminine (akiplėša, mėmė and others) morphologically gendered nouns denoting persons of both sexes by negative traits are also assigned agreement according to semantics;

c) in individual cases, masculine (modelis and others), and perhaps also feminine, morphologically gendered nouns denoting persons of both sexes by their activity or profession, when the referent’s sex and morphological gender differ, are assigned agreement both according to form and according to semantics.

LITERATŪRA

AMBRAZAS, V., ed. 1997: Lithuanian Grammar, Vilnius: Baltos lankos.

BALČIKONIS, J. 1982: Paskaitos. Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Rinktiniai raštai 2, sudarė A. Pupkis, Vilnius: Mokslas, 4–140.

BALKĖVIČIUS, J. 1976: Nelinksniuojamųjų daiktavardžių giminė. Mūsų kalba 4, 22–26.

BULYGĪNA, T. V. 1970: Морфологическая структура слова в современном литовском литературном языке (в его письменной форме). Жирмунский, В. М., Арутюнова, Н. Д., отв. ред., Морфологическая структура слова в индоевропейских языках, Москва: Наука, 7–70.

CORBETT, G. 1991: Gender, Cambridge: University Press.

GIRDENIS, A., ŽULYS, V. 1973: [Rec.] Lietuvių kalbos gramatika I (1965), II (1971). Baltistica 9 (2), 203–214.

JABLONSKIS, J. 1901/1957: Lietuviškos kalbos gramatika. Rinktiniai raštai 1, sudarė J. Palionis, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 57–180.

JABLONSKIS, J. 1922/1957: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Rinktiniai raštai 1, sudarė J. Palionis, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 181–433.

JAUNIUS [Явнис], K. 1908–1916: Грамматика литовского языка. Литовский оригиналъ и русский переводъ, Петроградъ: Типографія Императорской Академіи Наукъ.

LAIGONAITĖ, A. 1961: Daiktavardžių giminės ir skaičiaus kategorija. Kazlauskas, J., Laigonaitė, A., Urbutis, V., red., Dabartinė lietuvių kalba, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 122–147.

LAIGONAITĖ, A. 1965: Daiktavardis. Ulvydas, K., red., Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1. Fonetika ir morfologija (daiktavardis, būdvardis, skaitvardis, įvardis), Vilnius: Mintis, 161–251.

LAIGONAITĖ, A. 1976: Daiktavardis. Jakaitienė, E., Laigonaitė, A., Paulauskienė, A.: Lietuvių kalbos morfologija, Vilnius: Mokslas.

LAIGONAITĖ, A. 1985: Имя существительное. Ambrazas, V., red., Грамматика литовского языка, Вильнюс: Мокслас, 77–112.

LAIGONAITĖ, A. 1994: Daiktavardis. Ambrazas, V., red., Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 60–86.

OTRĘBSKI, J. 1956: Gramatyka języka litewskiego 3. Nauka o formach, Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.

PALIONIS, J. 1967: Lietuvių literatūrinė kalba XVI–XVII a., Vilnius: Mintis.

PAULAUSKIENĖ, A. 1983: Lietuvių kalbos morfologijos apybraiža, Kaunas: Šviesa.

PAULAUSKIENĖ, A. 1989: Gramatinės lietuvių kalbos vardažodžių kategorijos, Vilnius: Mokslas.

PAULAUSKIENĖ, A. 1994: Lietuvių kalbos morfologija. Paskaitos lituanistams, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

PAULAUSKIENĖ, A. 2001: Apie „nelinksniuojamųjų“ daiktavardžių giminę. Gimtoji kalba 5, 5–6.

STUNDŽIA, B. 1979: Giminės kategorija lietuvių kalbos gramatinėje sandaroje. Labutis, V., Sudavičienė, L., Zinkevičius, Z., red, Aktualiosios kalbotyros problemos. Mokslinės konferencijos pakvietimas-programa ir tezės, Vilnius: Vilniaus V. Kapsuko universiteto rotaprintas, 80–83.

ŽVILGSNIS Į DAIKTAVARDŽIŲ GIMINĖS KATEGORIJA | 47

Stundžia, B. 1980: Vadinamosios bendrosios giminės vieta lietuvių kalbos morfologinėje sistemoje. Eksperimentinis tyrinėjimas. Kalbotyra 31 (1), 79–87.

Urbutis, V. 1965: Daiktavardžių daryba. Ulvydas, K., red., Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1. Fonetika ir morfologija (daiktavardis, būdvardis, skaitvardis, įvardis), Vilnius: Mintis, 251–473.

Urbutis, V. 1994: Daiktavardžių daryba. Ambrazas, V., red., Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 86–167.

Valeckienė, A. 1967: Kitų kalbų kilmės žodžiai lietuvių kalbos morfologinėje sistemoje. Ambrazas, V., red., Lietuvių kalba tarybiniais metais, Vilnius: Lietuvos TSR mokslų akademija, Lietuvių kalbos ir literatūros institutas, 108–128.

Valeckienė, A. 1984: Lietuvių kalbos gramatinė sistema. Giminės kategorija, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Valeckienė, A. 1998: Funkcinė lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Valeckienė, A. 1999: Giminė. Morkūnas, K., Ambrazas, V., red., sud., Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 216–218.

Vaskelaitė, R. 2001: Nelietuviškų nekaitomų žodžių sintaksiniai vaidmenys, Kalbos kultūra 74, 43–52.

Artūras Judžentis Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, 2055 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected]

Gauta 2002 04 05