Aukštesniojo ir aukščiausiojo laipsnio būdvardžių valentingumas

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLVI (2002), 131 – 144 Valency of Comparative and Superlative Adjectives LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas, Vilnius The article deals with the valency of Lithuanian adjectives in the comparative and superlative. This valency is determined not only by the meaning of the adjective, but also by the grammatical properties of the degrees of comparison. In addition to the (obligatory and optional) participants determined by the meaning of the adjective as a lexical unit, the forms of comparison open a syntactic position for a comparative phrase. Whereas the adjective as such assigns a case form (with or without preposition) to its syntactic participants, its degrees of comparison may either assign a case form (with preposition) to the comparative phrase, or the form of the comparative phrase may be unpredictable in terms of valency. 0. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 0.1. The study of the valency of Lithuanian adjectives1 has only just begun2. This article adopts the view that adjective valency is a property determined by the meaning of the adjective, whereby it opens a certain number of free slots occupied in a sentence (or phrase) by words with particular meanings or their equivalents (cf. Sommerfeldt, Schreiber 1983: 15; Pitulainen 1983: 87–89; Lee 1994: 66). Thus, the valency properties of an adjective are semantically motivated by its meaning, which becomes clear in a particular syntactic environment. 0.2. Valency is associated with three levels: the abstract level of logical semantics and two concrete levels of language—syntax and lexical semantics. At the level of logical semantics, the predicate analysis method determines how many free slots a predicate word (in this case, an adjective) opens for arguments. At this level, the predicate word also specifies the semantic functions of the arguments (free slots), which depend on how the situation being described is interpreted, and presents certain aspects of the situation as we perceive it. Thus, the semantic valency of an adjective as a predicate word is a particular semantic interpretation of the situation described by the adjective, characterized in terms of particular semantic functions. The semantic 1 The article excludes the neuter forms of adjectives, which “are generally not associated with nouns and express a property in a generalized way” (Ambrazas, ed. 1996: 169; Ambrazas, ed. 1997: 137; cf. Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė 2001: 123–125). 2 For this, see Tekorienė (1983; 1985; 1986), Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė (1998; 2000; 2001). 132 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ Valency can be determined by examining sentences formed with the adjective in question. Only in a sentence does it become clear in which meaning the adjective is used, how the situation being described is interpreted, and what the semantic functions of the arguments are. At the syntactic level, analysis of sentences determines which forms of words realize the semantic actants of the predicate—the adjective—as well as the necessity and optionality of syntactic actants, that is, words of a particular form or their equivalents. The need, conditioned by the meaning of an adjective, to take a certain number of words of a particular form (or their equivalents) is called the adjective’s syntactic valency. The number of syntactic actants equals the number of arguments—semantic actants—of the predicate, the adjective. Thus, semantic and syntactic valency are related by isomorphism. 0.3. According to the number of syntactic actants, adjectives can be divided into monovalent and multivalent ones. Monovalent adjectives describe a property of an object and open one free position for an argument, which is the bearer of the property—the describee3: (1) She was affected by the fierce barking and was caught up in a general sense of anxiety KtLPV 325. (2) Warm, windy rains came upon a clear, frosty March ŠvAŠ 30. (3) Lucius is extremely sensitive about his ambition and touchy M-PtR5 110. Most Lithuanian adjectives are monovalent. For them, as for other adjectives, realization of the describee is obligatory, since an adjective is syntactically dependent on a noun—that is, the word denoting the describee—and agrees with it. A considerable number of Lithuanian adjectives describe a property as a relation between two or more objects. By opening two or more free positions for the arguments of the predicate, the adjective itself governs words denoting the objects to which the property—the relation—expressed by the predicate is attributed, with the exception of the word denoting the describee, with which the adjective agrees. Therefore, according to the number of free positions opened, which depends on the meaning of the adjective, the following multivalent adjectives can be distinguished: a) divalent (e.g., suitable for whom), b) trivalent (e.g., grateful to whom for what), c) tetravalent (e.g., owing whom what for what), for example: (4) Look, in one corner there’s a harp; perhaps there’ll be something there suitable for the fire KT. (5) I’m really, really grateful to you for the dog, but there’s still this lingering bitterness that things were better for Aurius with you... KT (6) For the work you’ve done, you owe me at least a thank-you KT. 0.4. All syntactic actants of an adjective have a basis at the level of logical semantics, since they are syntactic realizations of semantic actants. On the other hand, syntactic actants may be obligatory or optional. Those syntactic actants of an adjective that cannot be omitted from a sentence, since omitting them would make the sentence ungrammatical and incomprehensible, are called obligatory (cf. Sl对žienė 1994: 31; 1995: 61; Helbig 1982: 24; 1992: 99, 103; Gladrow 3 Deskripto terminas skolintas iš D. Tekorienės (1983: 97–107) ir E. Jakaitienės (1988: 62). BŪDVARDŽIO LAIPSNIŲ VALENTINGUMAS | 133 1984: 20–21; Jakaitienė 1988: 64). Necessary syntactic actants describe that part of a situation which is most important to the adjective’s meaning. Optional syntactic actants are those that can be omitted from a sentence while the sentence remains grammatical and intelligible. However, although unexpressed, optional syntactic actants correspond to the actants of an adjective’s semantic valency in the same way as necessary syntactic actants⁴. Sentences without optional actants mean approximately the same as those containing them, since optional actants are implied by the meaning of the predicate itself. Therefore, the absence of optional syntactic actants does not make a sentence incomplete either structurally or semantically. Optional syntactic actants describe that part of a situation which is less important to the meaning of the predicate (cf. Slizienė 1986: 56; Emons 1974: 104). 0.5. The aim of this article is to discuss the valency of the comparative and superlative forms of adjectives. 1. FUNCTIONS OF THE COMPARATIVE AND SUPERLATIVE FORMS OF ADJECTIVES 1.1. Adjectives denote the properties of things. In terms of the property being described, one thing can be compared with another thing (or other things), or two properties of one thing can be compared. Lithuanian uses morphological comparative and superlative forms of adjectives to express quantitative differences between properties⁵. 1.2. Comparative forms can be used when one wishes to say that one thing possesses a particular property to a greater degree than another. In such cases, a construction with the preposition už and the accusative is usually used, or comparative constructions with the conjunctions kaip, nekaip, negu, nei, nelyginant, for example: (7) Mano širdies plakimas buvo garesnis už visų laikrodžių tvaksėjimą ŠkBD 113. (8) Lady Kristina’s virtues are harder than all the Juriskonsul’s tricksTr 197. (9) Vilius is somewhat weaker in the shoulders than Anskis, but taller SmNVK 178. (10) There is no bluer sky than ours [sky] KT. Comparative forms of adjectives are also used to compare two properties of one thing. In that case, comparative constructions with conjunctions such as kaip, negu, nei and the like are used with comparative adjective forms (cf. Valeckienė 1961: 57; Ulvydas, ed. 1965: 520), for example: (11) This student is more talented than diligent BK. 4 Optional syntactic actants are shown in parentheses in illustrative examples. 5 The author of the article does not distinguish separately the elative and all the superlative forms (as is done in Lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Volume I (Ulvydas, ed. 1965: 515; 522)), since she follows the conception of the category of degree presented in Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika (Ambrazas, ed. 1996: 170; cf. Ambrazas, ed. 1997: 138), as well as A. Paulauskienė’s view (1994: 230) that these degrees are merely distinctive variants of the comparative and superlative (cf. Valeckienė 1998: 254; Jablonskis 1957: 206; Balčikonis 1982: 36). 134 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ 1.3. Superlative forms are used when it is intended to say that, among a group of things, one thing possesses a greater degree of a property than all the others with which it is being compared (Ambrazas, ed. 1996: 172; Ambrazas, ed. 1997: 139–140; Paulauskienė 1994: 229–230; Balčikonis 1982: 36; Jablonskis 1957: 207; cf. Paulauskienė, Valeika 1994: 193; Valeckienė 1998: 126). Superlative forms are often accompanied by prepositional constructions with genitive or accusative complements using iš, už, tarp(u), by the adverbs užvis, pervis, pronouns, etc., for example: (12) Vilius is the most diligent (of) all SmnVK 111. (13) You were the strongest (of) all of us M-PTr₅ 98. (14) But, above all the best is the black-eared little cow—she is compassionate toward Sigure S. Nėris; Ulvydas, ed. (1976: 253). (15) But among all the famous men of that family, among all those who sat in the high castle of Merkinė, the most famous was the nobleman Mykis V. Krėvė; Ulvydas, ed. (1965: 522). 1.4. The positive degree of an adjective contrasts with the comparative and superlative degrees in terms of whether the quantity of a property is compared. The positive-degree form denotes only a property of an object, without indicating differences in degree (Ambrazas, ed. 1996: 171; Ambrazas, ed. 1997: 138; Valeckienė 1998: 254–255; cf. Bierwisch 1987: 101; Paulauskienė, Valeika 1994: 193). 1.4.1. There are also cases in which the positive-degree form of an adjective is used together with a comparative-degree adverb to compare two objects with respect to a particular property. In such cases, the positive-degree form of the adjective occurs in comparative constructions and denotes a greater (lesser) degree of a particular property in one object. The greater (lesser) degree of the property is determined by certain words with emphatic meaning, for example, not as … as, no less, and so on, while the comparison of the degree of the property itself is expressed analytically6 (cf. Paulauskienė, Valeika 1994: 194–195), for example: (16) He is not as clever as his friend (cf. he is no cleverer than his friend) BK. (17) She was no less happy than her husband, because while he was tending to the beer business in Kraštupėnai, Juodasis Bigė came to see Marius (cf. she was even happier than her husband) AVŽSTM 452. (18) You are [you] no less ambitious than I am, and after the swords have openly crossed, there will no longer be a place for me in your team (cf. you are even more ambitious than I am) KT. (19) Išsiskyrimo kančia ne mažiau skaudi už išsuktos kojos ar geliančio danties skausmą (plg. išsiskyrimo kančia skaudesnė už išsuktos kojos ar geliančio danties skausmą) KT. 6 Nors kalbinėje literatūroje teigiama (Paulauskienė 1994: 226; Valeckienė 1961: 58, 62; Ulvydas, red. 1965: 520; Klimavičius 1969: 7, 10), kad dažniausiai lietuvių kalbos būdvardžių laipsniai reiškiami sintetiniu būdu, tačiau reikėtų pritarti A. Paulauskienei (1994: 226), kad šiuo metu pastebimas ypač spartus analitinių formų amplitudės. Kai kuriose gramatikose apie analitines laipsnių formas apskritai nekalbama (plg.: Ambrazas, red. 1985: 116–121; Valeckienė 1998: 254–259). Tiesa, kalbos kultūros praktikoje daugelį analitinių laipsnio raiškos formų, kuriomis reiškiama gradacija, siūloma keisti sintetinėmis (Klimavičius 1969: 7–15; plg.: Pupkis, sud. 1985: 141, 143; Jakaitienė, Laigonaitė, Paulauskienė 1976: 67, 71). BŪDVARDŽIO LAIPSNIŲ VALENTINGUMAS 135 (20) Ateina ne mažiau atsakingas negu rinkimai įvykis (plg. ateina atsakingesnis negu rinki- mai įvykis KT. It is important that, in order to differentiate more clearly a lesser degree of a thing’s property when comparing it with another thing, we cannot do without analytical degree forms (Klimavičius 1969: 13; Pupkis, ed. 1985: 143, 153), e.g.: (21) Mr. Commissioner, [he] slumped wordlessly in his chair, and at that moment looked far more pitiful than Socrates—even his eyes became less expressive than Socrates’ empty eye sockets KT. 1.4.2. Non-comparative degree forms of adjectives are used when comparing two properties of the same thing. The degree of one property of the same thing is then greater (lesser) than that of another property. In such cases, only comparative constructions with conjunctions such as as, than, than, than, and the like, are used (cf. 1.2.), e.g.: (22) Once I had a funny experience, he continued, “perhaps not so much funny as piggish KT. (23) Jonas was more angry than cheerful BK. (24) The head coach of the Panevėžys team, Gintaras Leonavičius was not so much happy about the victory Žalgiris had given them as surprised by it KT. 2. VALENCY OF THE COMPARATIVE AND SUPERLATIVE FORMS OF ADJECTIVES 2.1. It could be argued that the comparative and superlative forms of both monovalent and polyvalent adjectives, in addition to the syntactic arguments determined by the meaning of the adjective (both obligatory and optional), should take at least one more obligatory syntactic argument—one of the comparative constructions. However, the presence of this syntactic argument in the sentence would be determined not by the meaning of the adjective, but by its morphological form—the suffix -esnis, -iau-sias (for German adjective degree forms, cf. Bierwisch 1987: 174, 183–184, 186). Thus, monovalent adjectives used in the comparative or superlative form should be bivalent, bivalent adjectives should be trivalent, and so on. 2.2. Analysis of the collected material suggests that this is often indeed the case. In other words, most monovalent Lithuanian adjectives used in the comparative or superlative form are bivalent (for German degree forms of monovalent adjectives, cf. Sommerfeldt, Schreiber 1971: 228; Piitulainen 1983: 17; Bierwisch 1987: 174; Lee 1994: 29), e.g.: (25) Be [you] smaller even than a poppy seed; don’t draw anyone’s attention BltR₄ 21. (26) The people in the forest were earlier than life 7, later than death KT. 7 Although Lithuanian adjectives denoting relations of non-simultaneity, e.g.: ankstesnis, -ė ‘having existed earlier’, anksčiausias, -ia, paskesnis, -ė ‘coming later, subsequent’, paskutiasias, -ia ‘the very last, latest’, pirmesnis, -ė ‘earlier’, pirmiausias, -ia ‘the very first’, vėlesnis, -ė ‘occurring or taking place later, afterward’, vėliausias, -ia ‘latest’, and so on, have comparative and superlative 136 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ (27) I want to be [I] superior to that Warsaw sorcerer who has become a pain in my neck… MISEVČ 76. (28) You are the most diligent (of) the other children SmNVK 110. (29) The greatest director of these games was Kotryna—the oldest (of) all the girls, very beautiful, brave, and commanding KT. 2.2.1. There are Lithuanian adjectives with one valency whose comparative forms have three valencies. In addition to the obligatory comparative construction, such comparative adjective forms require a third, optional syntactic actant, which can be expressed by a noun or pronoun in the instrumental case (alone or with a dependent word) or by quantitative adverbs, for example: (30) A stranger came in, a man (a whole head) taller than me, with a huge belly KnN 125. (31) Pastor Merkulis was younger than Grigalius, (but not by much, perhaps five years), and seemed to have a handsome, full face BUBTTA 64. (32) Leonardo’s hair shone like fire, he himself was (a metre) shorter than Abrutis and never raised his voice KT. (33) Priest Simon, (much) shorter than Angelė’s husband, enters the barn first, stops, raises his hand to his left side as if calming his fluttering heart, and looks around in surprise KT. (34) And her cousin is (by as much as two years) older than she is SmNR₁ 225. (35) I was [I] the group leader, so in a way (in some respect) superior to the others, and representatives who came from Moscow to visit the courses would speak to me first (or perhaps I only thought so because of my naivety) KT. 2.3. Bivalent adjectives are also used in comparative or superlative forms. Like monovalent adjectives, such bivalent adjectives often take an additional syntactic actant, besides the obligatory and optional syntactic actants determined by the meaning of the adjective, for example: (36) Kaime smarkiai sunegalavo jos krikštamotė, artimesnė jai už tikrą motiną, – ji atsiprašė nuo akademinių užsiėmimų, ir, jos pačios nuostabai, dekanas iškart sutiko KT. (37) And these descendants of serfs […] slaves to their own farms, for whom a litre of skimmed milk is more precious than human dignity AvŽSTM 558. (38) Minister K. Kristinaitis’s notion that the court is more competent to decide ethical questions than the Chief Official Ethics Commission is inexplicable on rational grounds. KT. (39) [Ji] netikėjo, kad sielos dalykai, kuriuos ji buvo išmokyta gerbti labiau už viską pasaulyje, (jam) [Germano tėvui] būtų svarbesni už kūniškuosius KnDKHG 54 (40) Village affairs were no less familiar to Rapolis than the affairs of his own home VŽR₃ 90. When degree forms are treated as separate words rather than morphological forms of the adjectives ankštus ‘narrow’ and vėlius ‘late’, these adjectives are considered separate words. The Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian and the academic Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language list these adjectives as separate words, with the exception of anksčiausias, -ia ‘earliest’ and vėliausias, -ia ‘latest’, which are not considered separate words in the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian. As the examples show, these monovalent adjectives are used with comparative constructions to compare two things with respect to time. BŪDVARDŽIO LAIPSNIŲ VALENTINGUMAS | 137 (41) Among winter cereals, rye is the most resistant to wintering, but varieties differ greatly from one another in this respect KT. (42) However, one cannot say that he was the most to blame for not knowing what would happen when that bomb fell into the middle of a city of many thousands KT. It is true that in cases where a bivalent adjective, used in the comparative or superlative form, requires an optional syntactic actant, that actant may be unexpressed in the sentence (cf. 0.4.), e.g.: (43) Nevertheless, this day is more favorable than the day after tomorrow, so it is advisable to take care of more important matters (cf. nevertheless, this day is (for you) more favorable than the day after tomorrow) KT. (44) – Viskas gerai, – blankiai šypsodamasi vyrui, pasakė ji angliškai, – esu įsitikinusi, kad jūsų pypkė bus daug malonesnė negu mano pakeleivio cigaretės (plg. jūsų pypkė bus (man) daug malonesnė negu mano pakeleivio cigaretės) KT. (45) The word Lithuania is more pleasant than anything (cf. the word Lithuania is more pleasant to us than anything) KT. 2.4. No examples were found of comparative or superlative forms of trivalent adjectives used in a sentence with all the syntactic actants (obligatory and optional) determined by the adjective’s meaning, and also taking a comparative construction. Nor were examples found in which the comparative or superlative form of a trivalent adjective is used with the obligatory syntactic actants determined by the adjective’s meaning and a comparative construction. The same could be said of comparative or superlative adjectives with four valents. In theory, however, such examples would be possible. The fact that no such examples were found is probably due to the fact that the resulting sequence of words dependent on the adjective would be very long, e.g.: (46) (For your sincere advice I [I] am more grateful to my mother than to you, my best friend (for bringing the book of advice book) BK. 3. MORPHOSYNTACTIC REALIZATION OF COMPARATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS 3.1. As mentioned, both comparative and superlative adjective forms and positive-degree adjective forms used to express comparison most often take one additional syntactic actant—the comparative construction. However, unlike the adjective itself (as a part of speech), comparative and superlative adjective forms do not always determine the form of their syntactic actant, the comparative construction. 3.1.1. When two or more things are compared with respect to the thing denoted by the descriptor word, comparative forms govern a prepositional construction with the preposition už. Superlative forms govern prepositional constructions with the prepositions iš, tarp(u), už. The preposition už requires the accusative, while iš, tarp(u) require the genitive (cf. 1.2–1.4), e.g.: 138 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ (47) A burden is heavier than a pebble, a word sharper than a thistle Vrn; Ulvydas, ed. (1965: 515). (48) Then that was his first song, sadder than the rustling of the forests Maironis; Ambrazas, ed. (1996: 171). (49) It would be hard to find a person quieter than him: he hardly spoke at all J. Balčikonis; Ulvydas, ed. (1965: 519). (50) Eglė is the happiest of all the daughters-in-law; she does not shed bitter tears in abundance S. Nėris; Ulvydas, ed. (1965: 522). 3.1.2. Meanwhile, comparative adjectives generally do not determine the form of comparative constructions used with conjunctions such as kaip, nei, negu, etc. (cf. 0.2). Comparative constructions with these conjunctions are reduced clauses8 in which only what differs in the degree of the property being described is formally expressed, i.e. that with which the comparison is made (cf. 1.4.2). It is quite difficult to predict what will be said in the comparative construction and in what form. Nevertheless, several cases can be distinguished in which comparative and superlative adjectives determine the form of comparative constructions with conjunctions such as kaip, nei, negu, etc.: a) When two things are compared with respect to the thing denoted by the descriptor word, comparative constructions with conjunctions kaip, nei, negu, etc., most often take the nominative form, although the thing serving as the basis of comparison may be expressed in other cases, e.g.: (51) A better father, even if cruel, than a stepfather, though he might be as sweet as sugar V. Krėvė; Ambrazas, ed. (1996: 171). (52) There is no sky (for me) lovelier than the sky of my homeland E. Mieželaitis; Ulvydas, ed. (1965: 519). (53) Saulė nusileido už tamsesnio negu naktis šilo KT. Compare: (54) A better father, even if cruel, than is a good stepfather, though he might be as sweet as sugar. (55) Nėra dangaus (man) malonesnio, kaip malonus yra (man) tėviškės dangus. (56) The sun set behind a grove darker than the night is dark, Cases should be mentioned separately in which a comparative construction with the aforementioned conjunctions agrees in form with the word serving as the basis of comparison. In such cases, one could speak of case attraction, e.g.: 8 The author regards as reduced comparative sentences all comparative constructions with the conjunctions kaip, nei, negu and so on, which in the three-volume academic Grammar of the Lithuanian Language are discussed either as comparative phrases or as subordinate clauses of comparative sentences. On the other hand, the Grammar of the Lithuanian Language itself (Ulvydas, ed. 1976: 656–657) acknowledges that, in their grammatical structure and meaning, comparative phrases are close to subordinate clauses of comparative sentences. As the grammar states, the main difference between comparative sentences and sentences with comparative phrases is that comparative phrases do not have the grammatical form of a sentence. But, it seems, a reduced sentence can also be discerned in a sentence such as: The pain in his heart was more intense than the ache in his body, than the wounds on his burned hands KrėvP 131. Cf.: The pain in his heart was more intense than the ache in his body was painful. BŪDVARDŽIO LAIPSNIŲ VALENTINGUMAS 139 (57) I would like a more handsome man than such a good-for-nothing I. Simonait yte; Ulvydas, ed. (1976: 688). Cf.: (58) I would like a more handsome man, than such a good-for-nothing is handsome. b) In cases where two or more things are compared not with respect to the thing denoted by the descriptor word (as in the preceding examples), but with respect to the thing denoted by the word governed by the multivalent adjective, even though only comparative constructions with conjunctions such as kaip, nei, negu and so on are used, the form of the comparative construction is the same as that of the word governed by the adjective, i.e. the valency actant, for example: (59) He knew that to (that lady) [he] he was more open than to his confessor V. Mykolaitis-Putinas; Ulvydas, ed. (1976: 688). (60) Alena was kinder to him than to anyone else A. Vienuolis; Ulvydas, ed. (1976: 688). (61) And let no one condemn us for having stolen our history bit by bit from strangers; it is much more necessary to us than to those who still have not returned it to us KT. As the examples show, when comparison is made with respect to the thing denoted by an adjective’s facultative syntactic actant, that actant must necessarily be expressed in the sentence (cf. 0.4.), for example: (62) * He knew that [he] was more open than to his confessor. c) In cases where the degree of a certain property of one thing is compared at one time or under certain circumstances with its degree at another time or under different circumstances, comparative constructions with conjunctions kaip, nei, negu and so on are used with words or constructions expressing circumstantial meanings (time, place), for example: (63) One morning the patient awoke more alert than usual V. Mykolaitis-Putinas, Ulvydas, ed. (1976: 688). (64) Better to live worn out and hungry, but still be [I] happier than here J. Paukštelis; Ulvydas, ed. (1976: 688). (65) He hunted to amuse himself, to roam the forests, but while hunting Ilgis would ride alone on horseback, taking no weapons in hand, abandoning all hope of making a catch; [he] gloomier returned than when he had ridden out from home V. Krėvė; Ulvydas, ed. (1965: 518). d) When different degrees of a certain property of one thing are compared in different “possible or imagined worlds,” comparative constructions with conjunctions kaip, nei, negu and so on are used with another predicate (e.g., to seem, to think, to consider, to expect and so on), which specifies in which “possible” world the degree of the property being compared is observed, for example: (66) You are more unhappy than I had thought V. Mykolaitis-Putinas; Ulvydas, ed. (1976: 906). (67) The father was lying in bed, and his unshaven gray beard, together with the brush of gray hair above his forehead, made him look much older than he really was A. Venclova; Ulvydas, ed. (1976: 907). 140 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ (68) „“Worn out” and dismissed from the estate, the servant found a family for himself larger than Miss Morta Lazdynų Pelėda could have raised for him; Ulvydas, ed. (1976: 907). Thus, one could argue that the valency of comparative and superlative forms is different in kind from the valency of the adjective (as a part of speech). If an adjective’s valency is semantically motivated by its meaning, the valency of the comparative and superlative forms of an adjective is determined not only by the adjective’s meaning but also by the morphological degree forms9. 4. OPTIONALITY OF COMPARATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS 4.1. It has been observed that comparative constructions with both monovalent and multivalent adjectives in the comparative and superlative forms, which are usually obligatory in a sentence10, may be left unexpressed, that is, they are optional. It should be noted, however, that the optionality of comparative constructions differs from that of an adjective’s optional syntactic actants. Whereas an adjective’s optional syntactic actants are implied by the meaning of the adjective itself, and sentences without optional actants are therefore structurally and semantically complete11, optional comparative constructions are not implied by the meaning of an adjective’s comparative or superlative form; they become apparent from the sentence. Several groups can be distinguished in which comparative and superlative forms of adjectives are used without comparative constructions: a) A comparative construction is left unexpressed with a superlative form when the greatest degree of a property of the same object under certain circumstances is described (cf. Sommerfeldt, Schreiber 1971: 228; Welke 1988: 121) (cf. 2.3.), e.g.: (69) He is happiest at work bees rš.; Ulvydas, ed. (1965: 523). (70) They talked like this for a long time, […] but kept circling around, skirting the most difficult topics BubPV 322. (71) In your opinion, when is a child most susceptible to evil? KT (72) As he recounts people’s stories, he is most sensitive to those characters who remind him of himself KT. 9 Pasak A. Paulauskienės (1994: 230–231), laipsniavimas priklauso vidinei gramatinei semantikai, tačiau laipsnių formos turi ir savo vartojimo kontekstus. Aukštesnysis laipsnis vartojamas su vienais lyginamaisiais ir pabrėžiamaisiais žodžiais, o aukščiausiasis – su kitais. 10 A. Paulauskienė (1994: 231) teigia, kad vieno daikto lyginimui su kitu pagal didesnį ypatybės kiekį neužtenka vien morfologinės formos – priesagos -esnis. Aukštesniojo laipsnio formą sakinyje lydi lyginamieji žodžiai už, kaip, negu... Jie būtini. 11 Except in cases where a multivalent adjective has two or more optional syntactic actants. In such cases, if one (or more) optional syntactic actant(s) is left unexpressed, it may be unclear in which sense the adjective is being used. For example, the adjective kaltas ‘owing something to someone’ is tetravalent (e.g.: Jonas owes his father (money) (for help). However, in sentences such as: Jonas owes me (money), Jonas owes me, it remains unclear which sense the adjective in question has—‘owing something to someone’ or ‘having borrowed something’. But: Jonas owes me (for help). BŪDVARDŽIO LAIPSNIŲ VALENTINGUMAS 141 (73) The most suitable texts for learning to tell stories are those whose very nature is narrative, where what resounds is—more or less perfectly—emotional, expressive, concise, lively [speech] KT. b) When two homogeneous objects with different properties are compared, the second object, i.e. the basis of comparison, may be unexpressed but understood (cf. 1.2.; 2.1.1.), e.g.: (74) Perhaps the second half of winter is harsher Gs; Ulvydas, ed. (1965: 516). (75) The right temple is narrower Jnšk; Ulvydas, ed. (1965: 516). (76) I shape the main figure much bulkier BuBPV 386. (77) A sturdy horse is stronger for work Svn; Ulvydas, ed. (1965: 517). c) The comparative and superlative forms of monovalent and divalent adjectives are used without comparative constructions when they have a non-comparative (elative) meaning, i.e. when they denote a degree of a property greater or greatest than usual, e.g.: (78) That evening the conversation proceeded awkwardly; no particularly interesting topic was touched on. M-PsS 323. (79) Terrible horrific, pitch-black images and visions flashed through his mind. Vaižgantas; Ambrazas, ed. (1996: 173). (80) It was indescribably beautiful. In the sky not the smallest white cloud. J. Biliūnas; Ambrazas, ed. (1996: 173). (81) I wish you […] the very best of luck in your new life RŠ. LKŽV 160. 4.2. On the other hand, one should agree with G. Helbig’s (1984: 51; 1990: 128; 1992: 49) view that each person has the right, in a particular communicative situation, to choose whether or not to realize in syntactic structure what is embedded in the semantic structure of language. However, in that case we should speak not of language as a system, but of instances of language use (Helbig 1992: 42; cf. Helbig 1982: 22; Gansel 1993: 159), e.g.: (82) How convenient for those whose ethics fit into a single sentence: you are superior—I am a fool; I am superior—you are a fool (cf. when you are superior to me—I am a fool; when I am superior to you—you are a fool) KT. (83) Two little towers rose above the great wall too—red-roofed, perhaps by force. Some clumsy-looking annex was erected. Farther off, another building, only lower… (cf. this building is lower than the clumsy-looking annex) KT. (84) He squeezes my hand more firmly than I squeeze his. We silently sized each other up. I was [I] (somewhat) shorter, narrower-shouldered, thin. He was heavy, inert, with eyes murky as swamp fog (cf. I was (somewhat) shorter than him) KT. (85) One could write a book about Marė’s life. A village girl’s life. Before the First World War, during the war, and afterward. Many children in the family. She is the eldest (cf. Marė is the eldest (of) all the children in the family) KT. Although the comparative construction is omitted in the sentences, and the sentences would therefore be considered ungrammatical as units of the language system, in the text these are normal instances of usage (cf. Sommerfeldt 1973: 96; Helbig 1984: 49; 1985: 154; 1990: 129; Schwitalla 142 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ 1985: 297; Fries 1987: 205; Baskevič 1987: 153). In G. Helbig’s view (1992: 50), it is precisely context that allows obligatory syntactic actants to be omitted while preserving all the information they convey; therefore, this ungrammaticality of the sentence is neutralized12. 5. CONCLUSIONS 1. Differences in the valency of comparative and superlative forms of adjectives are related not only to the meaning of the adjective but also to the specific nature of the grammatical category of degree, which expresses differences in the extent of properties of things (cf. Ambrazas, ed. 1996: 170); therefore, they cannot be equated with the valency of adjectives determined by their meaning (cf. Sommerfeldt, Schreiber 1971: 228; Heidolph, Flämig, Motsch 1981: 621; Sommerfeldt 1986: 92; Sommerfeldt, Schreiber 1983: 31; Lee 1994: 49). 2. The valency property of comparative and superlative forms of adjectives that enables them to take comparative constructions is of a different nature: it is characteristic not of the adjective as a particular part of speech, but only of the morphological category of degree, which applies not only to adjectives but also to adverbs. ŠALTINIAI AvžSTM – Jonas Avyžius. Sodybų tuštėjimo metas. 1985 BK – bendrinė kalba BlTR4 – Juozas Baltušis. Raštai. T. 4. 1982 BubPV – Vytautas Bubnys. Pilnaties valanda. 1985 BubTTA – Vytautas Bubnys. Teatsiveria tavo akys. 1993 KnN – Milan Kundera. Nemirtingumas. 1997 KndKHG – Saulius Tomas Kondrotas. Kentauro herbo giminė. 1989 KtLPV – Marius Katiliškis. Paskendusi vasara. 1997 MisevČ – Vytautas Misevičius. Čičinskas. 1978 M-PTS – Vincas Mykolaitis-Putinas. Sukilėliai. 1957 M-PTR5 – Vincas Mykolaitis-Putinas. Raštai. T. 5. 1993 SmnR1 – Ieva Simonaitytė. Raštai. T. 1. 1956 SmnVK – Ieva Simonaitytė. Vilius Karalius. 1977 ŠkBD – Antanas Škėma. Balta drobulė. 1990 ŠvAŠ – Rimantas Šavelis. Amžinoji šviesa. 1987 VzR3 – Vaižgantas (Juozas Tumas). Raštai. T. 3. 1995 LKŽ1–XVIII – 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. KT – Kauno Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto Kompiuterinės lingvistikos centro sudarytas lietuvių kalbos tekstynas 12 Kalbos vartosena šiame straipsnyje nebus išsamiau aptariama, kadangi valentingumo teorijos požiūriu laikytina periferinėmis predikato valentingumo struktūrų modifikacijomis, kurios gali įvairuoti skirtinguose tekstuose, atsižvelgiant į kalbančiojo komunikacinius tikslus bei užduotis. BŪDVARŽIO LAIPSNIŲ VALENTINGUMAS 143 LITERATŪRA AMBRAZAS, V., red. 1985: Грамматика литовского языка. Вильнюс: Мокслас. AMBRAZAS, V., red. 1996: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. AMBRAZAS, V., ed. 1997: Lithuanian Grammar, Vilnius: Baltos lankos. BALČIKONIS, J. 1982: Rinktiniai raštai 2, sudarė A. Pupkis, Vilnius: Mokslas. BASKEVIČ, V. 1987: Zum Einfluß kommunikativ-pragmatischer Faktoren auf die Valenz. Deutsch als Fremdsprache 24 (3), 153–155. BIERWISCH, M. 1987: Semantik der Graduierung. Bierwisch, M., Lang, E., Hrsg., Grammatische und konzeptuelle Aspekte von Dimensionsadjektiven, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 91–286. EMONS, R. 1974: Valenzen englischer Prädikatsverben, Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. FRIES, N. 1987: Nochmals: Valenz und Text. Deutsch als Fremdsprache 24 (4), 205–207. GANSEL, CH. 1993: Obligatheit und Fakultativität als Ausdruck von Perspektivierungen. Deutsch als Fremdsprache 30 (3), 157–163. GLADROW, W. 1984: Kompletivsätze und Attributsätze im Russischen. (Linguistische Studien. Zeitschrift des Zentralinstituts für Sprachwissenschaft der Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR. Reihe A, 115.) HEIDOLPH, K. E., FLÄMIG, W., MOTSCH, W. 1981: Grundzüge einer deutschen Grammatik, Berlin: Akademie Verlag. HELBIG, G. 1982: Valenz – Satzglieder – semantische Kasus – Satzmodelle, Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie. HELBIG, G. 1984: Studien zur deutschen Syntax 2, Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie. HELBIG, G. 1985: Valenz und Kommunikation. Deutsch als Fremdsprache 22 (3), 153–156. HELBIG, G. 1990: Pragmatische Valenz? Das Wort. Germanistisches Jahrbuch DDR, 128–139. HELBIG, G. 1992: Probleme der Valenz und Kasustheorie, Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. JABLONSKIS, J. 1957: Rinktiniai raštai 1, sudarė J. Palionis, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. JAKAITIENĖ, E. 1988: Leksinė semantika, Vilnius: Mokslas. JAKAITIENĖ, E., LAIGONAITĖ A., PAULAUSKIENĖ, A. 1976: Lietuvių kalbos morfologija, Vilnius: Mokslas. KEINYS, St., red. 1993: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. KLIMAVIČIUS, J. 1969: Dėl analitinių laipsnio formų vartojimo. Kalbos kultūra 17, 7–15. LEE, S. M. 1994: Untersuchungen zur Valenz des Adjektivs in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache, Berlin: Lang. PAULAUSKIENĖ, A. 1994: Lietuvių kalbos morfologija: Paskaitos lituanistams, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. PAULAUSKIENĖ, A., VALEIKA, L. 1994: Modern Lithuanian, Vilnius: Žodynas. PITULAINEN, M. L. 1983: Zu den valenzgebundenen Bestimmungen des Adjektivs im Deutschen und im Finnischen, Tampere. PUPKIS, A., sud. 1985: Kalbos praktikos patarimai, Vilnius: Mokslas. SCHWITALLA, J. 1985: Verbvalenz und Text. Deutsch als Fremdsprache 22 (5), 266–270. SLIŽIENĖ, N. 1986: Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių valentingumas ir sintaksinė klasifikacija. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 25, 45–97. SLIŽIENĖ, N. 1994: Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių junglumo žodynas 1, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. SLIŽIENĖ, N. 1995: Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių valentingumas ir jo aprašymo principai. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 33, 54–74. SOMMERFELDT, K. E. 1973: Zur Besetzung der Leerstellen von Valenzträgern. Deutsch als Fremdsprache 10 (2), 95–102. 144 | LORETA SEMĖNIENĖ SOMMERFELDT, K. E. 1986: Zu einer semantisch orientierten Satzmodellierung. K. E. Sommerfeldt, W. Spiewok, Hrsg., Linguistische Studien. Beiträge zur einer funktional-semantischen Sprachbetrachtung, 76–95. SOMMERFELDT, K. E., SCHREIBER, H. 1971: Untersuchungen zur syntaktischen und semantischen Valenz deutscher Adjektive (1). Deutsch als Fremdsprache 8 (4), 227–231. SOMMERFELDT, K. E., SCHREIBER, H. 1983: Wörterbuch zur Valenz und Distribution deutscher Adjektive, Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut. TEKORIENĖ, D. 1983: Lietuvių kalbos būdvardžio semantinis valentingumas. Kalbotyra 34 (1), 97–107. TEKORIENĖ, D. 1985: Lietuvių kalbos būdvardžių būtinio semantinio valentingumo raiška. Kalbotyra 36 (1), 72–83. TEKORIENĖ, D. 1986: Sintaksiniai būdvardžių semantikos nagrinėjimo aspektai. Kalbotyra 37 (1), 77–86. ULVYDAS, K., red. 1965: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1, Vilnius: Mintis. ULVYDAS, K., red. 1976: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 3, Vilnius: Mokslas. VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ, L. 1998: Būdvardžių reikšmė ir valentingumas. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 40, 59–73. VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ, L. 2000: Lietuvių kalbos daugiavalenčių būdvardžių sintaksinis ir semantinis valentingumas. Lituanistica 3/4 (43/44), 35–60. VAIČIULYTĖ-SEMĖNIENĖ, L. 2001: Lietuvių kalbos būdvardžių valentingumas. Daktaro disertacija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. VALECKIENĖ, A. 1961: Dabartinės lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos būdvardžių laipsniai ir jų reikšmės. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 4, 49–63. VALECKIENĖ, A. 1998: Funkcinė lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. WELKE, K. M. 1988: Einführung in die Valenz- und Kasustheorie, Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut. Loreta Semėnienė Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 6, 2055 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected] Gauta 2002 03 29