Lietuvių kalbos subjektiniai ir objektiniai veiksmažodžiai

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLIV (2001), 145–166 Subject and object verbs in Lithuanian STASĖ KRINICKAITĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language, Vilnius The two semantic types of verbs distinguished in this paper, subject-oriented and object-oriented verbs, reflect the two main types of sentence perspective in Lithuanian. Both define a number of semantic roles which are subsumed by the hyper-roles of subject and object. The hyper-role of subject includes the semantic roles of agent, patient, percipient, result, beneficiary, content, modus, source, directive, instrument. The hyper-role of object comprises the semantic roles of patient, causator, counter-agent, finitive, motive, comitative and retributive. THE CONCEPT OF SUBJECT AND OBJECT VERBS Some researchers divide verbs by meaning into two larger groups: subject and object verbs (Ufimceva 1980: 41, Jakaitienė 1988: 114, Krinickaitė 1997: 40–41). Subject verbs are those that denote actions associated with the subject and remaining within its sphere. Object verbs denote actions directed toward an object, while also maintaining a connection with the subject. Thus, in sentences, subject verbs presuppose subject relations and do not presuppose object relations. Object verbs, by contrast, presuppose primarily object relations, but also subject relations. Compared with object relations, subject relations are prototypical (Holvoet 1991: 50–51). Regarding impersonal verbs, it should be noted that some of them, when used in impersonal sentences, are associated with subject verbs (He is unlucky), while others are associated with object verbs (My head hurts. The hay was rained on. We were caught out on the road). When there is no subject in a sentence (It is getting dark. Night is falling), the subject may be inferred from the speaker’s overall experience. It could be the setting of the situation being described or the speaker’s visual field. All this shows that dividing verbs into subject and object verbs corresponds to the long-standing linguistic tradition of dividing verbs into transitive and intransitive, and especially into transitive and intransitive in the broader sense. This classification of verbs is based on the concepts of the subject of an action and its object. Once the most general verb meanings—action and state (in the broad sense)—are distinguished, the subject and object can be defined in terms of semantic functions (roles). The approach adopted here identifies as the subject the agent of action predicates, less often the instrument, and, for state predicates, the patient, percipient, beneficiary, result, or content. The object is identified as the patient, result, or beneficiary of action predicates, 146 | STASĖ KRINICKAITĖ instrument, content, finitive, and state-predicate roles: counter-agent, percipient, possessor, content, result, and aspect. The semantic functions of subject and object are clearly distinguished from the syntactic functions of subject and object complement, which depend on the syntactic structure of the sentence. For example, in the passive-voice sentence The letter was written by the father, the complement (by the father) performs the semantic function of subject, while the sentence subject (the letter) performs the function of object. When classifying a verb as subjective or objective, one must also take into account its use in a particular sentence in its literal or figurative sense. Verbs are often polysemous, and some of their meanings may be subjective, while others are objective. It should also be emphasized that verbs belonging to different lexical and semantic groups select different semantic functions. However, even taking the lexical and semantic groups of verbs into account does not yet explain all the variants of verb use or their synonymy. It should be borne in mind that the predicate of every sentence corresponds both to certain features of the situation and to features not all of which are determined solely by the meaning of the verb (Rosen 1996: 191–223). This article draws on the immediate environments of verbs in sentences recorded in Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian3(1993), Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (I–XIX, 1956–1999), and N. Sližienė’s Dictionary of Lithuanian Verb Valency (I, 1994; II(1) 1998). Examples of subjective and objective verbs collected by the author of this article from journalism, scholarly and popular-science works, spoken language, folklore, and belles-lettres are also analyzed. Sources are not cited for ordinary examples of spoken language. A comparison of all the attested instances of subjective and objective verb use shows that different semantic functions are characteristic of different lexical groups of subjective and objective verbs. Various lexical groups of subjective and objective verbs also exhibit certain features of their immediate environment, while some groups have not only certain characteristic actants but also free constituents. It can be argued that the semantic functions of verbs depend on their lexical meaning (or lexical-semantic group) and on their immediate environment, in which not only actants but also free constituents play an important role. When a verb is considered as a polysemous lexeme, with the full set of its meanings in view, the groups of SUBJECTIVE–OBJECTIVE and OBJECTIVE–SUBJECTIVE verbs are also distinguished. Subjective–objective verbs are those whose literal meanings are subjective and figurative meanings objective, or those whose more frequent and usual meanings are subjective and less frequent meanings objective (e.g., to go hoarse, to grow cold, to hiss, to shine). The literal meanings of objective–subjective verbs are objective and their figurative meanings subjective; likewise, their more frequent and usual meanings are objective and their less frequent meanings subjective (e.g., to speak, to hold, to win). Since the same verb, when used with different meanings, is in each instance either subjective or objective, the principal verb groups are therefore subjective and objective verbs. It is useful to distinguish the groups of subjective–objective and objective–subjective verbs only when verbs are classified as lexemes and investigated from broader perspectives, such as transitivity theory, polysemy, and typology. It should be noted that both subjective and objective verbs, as broader groups, have so far received little attention in linguistic scholarship. The terms subjective, objective are also less common than intransitive, transitive. The terms, which have a long tradition of use— SUBJEKTINIAI IR OBJEKTINIAI VEIKSMAŽODŽIAI | 147 transitive, intransitive—continue to be used in both narrow and broad senses. In the broad sense, transitive denotes objective verbs, while intransitive denotes subjective verbs. Since contemporary linguistics recognizes the complexity of verb meaning, descriptions of various languages commonly use transitive and intransitive phrases (transitive, intransitive phrases), transitive and intransitive constructions (transitive, intransitive construction), transitive and intransitive clauses (transitive, intransitive clauses), transitive and intransitive structures (transitive, intransitive structures). The transitivity and intransitivity of a verb are important semantic, and partly grammatical, properties that are also useful for typology. Meanings that are marked by morphological means in at least one of the world’s languages are considered significant for every language (Majsak 2000: 10). Subjective and objective verb terminology, associated with the semantic perspective, is more commonly used in Russian and Lithuanian linguistics (Ufimtseva 1980: 44; Jakaitienė 1988: 114; Krinickaitė 1997: 39–41). When discussing verb sentences, in which subjective and objective verbs often serve as predicates, the terms subjective and objective predicates (subject-oriented predicates, object-oriented predicates) are presumably also appropriate (cf. Venstra 2000: 882). The latter predicate groups are apparently the two largest predicate groups in Lithuanian: ACTION and STATE predicates (in the broad sense). This most general classification of predicates is sufficient to associate the concepts of subject and object with semantic functions. The semantic functions of action and state predicates considered separately fall within the broader groups of subjective and objective relations (Ambrazas 1986: 27). The semantic function of agent is most often associated with action predicates, while the semantic functions of patient, percipient, and beneficient are associated with state predicates. The subject is defined as the agent of action predicates and the patient, percipient, or beneficient of state predicates (Ambrazas 1986: 27): TABLE 1. TYPES OF SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE RELATIONS Semantic relations | Semantic functions associated with action predicates | Semantic functions associated with state predicates Subjective | A (Guests arrived. The rain threshed the rye) | P (The glass broke); PCP (Everyone heard the noise); B (The parents owned land) Objective | P (The girl smashed the glass); R (The neighbor dug a ditch); B (I sent a letter to the parents); I (Play the violin with a drill) | CON (I don’t know the way. Money is lacking); R (Money turned into coal) Thus, an object can be defined as the patient, result, beneficient, and instrument of action predicates, and the content and result of state predicates. Compared with objective relations, subjective relations are prototypical (cf. Holvoet 1991: 50–51). 148 STASĖ KRINICKAITĖ SUBJECT VERBS Subject verbs with an action meaning most often assign the semantic role of AGENT, e.g.: You toil day and night. (KONDR AŽL 50). Everyone works and hurries. Mother works diligently without stopping. The children romp around the yard. The commission holds a meeting. Subject verbs, when they denote not specific physical actions (instance of action) but activity of a general nature, the character of an activity (activity), come close in meaning to object verbs used without an object (in cases of so-called absolute use), e.g.: the child talks, mother cooks, father smokes. The degree of agentivity varies, and the context of use also plays a considerable role. Language users differ in their perception of whether a verb denotes a volitional action or a state. This is explained by the fact that in certain contexts the opposition between subject and object is irrelevant and neutralized, since sometimes the subject and object correspond to one, rather than two, entities at the referential level (Krinickaitė 1997: 41; Ono 1999: 16). It may be said that this is also a consequence of the structure of language, since the discreteness of linguistic units and the non-discreteness of the semantic continuum give rise to gradual transitions from one meaning to another (Lykova 1999: 54–55). The agent role is characteristic of nouns denoting both living beings and inanimate objects and forces of nature. Two main types of agent are distinguished: agent₁ [A₁], characteristic of living beings, and agent₂ [A₂], characteristic of inanimate objects, natural forces, and other natural and social phenomena, as well as various devices, machines, and instruments that have a certain energy and can therefore perform or cause an action, but lack initiative of their own (Sližienė 1994: 19). The nominative subject serving as agent may be left unexpressed in a sentence, being implied by the verb form itself, e.g.: Why are you sad? I groped my way in the dark. We drove all night. I had barely stepped over the threshold. He lies to my face. We carefully felt our way around. He gapes in astonishment. 1Verbs denoting mental activity or behavior also assign the agent role, cf.: The child smiles. The guests laughed merrily. Why is he so restless? The girls speak frankly. Why are you crying—don't cry! The pupil fantasizes. The young man acts arbitrarily, disregarding the law. For now, Mother still endures it and says nothing. My sister took offense. Uncle jokes. The girl behaved well. These are verbs denoting actions characteristic of a human being both as a living creature and as a person. In sentences where verbs such as smile, laugh, be restless, grieve, weep, take offense, etc., function as predicates, other sentence constituents often indicate the manner in which the action is performed, its qualitative and quantitative characteristics, its location or time; however, they are usually not actants (i.e. valency dependents), but adjuncts. In sentences with verbs denoting the character of an activity (toil, work hard, work diligently, etc.), actants with object and instrument semantic roles are possible in certain cases. Adjuncts indicating the spatial and temporal parameters of an action do not distinguish one action from another and are possible in all verbal sentences. SUBJEKTINIAI IR OBJEKTINIAI VEIKSMAŽODŽIAI | 149 Actions regarded as characteristic of humans as representatives of civilization and a particular culture can be classified by purpose: (1) ordering actions; (2) processing (transformative) actions; (3) extractive (productive) actions: (a) material, (b) material–spiritual actions, (c) spiritual (mental) actions (Stepanov 1997: 210). This classification is more suitable for object verbs, although it is also applicable to subject verbs. Verbs of movement (motion) that assign the semantic role of Agent denote actions characteristic not only of humans and all living beings, but also of inanimate objects, various devices, and natural forces. Besides the Agent, other actants are possible—Location and Direction (starting point, endpoint, route). In sentences with verbs of movement, Location and Direction also help distinguish verb meanings. For example: Everyone returned. Who is running over there? Further on, he waded through the water. Where is he trudging with his nose down? The children are skating on the ice. Embarrassed, he slunk outside. The students walked along the road. The child is clambering up the hill. Where is everyone wandering now? In sentences with verbs of movement (as in other verbal sentences), the semantic compatibility of the various sentence components plays an important role (Stepanov 1989: 16–17; Krinickaitė 1989: 167–168). Sentences with verbs of movement commonly contain actants performing the semantic roles of Location and Direction, as well as free constituents with various motion-related and orientational meanings (see Valiulytė 1998: 23–25). Bees buzz around the hive. They sailed from the distant reaches of the Nemunas (Cv). And I, having got into the lift, went up another three floors. Where are those people rushing? Mice are swarming through the straw. Birds fly south. The cat sneaks up to the sparrows. The hare races across the fields. The only window looked out onto a gloomy, dirty courtyard (BUBN K 106). If not—get out of the house! (BUBN K 105). When the Agent is human, actants with the semantic role of Instrument are more often used with verbs of movement (sails on a windsurf board); free constituents denoting a second Agent (we will fly with my brother), a motive (go in my place), a purpose (we will go to fetch firewood), or a reward (I came back for two litas) also occur more frequently. Sentence constituents expressing the functions of Manner, Quantity, Location, and especially Direction (Ab, Ad, VIA) are usual in sentences with all verbs of movement. For example: He has not returned for a long time—I began to worry. I am going home. Where are you squeezing through? Can’t you see there’s no room? I darted out through the door. Then he jumped on the bicycle and set off back (Avyž STM 353). We drove to the lagoon along a hilly, red-soil road. He wanders around the wide world. Why are you trudging through the mud? You can go and get some fodder. Three men and one woman, accompanied by Balys Adamonis, slowly walked up to the closed hall doors, chatting as they went (BUBN K 91). He runs along the bank, dashes into the yard [...], and, panting, races up the hill (BUBN NRŽ 280). The use of verbs of movement denoting the motion of humans, other living beings, and objects shows that it is often important for the speaker to indicate only a particular stretch of the path or other parameters of motion, for example: 150 | STASĖ KRINICKAITĖ The geese perch in the puddle. Let’s take shelter under the roof so we don’t get wet. The shrew has curled up under the bench (FLK). Because the meaning of a verb is complex, in many cases there are no clear boundaries between lexical groups of verbs. Verbs of changing position are closely related to verbs of motion, cf.: sit down, lie down, climb (to the second floor), as well as verbs denoting position in space (lie, sit, hang, dangle, swing), which presuppose an agent and a locative and a directive. E.g.: He himself would stand on his head for an hour every day, urging others to follow his example (SIR GIR K 20). You won’t sit on my neck (BUBN K 105). There are many reflexive verbs in this group, characterized by the meaning of a change of position in space (dangle, hang, curl up, etc.). E.g.: The child would curl up on the bench and sleep through the night. We’ll curl up by the spruce tree, on some root; you can rest your head against the tree—and you’re asleep already. Bend down so you don’t hurt yourself. Verbs denoting subjective actions rarely entail the semantic function of an INSTRUMENT. E.g.: A big one is playing the pipe. Somewhere in the distance an accordion was playing. Ataiđi trimtai. The agent semantic function entailed by subjective verbs is characteristic of inanimate objects, natural forces, natural and social phenomena, and various devices, machines, and instruments with energetic properties that can perform or cause an action but have no initiative of their own, e.g.: The spacecraft reached Jupiter in August 1988. The space probe will separate from the orbital module (SP). The weather vane spins. The rocket took off. The bus is moving. The ship is approaching the shore. Words expressing this function can be divided into subclasses depending on what serves as agent₂—a lifeless object, a force of nature, a cause, or an instrument of action—cf.: Water rushes in streams. Lightning flashes. The wind blows. A spring breeze is blowing. The frost bites. There is nothing but the ringing of silence. Typical cases are those in which the agent is a living being doing something involuntarily, without initiative. It is therefore possible to speak of certain DEGREES OF AGENT ACTIVITY, depending on the extent to which the situation is perceived as being under the agent’s control or beyond it (Holvoet 1991: 164). Situations beyond the agent’s control are marked by reflexive verbs with an inchoative meaning. E.g.: SUBJEKTINIAI IR OBJEKTINIAI VEIKSMAŽODŽIAI 151 He wanted to deceive someone else, and ended up deceiving himself [A1]. I splashed myself all over in the street. I miscalculated disastrously. The child got drenched with water. The most characteristic semantic function of state-subject verbs is the predictable PATIENT function—that of the recipient of an action’s effect or the bearer of a state—which applies to both animate and inanimate entities, as well as abstract things (Sližienė 1994: 20). This is especially true of so-called spontaneous verbs. E.g.: The sick man is gasping, unable to catch his breath. The son has a fever. The girl is ill. When the patient function applies to a human being, depending on the context it can sometimes be difficult to distinguish it from the agent1 function; cf.: The child is already dozing. He is shivering all over from the cold. She groans with pain. The baby is screaming. The child calmed down. I woke up early. The boy is bored. The patient function is considerably more clearly defined with inanimate entities. However, in some cases—for example, when speaking of plants—a certain shade of agentivity can also be felt. E.g.: The grass began to grow. The rye is already sprouting. The ash tree is putting out leaves. The shoots are becoming woody. The rye is ripening at the edge of the forest. Trees do not thrive in the shade. The rye is already forming ears. The cabbages flourish here. The grasses are sprouting. The grass is growing. The apple trees are blossoming. A shade of agentivity is also noticeable in cases where patient function is assigned by verbs of changing state, also called verbs of dynamic spontaneous state, e.g.: The tower is leaning to one side. The branches are bending under the weight of the apples. Burdock is catching on clothes. The inside of the tree is caving in. Smoke is pouring from the chimney. The wagon sank into the mud. The stone is sinking. The ground opened up. VERBS OF VISIBLE STATE also presuppose the PATIENT semantic function. E.g.: Fields stretched out beyond the garden. A stone lies in the middle of the road. A boat is submerged in the lake. Bare branches stick up. Mountains loom in the distance. Tree branches droop downward. Lakes shimmer among those hills. A deep ravine yawned right beside us. Mushrooms dot the spaces between the trees. The flax is blue. The forest is blue in the distance. These verbs are similar to spontaneous verbs; cf.: Your hair is already turning gray. In cases where verbs denote the states of animals, the patient function approaches the agent1 function. E.g.: 152 | STASĖ KRINICKAITĖ Something is lurking in the hut. Something or other flickered in the darkness. A fox is crouching in the cave. In sentences with intransitive verbs denoting a change of state, the patient function is characteristic of nouns referring to inanimate objects or substances, e.g.: The river is flooding. The river is receding. Our river is becoming shallower. Honey becomes more liquid in the heat. An unoiled machine wears out quickly. His bones are already decaying underground. Teeth are going bad (cavities are forming). The foundations are there. The tomatoes are turning red. The lamp wick is charring. Sugar dissolves. Tallow solidifies. Chaff is falling. The milk is already turning sour. An old mushroom is withering. Damp flour quickly becomes musty. Ice turns opaque in the sun. The mercury in the thermometer column no longer moved upward (AVYŽ STM 478). Similarly, the semantic patient function is also assigned to parts of the human body, e.g.: Hands are trembling. Hands are becoming wrinkled. The face is paling. The eyes water in the wind. Potatoes make one’s hands itch. Lips chap in the hot sun. The head is going bald. The skin is softening. The semantic patient function is also presupposed with intransitive verbs denoting meteorological and other natural phenomena, e.g.: The frost is melting. The wind is calming down. Fog is rising. Dew is falling. The weather is warming up, turning foul. The snow cover is thinning. The sky began to brighten. The night grew darker and darker. Gradually, the light of the clear sky began to fade (BUBN K 94). In sentences with sound verbs, the patient function is quite close to the agent function. E.g.: A voice echoes in the forest. Leaves rustle. Little bells tinkle. Weapons clank. The shooting makes even the windows rattle. The forest roars. The ice crackled. Dishes clatter in the cupboard. Apples thud as they fall. When the wind blows, the forest rustles. When it is important in the course of speaking to distinguish the agent from the patient, these two semantic functions are sufficiently well defined. There are cases in which situations are interpreted as syncretic in this respect, and the semantic functions of agent and patient are distinguished from the broader context. If necessary, the speaker can use additional means of expression to help distinguish the agent from the patient. The semantic patient function is characteristic of nouns denoting abstract things as well, e.g.: The condition is worsening. The essence is becoming clear. Moods are constantly changing. His health is deteriorating. His eyesight is weakening. And Maria’s appetite grew in proportion to the number of days she had gone hungry (AVYŽ STM 483). In sentences with verbs of existence, the semantic patient function is evident (verbs denoting coming into existence are also considered verbs of existence; cf. Valeika 1998: 63). E.g.: SUBJEKTINIAI IR OBJEKTINIAI VEIKSMAŽODŽIAI | 153 Three brothers lived. There was a forge, and it collapsed while still being built. There is absolutely no water in nature that is completely safe. Mosquitoes appeared in the evening. Mice multiplied in the pantry. The semantic function of the PERCEIVER—the experiencer of a mental state—is implied by perception verbs. E.g.: Mother became sad. The narrator is worried. The dog bristled. The girl was confused. The father pricked up his ears. The child became sad. She was truly distressed. The horse is frightened. The kittens can already see. In sentences, the perceiver function can be expressed not only by the nominative but also by the dative, e.g.: I cannot see. He likes detective stories. We do not like bacon. How does it seem to you? Subjective verbs denoting a state also imply the semantic function of the BENEFICIARY—the addressee or recipient of the action—which in sentences is most often realized by the dative case. E.g.: He is doing well. The children are doing well. How are things going for you? Things are not working out for him with the work. Subjective verbs predict the semantic function of RESULT relatively rarely. It can be found only in sentences with verbs denoting a change of state, e.g.: Noise arose. War broke out. A conversation began. The earth’s crust became stratified. Carbon monoxide forms when gas burns. Turmoil began. Mushrooms are sprouting. In general, the semantic function of result is more often predicted by objective verbs. Likewise, only verbs denoting a change of state entail the semantic function of CONTENT, which is also quite rare, e.g.: A song is heard. A misunderstanding arose. An accident happened. In summary, when subjective verbs function as predicates, the subject’s hyperfunction encompasses the semantic functions of agent₁, agent₂, patient, perceiver, result, beneficiary, content, and instrument. Each of these functions is predicted by verbs belonging to more or less clearly defined lexical-semantic groups. OBJECTIVE VERBS The groups of subjective and objective verbs are not equivalent or symmetrical in relation to one another. Subjective relations are more often predicative. However, the expression of objective relations is also important and distinctive in every language. The best-known linguistic universals are syntactic subjects and transitive sentences or, to be more precise, their conceptual and functional counterparts or archetypes (Beck 2000: 277). However, systematizing this entire 154 | STASĖ KRINICKAITĖ variety of means of expression in one language and across different languages can first of all be done only on a semantic basis. The semantics of some objective verbs have already been studied to a certain extent. Also, as mentioned earlier, it has been established that action predicates generally have associated patient (The girl broke the glass), result (The neighbor dug a ditch), beneficiary (I sent a letter to my parents), and instrument (Play a little on the violin) functions (Ambrazas 1986: 27). Semantic functions associated with state predicates include content (I do not know the way. There is not enough money) and result (The money turned into coal) (ibid.). Examples of the use of objective verbs show that the anticipated semantic functions that form the subject’s hyperfunction also vary. Semantic functions that provide the basis for both subject and object hyperfunctions are implied by objective verbs belonging to different lexical-semantic groups. The largest group of objective verbs consists of verbs denoting actions. These verbs anticipate the semantic function of the agent and also imply the semantic function of the PATIENT. E.g.: In the old days, when they threshed, they trampled the rye with horses (ŠTS). The men are mowing the meadows. Knead the dough, or the dumplings will be tasteless (SKR). Whoever carries sheaves grows rich. They dried you while you were green [about hops] (LKŽu 1024). The children stained the room walls. The semantic function of the patient is characteristic of nouns denoting things that (1) exist prior to the action and things that (2) are created in the course of the action. In the latter case, it is difficult to distinguish the patient semantic function from the result semantic function. In studies of linguistics examining problems of transitivity, the first meaning (the object of the action changes as a result of the action’s effect) is called effective, while the second (the object of the action is the result of the action) is called ineffective (Stepanov 1975: 169). Cf.: The boy chops firewood. The workers prepare fodder. I dug the holes for planting seedlings in the autumn. He made himself a boat. The distinction between effective and ineffective helps distinguish the result semantic function from the patient semantic function, which is found, for example, in the following sentences: Aurelija clenched a handkerchief and sniffled (BUBN K 110). I would put on a raincoat. Adelaida Didžiulienė put on the black dress and left her cramped room (RIMK). Antanina was wearing shoes (SLUCK R IV 473). The patient semantic function realized in sentences takes on various shades of meaning. However, the principal features of the semantic function should first be distinguished. In addition, the predicate’s own componential meaning structure and the referential properties of the actants are important for sentence analysis (Ambrazas 1986: 28). It is also possible to systematize the variety of relations between an action and its subject and object by considering the varying degree of prominence of this relation; cf.: SUBJEKTINIAI IR OBJEKTINIAI VEIKSMAŽODŽIAI | 155 The steel of the automaton chilled your hands (BUBN NRŽ 188). Over there, lightning begins to flash and, after (=some) time, a thunderclap makes the earth tremble—heavy bombs explode, and the combatants batter the railway station on the German side (SP). Remas moves along the wall on rails and lays ceramic (=ceramic) tiles [about a robot] (SP). Someday lightning will strike the plane tree; it will fall straight onto the house and destroy it. The relationship is most clearly manifested when a source of energy is indicated, whose energy is controlled and directed and affects an object outside the subject’s sphere. However, the relationship may also be difficult to discern if it is unclear whether a source of force or energy exists at all. A relationship of moderate degree means that the energy is uncontrolled or does not affect an object located outside (Voorst 1996: 227–245). It can therefore be said that the most clearly object-oriented verbs are those that also entail the semantic role of CAUSER. E.g.: You are wasting precious time for yourself and others, hindering the progress of science for those who want to educate themselves and educate others (ANDR T 11). Glendale Cemetery was mentioned not at all to make you feel sad (SIR GIR K 162). The relationship between an action and its object is clearly manifested in sentences with verbs that provide for the semantic role of RESULT. These are first and foremost verbs of action, which also imply the semantic role of agent or causer. Here, the agent is most often the initiator of an action, performing it intentionally. This applies especially to so-called material actions, e.g.: She ladled the green wine and watered the little lily (FLK). That’s what uncle scolded me for, saying I’d whistle up the rain, for Mikas (DOVYD NK 37). When the agent is a person, such sentences often also contain actants with an explicitly stated instrumental role. The semantic role of RESULT is most often characteristic of nouns denoting materials, instruments, various attributes, goals, end products, and states. E.g.: Bread cannot be made from chaff. Necessity makes cowards brave. Health piles up riches. Make room for a word as you would make a bed for a guest. What people say becomes common knowledge. In summer, dense thickets of trees provided the bird with shelter. Depending on the verb and its meaning, the semantic role of RESULT is not entirely uniform either: the result may be direct or indirect. Verbs of action that also imply the semantic role of causer often denote an indirect effect; cf.: The wind whirled up the dust and tossed down the newspapers. 156 | STASĖ KRINICKAITĖ The semantic function of Result is implied by causative, causal, and procurative verbs alike. Nevertheless, procurative verbs entail the semantic functions of Causer and Indirect Result. E.g.: Father had a suit made for himself. Having once had a uniform made from black homespun cloth, woven by his auntie, and become a real high-school student, Algirdas Šaknys got down to work in earnest (MIKEL LL 546). I brought five young brothers along and came riding six chestnut horses (FLK). Having completed a course in Thomistic philosophy, he introduced existentialism to Lithuania (JUŠK). The semantic function of Result is often also presupposed by verbs denoting actions, especially intellectual (mental) actions. E.g.: The actress created a role of great inner strength. He settled the accounts for thirty-three years. Grotus was the first in the world to create a theory of electrolysis (SP). Quite often, the semantic function of Result is only presupposed by verbs denoting actions and is not expressed, but is merely incorporated into the meaning of the verb itself, e.g.: I plowed the little field and sang beautifully (FLK). Father is plowing. He builds houses and roofs them. On the other hand, this can be said only of individual sentences. The implied function may be realized in the subsequent text. However, verb groups that entail certain semantic functions are not merely derivational groups—they are lexical-semantic groups. Causal (causative) verbs are likewise regarded as a lexical-semantic group, comprising both primary and derived verbs. The semantic structure of sentences in which causal verbs serve as predicates distinguishes the following semantic components: (1) causing agent, (2) process, (3) affected person or thing, (4) resulting state (or attribute) or final process (Valeika 1998: 22). In addition to the semantic function of Agent, characteristic of all object verbs, causal verbs entail the semantic functions of Patient and Result. Compared with all object verbs, the Agent function entailed by causal verbs is characteristic of nouns denoting the initiator of an action, and less often of nouns denoting the performer of an action, instruments, or body parts. The semantic function of Patient is more characteristic of nouns denoting materials, purpose, state, final product, and body parts. A small number of object verbs entail the semantic function of CAUSATIVE. E.g.: It reeks of pain. Her eyes radiated joy / radiated with joy. Blame yourself first. The inscription beneath the photograph showed affection for Luiza (SIR GIR K 173). In sentences, the causative is realized not only by the accusative, but also by the instrumental and the genitive with the preposition dėl (‘because of’), e.g.: They accused him of mismanagement / because of mismanagement. SUBJEKTINIAI IR OBJEKTINIAI VEIKSMAŽODŽIAI | 157 It has long been held that the accusative or genitive governed by verbs denoting a reaction expresses cause. However, when these verbs are included in the broader group of state verbs, this meaning is not obvious. Cf.: Just imagine—he was frightened by a wolf (MIKUL). If Spinas is ill and I intend to nurse him, then perhaps I am afraid for him, and not for my own fate! (MART MD 77). She radiated a certain charm. In these sentences, contemporary researchers tend to discern a contentive semantic function. The semantic function of the CONTENTIVE is clearly envisaged by verbs of speaking, e.g.: He did not mention that event even once (KONDR AŽL 105). Ferdinand liked to hold forth about people like that, envying the fortunate their honors and royalties (SLUCK R IV 466). Say at least a brief word. The contentive is realized not only by the accusative, but also by the accusative with prepositions, the nominative, the genitive, and various means of textual expression. E.g.: “A maid or a queen?”—the creators of a Lithuanian documentary film once asked openly, speaking about mathematics (SP). The French poet Paul Valéry spoke of an orchestra of all kinds of universal sounds (SP). He told everything with complete sincerity (AVYŽ STM 497). But for those who have experienced the drama of victories and defeats in the high mountains, this book opens up its content, replete with winding paths of meaning and significance (SP). Only by standing firmly on the ground can one penetrate the deepest layers of reality and glimpse the unseen through the visible (IR 36). And when you come to her shop, do not look around in every direction, but first say good morning (BALČ). The contentive semantic function is more clearly defined by verbs of speaking than by other verbs denoting action. This is due to a tendency observable in many of the world’s languages to identify the object of an action with its content; cf.: I drank two glasses. Verbs of speaking signal and interpret activities associated with content through their lexical meanings alone, so they can be considered the best representatives of the contentive semantic function. E.g.: People on the bus chat happily about winter frosts and ice fishing (BUBN NRŽ 283). I speak of the past, I speak of the future, I speak of what no one will say or repeat—the old oak was speaking (DOV NK 35). What nonsense she was saying (BUBN NRŽ 185). I do not write about the lesser mishaps that occurred during the book-smuggling days (JOV). And when these Doric columns fall [...], even their dust will testify to the immortality of human existence (SIR GIR K 261). The contentive semantic function is also implied by other verbs denoting action, although it must be acknowledged that the contentive meaning is usually difficult to distinguish from the meanings of patient, result, finitive, and aspect. E.g.: You stamped your feet, puffing out balls of warm-scented breath (BUBN NRŽ 188). That wind is “blown” not by the Sun itself, but by its corona—a silvery sphere of plasma (SP). I am leaving Skauduva, he said quietly, 158 | STASĖ KRINICKAITĖ simply breathed out those words with a sigh (BUBN K 262). Perhaps silence, rather than words, is best suited to express a threat (SIR GIR K 206). They laugh or gasp, expressing hypocritical sympathy and pity (RADZ PV II 433). Since it is impossible to reach a definitive conclusion on the question of the goddess mentioned by Tacitus, one would like to offer the following considerations (SP). Ah, how wonderfully my first teacher knew how to do all this! (SP). The students joked and played pranks (SIR GIR K 126). As it descended (=descending) toward Jupiter, the probe will transmit (=transmit) data about the chemical composition of its atmosphere (SP). Perception verbs also allow for a content semantic function, although in sentences it is more difficult to distinguish from the functions of the finite and causative roles, e.g.: I was looking at the photographs hung on the wall (SIR GIR K 173). I was listening to a story that had taken place not so long ago (SIR GIR K 180). You don’t want to believe your eyes when you see a similar Italian version (SP). I watched the scenes of northern Germany flash by (SIR GIR K 116). How could you know when a famous acquaintance might be in a certain mood, so you have to test them in all kinds of situations (ANDR T 88). There is a difference between the verb pairs look – see, listen – hear, since the former denote volitional actions and the latter involuntary ones; cf.: No wonder the workers look askance at you as a stranger (JOS UD 21). They look, but do not see. I hear it for the first time. Listen to what the old man says. Verbs denoting volitional actions imply a content semantic function that is harder to distinguish from the finite role. By contrast, verbs denoting involuntary actions presuppose a content semantic function with a certain causative nuance. For example: I broke / my arm broke. He snapped / his neck snapped. His heels clattered loudly and impatiently. The sentence The child twisted their ankle is generally regarded as a typical example with a realized content semantic function (Sližienė 1994: 22). The causative nuance is more readily discernible in sentences with perception verbs, e.g.: Rūta sensed the gentle scent of leaves, heard the brittle stems rustle and bend when touched (BALT R Š 297). He managed to give my hand a quick kiss, and I could still feel the touch of dry lips on it (MART MD 79). I saw snow, lots of snow. The old man went into the forest to gather firewood and saw a nest in a tree (ŠŽ 26). He sees it spread around him like some dark peasant woman’s shawl. And in the evening a hurricane arose; the two of us heard bells ringing (SIR GIR K 25). Semantic studies have long noted that the content role presupposed by perception verbs is in fact the cause of the action, that is, the cause that elicits the perceiver’s reaction. Contemporary researchers tend to identify in such sentences a content seman- SUBJEKTINIAI IR OBJEKTINIAI VEIKSMAŽODŽIAI 159 the function, apparently by analogy with the particularly large group of verbs denoting various kinds of intellectual activity. In sentences with verbs denoting various kinds of intellectual activity, the verbs call for the semantic function of CONTENT, cf.: Aš, eidamas čionai, daug ką pergalvojau (Jos UD 307). Ir pagaliau nebegali prisiminti ne tik jų išvaizdos, bet ir pavardės (SIR GIR K 206). Okeaniniame laivyne nespręsi mokslinių problemų (SIR GIR K 46). Fizikai sėkmingai sprendžia lazerių fizikos ir technologijos problemas. Biologų interesai platūs, gal tyrinėja gyvybę amžino pašalo sluoksniuose (SIR GIR K 328). Atsakyk į klausimą: kuo tu siūlai abejoti? (BUBN K 179). Jau nesistebėjom žydinčiais medžiais (SIR GIR K 227). Aš tada nesvaigau tais dalykais. O kaip tomis valandomis joms pavydėjo namų, kuriuose kažkas laukia... (SP). In sentences, CONTENT is realized by the accusative, instrumental, or genitive with the preposition dėl ‘about/because of’. Cases with a tautological accusative and instrumental are common; in the situation described, these do not correspond to any referent, and the verb’s meaning alone presents the overall picture of the action (Sližienė 1994: 34). For example: People, birds, the sun, and insects do their work (ANDRIUS T 25). He took a few vigorous steps, then staggered (BUBN K 186). We wept those laments (LKŽXVIII 756). Such word combinations are also used to describe certain characteristics of actions and processes, for example: The theatre once again lived its usual life (SP). When a person lives the simplest of lives, by no means a heroic one (IR 505). That struggle and truth by which we live (IR 126). This man is not haunted by the voice of conscience over the kind of life his children lead (SP). Tautological word combinations with the accusative and instrumental often have expressive and stylistic connotations. For example: Almost everyone was silent, and almost everyone brooded their own thoughts (MIKEL PK 247). How I lived, and what hardships I endured (MAC). I took a little nap (FLK). I sang all the little songs (FLK). Many verbs denoting actions imply the semantic function of INSTRUMENT, for example: I will hoe the garden bed with a spade. The bells are ringing again. These are cases of so-called weak government, but they belong to the sphere of object relations. The semantic function of INSTRUMENT is also called for by verbs denoting actions performed with parts of the human body and resembling gestures that signal certain states (nodding, giving a nod with one’s head / head; waving one’s hands / hands; swinging one’s legs / legs, etc.). Cf.: 160 | STASĖ KRINICKAITĖ And again he fell silent; he only listened and sometimes even nodded involuntarily. Probably someone else was nodding his head for him (MIKEL LL 385). Then suddenly he shook his head and pushed the heavy marble inkwell aside (MIKEL PK 193). The feeder [cow] snorts with satisfaction, sighs deeply and moves her tail like a lazy dog, then shakes her head (MIKEL LL 394). “Why are you swinging your head like some mare, granny?” he [the child] finally asked one day (MIKEL PK 191). The variation between the accusative and instrumental cases makes it possible to convey nuances of the precision of the action (accusative) and its involuntary nature (instrumental). When the semantic function of instrument is characteristic of nouns denoting parts of the human body, this function may also be described as patient (when expressed by the accusative) or as instrument (when expressed by the instrumental) (cf. Sližienė 1994: 396–397): “Tore it off the tree like the wind,” Vizgirdienė nodded (RADZ PV, 76). Each tried to stroke his hair, while the others whispered something or other, nodding their heads (BUBN NRŽ 266). Verbs of action and state denoting desire, striving, seeking, and the like often presuppose the semantic function of FINITIVE, e.g.: In that labyrinth of heads I searched for one house (SIR GIR K 93). She reached for a glass of compote (BUBN K 115). Later I longed for that music (SIR GIR K 211). You can feel that the young generation, thoughtful and alert, longs in literature for a complex, unembellished truth that activates and educates it (IR 491). The semantic function of finitive is likewise presupposed by verbs of movement and intellectual activity, e.g.: Even the fox and the raccoon dog avoid the mink (SP). Or is your conscience not entirely clear, that you avoid your godfather? (MIKEL LL 378). At first I shied away from those duties (IR 54). When will I finally get rid of those people I met by chance? (SIR GIR K 329). Such work receives greater resonance (IR 257). In sentences, the semantic function of finitive is most often realized by the genitive, and less often by the accusative or instrumental. The genitive of purpose with an infinitive is also common in such sentences, e.g.: You swayed and stepped over to the other bank to gather flints (KUNČ MMP 95). The girl forgets everything and hurries the old man along to see the train (BUBN NRŽ 283). Verbs of action may also presuppose the semantic function of COUNTERAGENT, e.g.: Group I competes with Group II. The young men grappled with the thieves. SUBJEKTINIAI IR OBJEKTINIAI VEIKSMAŽODŽIAI | 161 In sentences, the counteragent is most often expressed by the instrumental with the preposition su, the accusative with the preposition prieš, or the dative. The semantic function of the COMPOSITIVE can also be distinguished; it is selected by verbs of making that denote acts of extraction, e.g.: (su)daryti, (su)laužti, (su)megzti, (su)nerti, (su)pinti, (su)sintetinti (iš ko?). For example: I wove a small rug from cotton and silk threads. She weaves a basket from wicker (DLKŽ 557). I crocheted gloves from scraps. They synthesized ethanol from rapeseed oil and alcohol. However, this semantic function can also be subsumed under the much broader SOURCE function, cf.: they got a loan from the bank; wheedled a horse out of their uncle; pass on our greetings to him; income tax is deducted from the salary (Sl žienė 1994: 22). Verbs of intellectual activity select the semantic function of the COMPARATIVE. Other researchers also call this the semantic function of the standard of comparison (Jakaitienė 1988: 63). It is the function of the standard of comparison, the respect in which things are compared. For example: Their speech differs from our dialect. For it distinguishes chaff from grain. The daughter grew like her mother. The mountain of gifts blossomed into a pyramid (SP). Trumpeter M. Andare resembles a national hero (SP). She surpassed her mother in height. Further uncertainty would exceed her strength (MIKEL LL 176). In sentences, the comparative is realized by the dative, accusative, genitive with the preposition nuo, or instrumental with the preposition su. Some verbs denoting actions select the semantic function of the BENEFICIARY. The beneficiary is most often expressed by the dative, for example: They gave me a ballpoint pen as a gift. He will accompany me. When the semantic function of the beneficiary is implied by verbs denoting states, the beneficiary is most often realized by the accusative, the partitive genitive, and sometimes the dative. In these cases, the semantic function selected by the verbs is harder to define; other researchers also call it a distinct semantic function of the possessor (Jakaitienė 1988: 63). For example: We had places there (SIR GIR K 44). We have a house. I have no time. We lack more striking generalizations (IR 289). I will answer all the questions, provided I have sufficient knowledge. The manuscript will be useful for further research. Verbs denoting actions and states also select the semantic function of the PERCEIVER. Cf.: Don't frighten the horse, or you won't catch it later. The long journey did not frighten them. Grief constricted his throat (SP). The perceiver is generally realized by the accusative. Verbs that imply the semantic function of the perceiver are generally causative, e.g.: aitrinti, baidyti, erzinti, gąsdinti, 162 | STAŠĖ KRINICKAITĖ to move, bewilder, incite, curse, revile, irritate, mislead, educate, sadden, teach, ridicule, anger, soothe, hurt, intoxicate, corrupt, drive away, drive, fan, cause to cry, humiliate, drive mad, etc. For example: Those words moved her to tears. Such distrust infuriates him. The sudden transitions, the leaps from one topic to another, bewilder the unprepared reader only at first (SP). Verbs of motion, and less often verbs denoting action, presuppose the semantic function of the DIRECTIVE. For example: They crossed the stormy North Atlantic (SIR Gir K 153). He followed her from room to room, on her heels, until he had gone through all the rooms (AVYŽ STM 500). The collector of folk creations walked through every nook and cranny. He always got up first and, clearing his throat, [...] made his way around the entire homestead (MIKEL LL 185). I lived through a considerable stretch of our interesting century (IR 141). In sentences, the directive is most often realized by the genitive with the prepositions iš ‘from’ and nuo ‘from’ (starting point); by adverbs and the genitive with the prepositions ant ‘onto’, iki ‘to’, ligi ‘up to’, prie ‘to’, už ‘behind’, the accusative with the prepositions į ‘into’ and pas ‘to’, and the instrumental with the preposition po ‘along’ (endpoint); and by the instrumental and the accusative with the prepositions per ‘across’, pro ‘past’, apie ‘around’, aplink ‘around’, and po ‘along’ (path). Verbs denoting action, and less often verbs denoting state, also presuppose the semantic function of the QUANTITATIVE. For example: We paid ten litas. I saved a hundred litas. They reduced the price by twenty percent. In sentences, the quantitative is most often expressed by the accusative, or by the accusative with a preposition. Some verbs of action imply the semantic function of the MODUS, sometimes also called the qualitative (Jakaitienė 1988: 63). For example: They painted the house yellow. The student described the course of the experiment in detail. The results of the work were evaluated favorably. They stylishly decorated the arriving person. In sentences, the modus is most often realized by adverbs. Also worth mentioning is the function of the COMITATIVE, implied by verbs denoting reciprocal action, for example: He set the father against the mother. They pitted one against the other. He divided the land between his brother and sister. He redistributed the property among all the children and grandchildren. In sentences, this function is most often expressed by a construction with the preposition su ‘with’ and the instrumental, or by a construction with the preposition prieš ‘against’ and the accusative. Verbs denoting remuneration, purchase, and bargaining presuppose the semantic function of the RETRIBUTIVE, cf.: We paid for the purchase in cash. I bought bricks for two thousand. I worked off the debt. SUBJEKTINIAI IR OBJEKTINIAI VEIKSMAŽODŽIAI | 163 In sentences, this function is realized by the instrumental case, the preposition už with the accusative, and the preposition iš with the genitive. The semantic function of the ONOMATIVE should also be distinguished, although it has not been discussed in Lithuanian linguistics until now. Cf.: If [Palangos Juzė] were to find himself among us, what would he call these clothes? Coats, short coats, jackets? (SP). This semantic function is selected by verbs of intellectual activity, name, call, as well as verbs of change of state, become, change [an object is designated], substitute for. In sentences, the onomative is most often expressed by the instrumental, and more rarely by the nominative, accusative, or adverbs. Until now, the semantic function of the onomative was understood as part of the broader semantic function of the contentive, e.g.: They call that tree an oak (cf. Šlizienė 1994: 22). Broader semantic functions reflect the possible limits of generalizing linguistic facts; however, narrower and more specific semantic functions, selected by smaller and more closely related verb groups, are closer to everyday language use, easier to understand, and easier to distinguish from one another. For example: In the village, the women had called him “poor thing” since he was little (BUBN NRŽ 266). People call him a sage. Dovydas was called David in America. The border inhabitants nickname the Samogitians arriving from the other side “friends” (I. SIMON). They named these relict plants. Until you name it firmly, it will not obey (DLKŽ 264). To summarize, when objective verbs function as predicates, the object hyperfunction encompasses the semantic functions of patient, result, contentive, beneficiary, percipient, counter-agent, instrument, causative, finitive, comparative, directive, manner, and source (compositive), selected by verbs belonging to certain lexical-semantic groups. CONCLUSIONS 1. The subject hyperfunction encompasses the semantic functions of agent₁, agent₂, and instrument when action-denoting subjective verbs function as predicates. When verbs denoting static states function as predicates, the subject hyperfunction encompasses the semantic functions of patient and percipient; when verbs denoting changing states function as predicates, it encompasses the functions of patient, result, and contentive. The semantic function of beneficiary, selected by state-denoting subjective verbs, also falls within the scope of the subject hyperfunction. 2. When objective verbs function as predicates, the object hyperfunction encompasses the semantic functions of patient, result, contentive, counter-agent, beneficiary, instrument, finitive, comparative, directive, source (compositive), manner, motive, and comitative. When state-denoting objective verbs function as predicates, the semantic functions of percipient and causative fall within the scope of the object hyperfunction; when changing-state verbs function as predicates, its scope includes the semantic functions of contentive and result. 164 STAŠĖ KRINICKAITĖ 3. In the group of subjective verbs, state predicates have more semantic functions, whereas in the group of objective verbs, action predicates do. Both subjective and objective verbs specify the semantic functions of agent, patient, perceiver, result, content, beneficiary, source (compositive), instrument, manner, motive, comitative, and counter-agent. In addition, only objective verbs can imply the semantic functions of causer and finite. There are no semantic functions that subjective verbs alone can imply and objective verbs cannot. Apparently, for this reason objective verbs are used with subjective meanings much more often than subjective verbs are used with objective meanings. 4. Verbs from different lexical-semantic groups, both subjective and objective, specify different semantic functions. The more closely related a lexical-semantic group formed by verbs is, the more likely they are to imply the same semantic functions. The most closely related lexical-semantic groups are synonyms, and they most often specify the same semantic functions. 5. The inventories of both lexical-semantic groups and semantic functions are not strictly defined or final. Both lexical-semantic groups and semantic functions may be distinguished more narrowly or broadly, depending on which aspect the researcher considers more important. It is also important to study individual verbs and the semantic functions they specify—particularly because the meaning of each verb contains components associated only with the process denoted by that verb. SCHEME 1. SEMANTIC FUNCTIONS OF SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE VERBS SUBJEKTINIAI IR OBJEKTINIAI VEIKSMAŽODŽIAI 165 6. Investigating which semantic functions are specified by particular lexical-semantic groups and individual verbs makes it possible to define more precisely what remains unexpressed explicitly in language and what constitutes a sentence’s presupposition. This perspective would not only deepen our understanding of language but also pave the way for the most formalized—computational—description of language. ABBREVIATIONS ANDR T – Pulgis Andriušis, Tipelis, Vilnius: Vyturys, 1991. AVYŽ STM – Jonas Avyžius, Sodybų tuštėjimo metas, Vilnius: Vaga, 1973. BALČ – Juozas Balčikonis. BALTR ŠG – Aleksas Baltrūnas, Šviesos gimimas, Vilnius: Vaga, 1985. BUBN K – Vytautas Bubnys, Kvietimas, Vilnius: Vaga, 1983. BUBN NRŽ – Vytautas Bubnys, Nesėtų rugių žydėjimas, Vilnius: Vaga, 1984. DLKŽ – Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian, ed. S. Keinys, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1993. DOVYD NK – Liudas Dovydėnas, Naktys Karališkiuose, Vilnius: Vyturys, 1992. FLK – folklore. GRAN – Romualdas Granauskas. IR – Interviu su rašytojais, Vilnius: Vaga, 1980. JOS UD – Jokūbas Josadė, Užupio drama, Vilnius: Vaga, 1981. JOV – Jovaras. JUŠK – Jonas Juškaitis. KAT ŽŽ – Viktoras Katilius, Židiniai ir žmonės, Vilnius: Vaga, 1997. KONDR AŽL – Saulius Tomas Kondrotas, And Cloudy-Eyed Looking Through the Window, 1, 2, Vilnius: Vaga, 1985. KUNČ MMP – Jurgis Kunčinas, Minstrels in Maxi Coats, Vilnius: Lietuvos rašytojų sąjungos leidykla, 1996. LKŽ – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language. MAC – Vincas Maciūnas. MART MD – Vytautas Martinkus, Medžioklė draustinyje, Vilnius: Vaga, 1983. MIKEL LL – Jonas Mikelinskas, Kur lygiūs laukai, Vilnius: Vaga, 1987. MIKEL PK – Jonas Mikelinskas, Paskutinė korta, Vilnius: Lietuvos rašytojų sąjungos leidykla, 1993. MIKUL – Ema Mikulėnaitė. MYK PUT – Vincas Mykolaitis-Putinas. PP – Patar­lės ir priežodžiai, Vilnius: Valstybinė grožinės literatūros leidykla, 1958. RADZ PV₁, ₂ – Bronius Radzevičius, Priešaušrio vieškeliai, 1, 2, Vilnius: Vaga, 1985. RAŠČ – Pranas Raščius. RIMK – Vytautas Rimkevičius. SIMON – Ieva Simonaitytė. SIR GIR K – Vytautas Sirijos Gira, Kanarėlės, Vilnius: Vaga, 1983. SLUCK R – Mykolas Sluckis, Raštai, 4, Vilnius: Vaga, 1989. SP – press. STAN – Simonas Stanevičius. ŠŽ – Stebuklingas žodis. Lietuvių liaudies pasakos, Kaunas: Šviesa, 1985. ŠNEK – colloquial language. ŽIL – Vytautė Žilinskaitė. 166 | STASE KRINICKAITĖ Other abbreviations as in the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language. LITERATŪRA AMBRAZAS, V. 1986: Lietuvių kalbos sakinio sintaksinės ir semantinės struktūros vienetai. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 25, 4–44. AMBRAZAS, V., red. 1997: Lithuanian Grammar, Vilnius: Baltos lankos. BECK, D. 2000: Semantic agents, syntactic subjects and discourse topics: how to locate Lushootseed sentences in space and time. Studies in Language 24(2), 277–317. HOLVOET, A. 1991: Transitivity and clause structure in Polish. A study in case marking, Warszawa: Slawistyczny Ośrodek Wydawniczy. JAKAITIENĖ, E. 1988: Leksinė semantika, Vilnius: Mokslas. KRINICKAITĖ, S. 1989: Lietuvių kalbos pirminiai veiksmažodžiai tranzityvumo atžvilgiu (bendraties homoformos). Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 28, 167–178. KRINICKAITĖ, S. 1997: Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių tranzityvumas leksiniu ir semantiniu požiūriu. Lituanistica 4(32), 39–45. KRINICKAITĖ, S. [Криницкайте С. А.] 1978: Проблемы переходности в исследованиях по индоевропейским языкам. Степанов, Ю. С., ред., Проблемы внутренней и внешней лингвистики, Москва: Наука, 11–33. LYKOVA, N. A. 1999: Континуальное и дискретное в языке. Филологические науки 6, 54–62. LURAGHI, S. 1998: On the directionality of grammaticalization. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 51(4), 355–365. MAJSAK, T. A. 2000: Грамматикализация глаголов движения: Опыт типологии. Вопросы языкознания 2000(1), 10–32. ONO, K. 1999: Intransitive–transitive phrase pairs in Japanese. Theoretical Linguistics 25(1), 15–19. ROSEN, S. Th. 1996: Events and verb classification. Linguistics 34(2), 191–233. SLIŽIENĖ, N. 1994–1998: Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių junglumo žodynas 1, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla; 2(1), Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. SMITH, C. S. 1999: Activities: states or events? Linguistics and Philosophy 22(5), 479–508. STEPANOV, JU. S. 1975: Методы и принципы современной лингвистики, Москва: Наука. STEPANOV, JU. S. 1989: Индоевропейское предложение, Москва: Наука. STEPANOV, JU. S. 1997: Константы. Словарь русской культуры. Опыт исследования, Москва: Школа “Языки русской культуры”. UFIMCEVA, A. A. 1980: Семантика слова. Аспекты семантических исследований. Москва: Наука, 5–80. VALEIKA, L. 1998: An introductory course in semantic syntax, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. VALIULYTĖ, E. 1998: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos sintaksiniai sinonimai. Vietos, laiko ir priežasties raiška, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. VEENSTRA, T. 2000: Verb serialization and object position. Linguistics 38(5), 867–888. VOORST, J. van 1996: Some systematic differences between the Dutch, French and English transitive construction. Language sciences 18(1–2), 227–245. Stasė Krinickaitė Lietuvių kalbos institutas Antakalnio g. 6, 2055 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected]. lt Gauta 2001 05 25