Nederinamosios žodžių grupės valstybės dokumentų kalboje

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XLII (2000) Rasulė VLADARSKIENĖ Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, Kaunas NON-AGREEING WORD GROUPS IN THE LANGUAGE OF STATE DOCUMENTS A sentence is often (and frequently substantially) expanded by adjuncts to its core constituents, which supplement and specify the meanings of the words on which they depend. They are called sentence-constituent components or modifiers, and in traditional grammar, attributes. According to their syntactic relation to the word they modify, modifiers (agreeing attributes) and qualifiers (non-agreeing attributes) are distinguished. The language of state documents is characterized by long, multi-level non-agreeing word groups—qualifiers—that modify nouns. Their use is driven by the need to describe the objects and phenomena under discussion in as much detail as possible. For one of the principal characteristics of the language of state documents is precision; in striving for it, one must form long word groups with complex structures so that the most comprehensive information can be conveyed compactly—in a single sentence. A case form or an infinitive is attached by government or adjoined to the head—the central word—of a non-agreeing word group; these, in turn, may have words dependent on them. In view of their valency properties, simple nouns should be distinguished from nouns derived from verbs. The Genitive Chain of Qualifiers The genitive qualifier is used very frequently in the language of state documents. This is due to the genitive’s ability to describe an object from various perspectives. Consequently, the genitive is the most frequent case in the names of various institutions, agencies, enterprises, organizations and their subdivisions, officials, and documents. Such names are formed with several genitives related to one another in different ways, e.g.: Ministry of Transport of the Republic of Lithuania; Police Protection Service of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania; Housing Policy Division of the Ministry of Construction and Urban Development of the Republic of Lithuania. Such expanded nominal groups consist of genitives at several levels (degrees, ranks), which may themselves have dependent genitives, e.g.: Ministry of Culture (a first-degree group consisting of two genitives), Department for the Protection of Cultural Heritage (a second-degree group—three genitives). Such extended genitive chains make it possible to indicate the legal subordination of the object under discussion and its other distinguishing features. 114 One of the most common genitive meanings in names is legal subordination: Department of Police of the Ministry of the Interior; Consular Information Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Airports Division of the Civil Aviation Department of the Ministry of Transport and Communications; Airspace Control Service of the Air Force of the Ministry of National Defence. Another common genitive meaning in names is the field or nature of activity: Statistics Department; Ministry of Economy; State Security Department; Competition and Consumer Rights Protection Service. Genitives denoting the field or nature of activity occur within groups of genitives denoting legal subordination, for example: Culture (field of activity) ministry (the whole phrase is a first-degree group) Publishing (field of activity) division (the whole phrase is a second-degree group). Such names often also contain agreeing attributes or other (non-genitive) cases, for example: State Commission for the Control of Energy Resource Prices and Energy Activities; Services of the Representatives of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania in the Counties; Adviser to the Government of the Republic of Lithuania on International Relations; Representative of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania for Relations with the Seimas; Press Secretary of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania. One reason genitive chains are frequent in the language of state documents is the requirement that official usage provide the full names of institutions, specifying all higher levels in the subordination hierarchy, for example: Migration Department of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania; State Inspectorate of Electrical Communications of the Ministry of Communications and Informatics of the Republic of Lithuania; Trade Coordination Division of the Trade Department of the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Republic of Lithuania. When the entities being named are associated with an institution whose name consists of a multi-level genitive group, an additional single-level attribute is also added. These include: job titles, for example: Head of the Staff Division of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania; Commissioner of the Subdivision for the Control of Illegal Drug Production and Trafficking of the Criminal Police Search Board of the Police Department of the Ministry of the Interior; titles of documents governing an institution’s activities, for example: Rules of Procedure for Border Control Posts of the State Public Health Service; Tariffs for Services Provided by the State Inland Waterway Control and Safe Navigation Inspectorate of the Republic of Lithuania; Regulations of the State Register of Administrative Units and Residential Areas of the Territory of the Republic of Lithuania. Long genitive chains can also occur in the titles of other documents, where there is no clear hierarchy of legal subordination, or in noun phrases with other meanings, for example: Draft Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Earth’s Subsoil; Procedure for Implementing the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Multi-Apartment Building Owners’ Associations; Economic Measures to Reduce Overall Alcohol Consumption; Rules of Procedure of the Working Committee of the Competition for Preparing the Programme Draft- 115 …; violation of the requirements for keeping a trade broker’s logbook; validity period of a customs broker’s representative certificate. Long genitive chains make the style cumbersome and, to some extent, also impede comprehension of the text, but they arise from the specific nature of the names used in state documents. Genitive as a qualifier of verbal nouns In the language of state documents, the genitive is often used with a verbal abstract noun. In addition to its attributive meaning, this genitive has other, more deeply embedded meanings. The “Grammar of the Lithuanian Language” states: “This genitive retains the same meanings as the case that corresponds to the respective verb” (LKG 1976: 417). A. Valeckienė differentiates the meanings of this genitive according to the transitivity of the base verb: “When an action abstract is derived from intransitive verbs, the genitive denotes the subject of the action […], whereas when an action abstract is derived from transitive verbs, the genitive denotes the object of the action” (Valeckienė 1998: 152). Both meanings occur in the language of state documents, e.g.: Keleivių skridimas be bilieto – užtraukia baudą iki vieno šimto litų (ATPK 1996: 91); Piliečių neatvykimas pagal šaukimą į tikrąją krašto apsaugos tarnybą arba mokymus be pateisinamos priežasties iki dviejų parų – užtraukia penkių šimtų litų baudą (ATPK 1996: 157) – subjekto kilmininkai šalia iš intranzityvinių veiksmažodžių padarytų daiktavardžių; Tyčinis telefono automato ar jo kabinos gadinimas – užtraukia baudą nuo penkių šimtų iki vieno tūkstančio litų (ATPK 1996: 100); Tyčinis neteisėtas Lietuvos Respublikos valstybės sienos perėjimas – baudžiamas laisvės atėmimu iki trejų metų arba bauda (BK 1997: 78) – objekto kilmininkai šalia iš tranzityvinių veiksmažodžių padarytų daiktavardžių. The usual position of the genitive in a noun phrase is before the noun (GenN) that it modifies. It occupies this position in the cited sentences, irrespective of whether it denotes the object or the subject of the action. In the language of state documents, the greatest difficulties arise in cases where the verbal abstract noun is derived from a transitive verb and the genitive denotes a person who may be either the subject or the object of the action, or may have another meaning, e.g.: Unlawful dismissal of an employee from work for personal reasons […] – is punishable by corrective labor […] (BK 1997: 97); Intentional destruction or negligent storage of military certificates by persons liable for national defense service and conscripts – is punishable […] (ATPK 1996: 159). Sentences with such formulaic structures are used in codes (specifically, the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania and the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Lithuania): first, the action that incurs a penalty (is punishable) is specified, followed by the type and amount of punishment. The action is described 116 by a noun phrase whose head is a verbal abstract noun, while the genitive defines its distinguishing feature. It is often necessary to specify both the subject and the object of an action, and they are expressed in the same way and occupy the same position in the noun phrase: that is, the genitive precedes the head. However, to distinguish the subject from the object within a sentence, the word order of the verbal phrase (SVO) is transferred to the noun phrase, e.g.: the official dismissed the employee → the official’s dismissal of the employee. This expression is cumbersome stylistically, but unavoidable in state documents when a noun phrase must specify both the agent of the action and the patient—the object undergoing the action. Sometimes, in such noun phrases, only word order helps distinguish the subject from the object, e.g.: Getting a minor drunk by the minor’s parents or other persons – incurs a fine […] (ATPK 1996: 125); Intentional killing by a mother of her infant during childbirth or immediately after childbirth – is punishable by imprisonment for up to five years […] (BK 1997: 82). Both genitives (subject and object) cannot be placed before the verbal abstract noun, because this would create a phrase with a different meaning; compare the mother’s killing of the infant and the killing of the mother’s infant. Because of the genitive’s ambiguity, the aforementioned word order—subject genitive – verbal abstract noun – object genitive—is retained even when the object is not a person and cannot be confused with the subject, e.g.: Evasion of military registration by a person liable for national defense service […] – is punishable by imprisonment for up to one year (BK 1997: 110); Acquisition, possession, transfer to other persons, or sale by persons of a smooth-bore shotgun or crossbow without police authorization – incurs a fine […] (ATPK 1996: 146). There are far more cases in which a noun phrase denotes both the subject and the object of an action, while the object is not a person, than cases in which the object is a person. It can therefore be argued that the object genitive is used after the verbal abstract noun not only to distinguish the subject from the object, but also to avoid possible interpretations arising from the genitive’s ambiguity. Sometimes genitives with both meanings are used before the head: the first denotes the subject, the second the object, but they must be separated by other words, most often an agreeing modifier. Nevertheless, such expressions are not sufficiently clear, e.g.: Transmission of false information by civil aviation directorate officials to an aircraft crew […] – incurs a fine of five hundred to one thousand litas (ATPK 1996: 72); Negligent safeguarding of state or public property by a materially responsible person, as well as by a person entrusted with the safekeeping of property, – incurs a warning […] (ATPK 1996: 28). When a noun phrase contains only one genitive—a qualifier—the meaning of that genitive may influence word order. The subject genitive 117 marks the agent of an intransitive action, cannot express an object, and always precedes the head word, e.g.: U-turns by drivers at pedestrian crossings, in tunnels, on bridges, overpasses, viaducts, and beneath them […] are punishable by a fine […] (ATPK 1996: 79). The genitive object can occupy either its usual position, that is, before the verbal noun, or follow it. If the object is a person, the genitive marking that person most often follows the head word in the codes, e.g.: Insulting a police officer or a police supporter in connection with the performance of their duties assigned to them to maintain public order is punishable by imprisonment […] (BK 1997: 105); Involving a minor in criminal activity […] is punishable by imprisonment for up to five years (BK 1997: 138); Abduction of another person’s child or substitution of a child for selfish purposes or for other base motives is punishable by imprisonment […] (BK 1997: 91). In these cases, the unusual word order helps clarify the meaning of the genitive qualifier; cf. insulting a police officer and an insult by a police officer—the first phrase can be interpreted in two ways, whereas the second has only one possible interpretation. Thus, in such nominal phrases, word order can serve to distinguish subject from object. This is one of those cases in which, as V. Ambrazas states, “Word order can be used to differentiate the meanings of phrases” (Ambrazas 1986: 97). Only in rare cases may a genitive object denoting a person be used before the head word in the codes, e.g.: Insulting or defaming the President of the Republic in the mass media is punishable by a warning […] (ATPK 1996: 162); Carriage of passengers by passenger vehicle whose sanitary condition does not meet the requirements established by legal acts is punishable by a fine […] (ATPK 1996: 93); Threatening a person with an explosion, arson, or another means dangerous to human life, health, or property is punishable by imprisonment […] (BK 1997: 120). In these cases, the context makes it clear that the genitive marks the object. When the object is not a person, the genitive marking it most often precedes the head word (GenN), e.g.: Secret or open theft of another person’s property is punishable by imprisonment for up to four years […] (BK 1997: 158); Throwing rubbish and other objects out of train-car windows […] is punishable by a warning (ATPK 1996: 67); Intentional destruction of or damage to another person’s property is punishable by corrective labor […] (BK 1997: 162). Neutral word order (GenN) is also used in other state documents where there is no risk of confusing the agent of an action with its object, e.g.: Income is an increase in the bank’s assets or a decrease in the bank’s liabilities during the reporting period for services rendered (Žin. 1995, Nr. 33–804); The main objectives of the state’s energy policy are: […] encouraging producers and consumers to use local, renewable, and secondary energy resources efficiently (Žin. 1995, Nr. 32–743). 118 However, a genitive object denoting a non-person may also follow the head word, even though, according to the rules of Lithuanian word order, it would normally precede it, e.g.: Evasion of the mobilization call to serve in the national defence forces of the Republic of Lithuania is punishable by imprisonment […] (BK 1997: 77), cf. evasion of the mobilization call; Misappropriation of another person’s property of great value that has been found or has come into one’s possession by chance is punishable by corrective labor […] (BK 1997: 61), cf. misappropriation of property of great value; Failure to provide necessary and clearly urgent assistance to a person in a life-threatening situation […] is punishable by corrective labor (BK 1997: 91), cf. failure to provide necessary assistance. Placing the action noun first gives it greater emphasis and draws the recipient’s attention to it. This word order also occurs in the titles of code articles, e.g.: Article 80. Evasion of the mobilization call (BK 1997: 77); Article 129. Failure to provide medical assistance to a patient (BK 1997: 92). Another (usually the most important) reason why the genitive is placed after the head word is the length of the entire nominal phrase, especially the subordinate clauses it contains, e.g.: Hunting animals or birds that are entirely prohibited from being hunted […] is punishable by imprisonment […] (BK 1997: 194); Violation of rules established to prevent or combat epidemics or other infectious diseases, if this caused or could have caused the spread of disease, is punishable by imprisonment […] (BK 1997: 136). That the change in word order is due to the length of the modifying phrase is confirmed by cases in which the corresponding action is described in neutral word order (GenN) in an abbreviated article title, e.g.: Article 233. Illegal mailing of poisonous, explosive, caustic, or highly flammable substances Illegal mailing or consigning as baggage of poisonous substances, as well as explosive, caustic, or highly flammable substances or objects, is punishable by imprisonment […] (BK 1997: 131); Article 106. Importation of plant-based goods prohibited from import, and of plant-based goods without quarantine inspection or appropriate treatment Importation from abroad or exportation from border seaports and river ports (wharves), railway and bus stations, airports, and other border checkpoints of plant-based goods prohibited from import, as well as plant-based goods without quarantine inspection or appropriate treatment, is punishable by a fine […] (ATPK 1996: 63). Phrases with unusual word order are often lifeless, artificial constructions in which Lithuanian is forcibly bent to meet the standardization and precision required of state documents. 119 Infinitive as a qualifier of deverbal nouns The infinitive most often modifies verbal abstracts with the suffix -imas, derived from verbs that can take an infinitive, e.g.: acceptance for operation, cf. to accept for operation; a threat to kill, cf. to threaten to kill; refusal to register the articles of association; a proposal to confer a degree; an attempt to commit a crime; an effort to influence a witness; transfer to drive a car; avoidance of performing an obligation. The infinitive can also modify other nouns of verbal origin, e.g.: a basis for granting an allowance; an opportunity to transfer data; authority to sign a contract; a request to refund an overpayment; permission to establish a terminal; a decision to dismiss an inspector; an application to obtain funds. The infinitive is used fairly frequently as a qualifier in the language of state documents, since deverbal nouns are common in this context, and the specific nature of the field requires an action to be described as a concept not associated with time, number, or person. The noun right is most often used with an attached infinitive in state documents. This word is very important here, since one of the tasks of state documents is to establish the rights of citizens, officials, and institutions in the state. Separate articles or even chapters are devoted to this purpose in regulatory documents. Other structures of word groups are also formed with the word right, e.g.: the right to work, natural right, the right to vote, the right of legislative initiative, but the content of a right is most often expressed by an attached infinitive or a phrase containing one. A bare infinitive is rarely used, e.g.: Employees, in defending their economic and social interests, have the right to strike (LRK 1994: 19); A credit union member is not entitled to vote when the general meeting of members decides the question of that member’s membership in the credit union (Žin. 1995, Nr. 26–578); normally, words dependent on the infinitive are attached to it. When the infinitive is transitive, the word group accompanying the noun right most often consists of the infinitive with a direct object, e.g.: the right to obtain information, inspect documents, make a decision, impose sanctions, establish a commission, criticize work, appeal decisions, submit proposals, indicate shortcomings, provide services, treat patients, manufacture coins, control trade. The group of words characterizing a right, or its head, may also consist of: an infinitive with a genitive, e.g.: The State Controller has the right to engage specialists to conduct inspections (Žin. 1995, Nr. 51–1243); On matters within their competence, committees have the right to request reporting data from municipal administrations, municipal enterprises, and officials of institutions (Žin. 1995, Nr. 32–755); an infinitive with a dative, e.g.: The Privatization Agency has the right […] to represent the Government of the Republic of Lithuania in court in matters concerning privatization transactions […] (Žin. 1995, Nr. 61–1530); 120 an infinitive with the instrumental, e.g.: A passenger has the right to travel on a train of a higher category (GTK 1996: 21); Auditors have the right […] to use all bank information and documents (Žin. 1995, No. 49–1214); an infinitive with the locative, e.g.: A member of the association has the right to: 1) participate in association meetings […]; 2) work for the association under an employment contract (Žin. 1995, No. 20–449); Officials have the right […] to undertake internships at other institutions, including abroad, in accordance with the procedure established by regulatory acts (Žin. 1995, No. 33–759); an infinitive with prepositional constructions, e.g.: A person subject to administrative liability has the right to inspect the case materials (ATPK 1996: 220); The arbitration court […] has the right to apply to the district court at the location of the arbitration court […] (Žin. 1996, No. 39–961); an infinitive with a half-participle, e.g.: Citizens have the right to participate in the government of their country, either directly or through freely elected representatives (LRK 1994: 13); Employees of the Inspectorate […] are granted the right […] to participate in investigating the circumstances and causes of accidents and fatal and serious incidents […] (Žin. 1995, No. 26–594); two infinitives, e.g.: The Privatization Agency has the right […] to propose that the founder of an enterprise replace the head of the administration of the enterprise being privatized […] (Žin. 1995, No. 61–1530); Employees of the Inspectorate […] are granted the right […] to require natural and legal persons to immediately switch off energy equipment […] (Žin. 1995, No. 26–594). Often, what is described is not the content of a single right, but a whole set of rights, that is, rights held by some official or institution. Sets of rights are characterized by word groups consisting of homogeneous, usually expanded modifiers—infinitives with various dependent words, e.g.: The Department of Statistics, in carrying out the tasks assigned to it, has the right to: 1. approve the annual work programs of the Department of Statistics and of the statistical divisions of cities and districts; 2. receive, free of charge by mail, reports certified in accordance with the established procedure from enterprises of all forms of ownership […]; 8. conduct a population census and other statistical surveys, enlisting residents in accordance with the procedure established by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania; 9. participate in the preparation of quarterly and annual accounting balance-sheet forms for the Ministry of Finance […]; 13. exercise the right to publish and publicize statistical data (Žin. 1995, No. 27–612). In all the word groups examined, the infinitive follows the word it modifies, and the nominal group itself occurs at the end of the sentence. This is their usual position. A different word order is possible when the aim is not to define the content of the right, but to indicate who holds that right. There are three possible variants of unusual word order: 1. The nominal group is at the beginning of the sentence; the sentence starts with the head word, followed by a modifier—the infinitive with its dependent words, e.g.: 121 Teisę susipažinti su protokolu turi kiekvienas konkurso dalyvis (Žin. 1996, Nr. 133–2356); Teisę skirti chemoprofilaktiką turi tik asmens sveikatos priežiūros specialistai, Sveikatos apsaugos ministerijos nustatyta tvarka gavę licencijas medicinos praktikai (Žin. 1996, Nr. 104–2363); Teisę siūlyti Teisėjų senato pirmininkui Senate svarstytinus įstatymų taikymo teismų praktikoje klausimus turi Aukščiausiojo Teismo skyrių pirmininkai ir teisėjai […] (Žin. 1995, Nr. 36–887). 2. The noun group is split: the infinitive occurs at the beginning of the sentence, and a verb separates it from the word it modifies. This unusual word order is used when the holder of a right (the beneficiary) needs to be particularly emphasized, e.g.: All natural and legal persons shall have the right to use the roads, in accordance with this Law […] (Žin. 1995, No. 44–1076); Only persons who have registered in accordance with the established procedure and attended the meeting of the lease tender commission shall have the right to participate in the tender (Žin. 1996, No. 103–2356); Passengers with preschool-age children, pregnant women, persons with disabilities, members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, and municipal councillors shall be entitled to purchase tickets without queuing at ticket offices (Žin. 1995, No. 47–1155). This word order apparently arose by analogy with sentences in which the predicate consists of a modal verb and an infinitive at the beginning of the sentence, while the performer of the action to be emphasized is moved to the end of the sentence, e.g.: Persons holding a valid licence issued in accordance with the procedure laid down by this Law may practise medicine (primary or specialised) in the Republic of Lithuania (Žin. 1996, No. 102–2313); Only hunters may hunt with birds of prey (Žin. 1995, No. 25–571). Here the infinitive is part of the predicate and can change its position more freely than an infinitive linked to and modifying a noun by means of an attributive relation. However, similar means of expression are sought for phenomena with closely related semantics. The phrase have the right is equated with the modal verbs may, must, shall which denote various degrees of obligation in the language of state documents; when incorporated into this system, it specifies the limits of competence, i.e. establishes authorization to perform an action. Compare persons may use the roads, persons must use the roads, persons are obliged to use the roads, and persons have the right to use the roads. 3. The noun group is at the beginning of the sentence; the sentence begins with an infinitival phrase preceding the word it modifies, but separated from it by another qualifier—a genitive, e.g.: State libraries shall have the priority right to acquire printed works and other documents offered for sale by a non-state library being liquidated (Žin. 1995, No. 51–1245); The priority right to purchase a ticket belongs to: persons with disabilities, passengers with young children, and pregnant women (Žin. 1995, No. 60–1516). The word group accompanying the noun teisę (“right”), whose head is an infinitive, is often highly expanded. This word group, which functions as an adjunct of a sentence constituent, becomes the most informationally significant and, structurally, the longest and most complex element of the sentence. Received 1999 05 27 122 LITERATURE AND SOURCES Ambrazas V. 1986: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodžių tvarkos modeliai. – Lietuvos TSR Mokslu Akademijos darbai, A serija, 3(96), 92–101. ATPK 1996: Lietuvos Respublikos administracinės teisės pažeidimų kodeksas, Vilnius: Teisinės informacijos centras prie Teisingumo ministerijos. BK 1997: Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamasis kodeksas, Vilnius: Teisės aktai. GTK 1996: Lietuvos Respublikos geležinkelio transporto kodeksas, Vilnius: Teisinės informacijos centras prie Teisingumo ministerijos. LKG 1976: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 3, Vilnius: Mokslas. LRK 1994: Lietuvos Respublikos konstitucija, Vilnius: Teisinės informacijos centras prie Teisingumo ministerijos. Valeckienė A. 1998: Lietuvių kalbos funkcinė gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Žin. – State News (official publication). NON-AGREEING GROUPS OF WORDS IN THE LANGUAGE OF STATE DOCUMENTS Summary The paper deals with a special type of adnominal modifiers the use of adjuncts (non-agreeing attributes) in the language of state documents. 1. In the language of state documents long chains of genitive qualifiers are fairly frequent. Among the reasons of this phenomenon might be the ability of the genitive to define a thing from various points of view (linguistic reason) and a requirement to give the names of institutions in the official use by pointing out all subordinate levels (extralinguistic reason). 2. A special case of the use of the genitive discussed, when the word group contains the verbal abstract as its head. Word order in such a sentence helps to differentiate the meanings: the genitive of the Subject precedes the noun, the genitive of the object follows it. Both genitives preceding the noun give the word-group the meaning of dependence. Sometimes the genitive is used after the head word due to the structural features of the whole noun group. 3. In the language of state documents word groups with the head-word teisė (Eng. right) are frequent. The word is often used with the infinitive and its dependants. The structure of the word-group is determined by the combinability of the infinitive. The word-group with the word teisė most frequently occurs at the end of the sentence. When the bearer of the right and not its object is to be emphasised, the word-group is shifted to sentence-initial position. The use of the infinitive as a qualifier in sentence-initial position and separated from the reference word by the predicate is unusual. 123