Įterpinių sampratos lietuvių kalbos sintaksėje

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXXVI (1996) LIETUVIŲ KALBA: TYRĖJAI IR TYRIMAI Gintautas AKELAITIS THE CONCEPT OF INSERTIONS IN LITHUANIAN SYNTAX So far, only fragments of the history of Lithuanian syntax have been written. One such fragment should be the history of research on insertions, in which the development of the concept of insertion is particularly important. In studies of the Lithuanian language up to the end of the nineteenth century, one can find syntactic constructions and words that contemporary syntacticians call insertions, but they are neither given any specific name nor discussed. For example, A. Schleicher, author of the first scholarly grammar of Lithuanian, when discussing the preposition anot, used only in parenthetical constructions, notes: ”The meaning of anot is unclear to me; it is possible and used in such combinations as: anot tevo, anot jo žodzo <...>” (Schleicher 1856: 280); F. Kurschat followed his example (cf. Kurschat 1876: 389). And this is not surprising: until J. Jablonskis’s ”Lithuanian Syntax” of 1911, there was no account of sentence syntax — matters of syntax were set out according to the principles of parts-of-speech syntax (cf. Būda 1987: 13 et seq.), and Lithuanian syntax as a whole was poorly developed as a field of linguistic scholarship (cf. Sabaliauskas, 1979: 197, Zinkevičius 1992: 153). Nevertheless, even before J. Jablonskis’s works, the first Lithuanian grammars attempted to name what is now termed insertions, although they did not discuss them separately. The first terms used to name insertions and the first examples of insertions appeared in explanations of punctuation. For instance, in A. Barauskas’s ”Kalbomokslyje lietuviszkos kalbos” (1896: 59)1, in discussing comma usage, we are told: ”Punctuation marks (commas — G. A.) separate inserted words, inserted sentences...”; Petro Gražbylio (P. Januševičius), in ”Santaikoje (syntaxis)...” (1905: 28), uses the terms ”inserted words” and ”interjected sentences”2. Unfortunately, these works provide no examples that would show what the terms mean. In his ”Kalbamok slyje” (1906 64—65), A. Stuobris, explaining the use of parentheses (parenthetical brackets), used the terms ”contained words and sentences” and gave examples showing that the author used these terms for constructions considered parentheticals in modern syntactic scholarship, e.g.: Brotherhood, equality — those beautiful bonds (Christ proclaimed them to mankind long ago) will reconcile everyone with God only over the ages. Only one person wrote about Lithuanian works in Lithuanian (more precisely, in Samogitian) 1 Dėl ”Kalbomokslio” išleidimo istorijos ir datos žr.: Sabaliauskas 1979: 168; Zinkevičius 1992: 113 ir kt. 2 In his comprehensive study of Lithuanian linguistic terminology, A. Balasaitis did not mention a variant of this latter term (see Balasaitis 1961). 179 Daukantas and so on. J. Jablonskis discussed insertions as a syntactic phenomenon — a certain ”peculiarity” and ”variety” of sentences — separately in 1911, in the textbook ”Lithuanian Syntax,” published under the pseudonym Rygiškių Jonas. Since that ”Syntax” contains no definitions or theory of syntax, and thus no theoretical discussion of insertions (and, indeed, there is no reason to expect this of the textbook), its abundant examples are of greatest value: their selection, classification, and manner of presentation reveal the author’s theoretical perspective. The numerous examples show that J. Jablonskis limits insertions to words and expressions of the matyti, sako, vadinasi, vienu žodžiu type and so on, which constitute the core of insertions (in terms of inventory) in contemporary syntax as well. Generally, J. Jablonskis defined insertions as sentences: ”An independent sentence which, when inserted into another, has no grammatical connection with it, and brings some clarification, qualification, or restriction of thought to the utterance as a whole, is called an inserted sentence” (Jablonskis 1957: 519); J. Jablonskis considered sentences with insertions to be compound sentences (see Jablonskis 1957: 531). In this respect, J. Jablonskis’s view coincides with claims made by Russian syntacticians of the time, which the insertion researcher A. Ostanin summarized as follows: ”the problem of insertions first arose as the problem of <...> another, optional sentence within a sentence” (Останин 1969: 4). J. Jablonskis spoke not only of inserted sentences; immediately after the definition he added: ”Other utterances and individual words are also inserted. This is not a clarification of the definition — according to the explanations of D. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky, an author of syntax textbooks of that period, and later A. Peshkovsky and their predecessors, inserted words are segments of an incomplete sentence or, conversely, of an abbreviated sentence⁴ (cf. Останин 1969: 11). As the definition shows, J. Jablonskis characterized only approximately⁵ what insertions mean: ”they bring some clarification, qualification, or restriction of thought to the utterance as a whole.” This very broadly stated semantic function of insertions, first, did not reflect the meaning of the most typical insertions — anot, tėvo, matyti, rodos, sako, vadinas, vienu žodžiu and so on, which also feature among J. Jablonskis’s examples; second, the emphasis on their clarifying, qualifying, and restrictive functions allowed J. Jablonskis to regard constructions with be as insertions, cf.: There were seven brothers, except for Petras. Besides these proofs, there were many others, even greater (Jablonskis 1957: 521). 3 For the relationship between J. Jablonskis’s 1911 ”Lithuanian Syntax” and Russian-language textbooks of the period, see: Palionis 1957: 47—48, Piročkinas 1978: 78—80; Sabaliauskas 1979: 197. 4 In this way, already influenced by A. Peshkovsky, M. Durys maintained: ”inserted words (phrases) are <...> fragments of complete sentences” (Durys 1927: 79). 5 As the formal-grammatical approach gained ground (J. Jablonskis, it is true, remained faithful to the logical-grammatical approach), little attention was paid to semantics. Moreover, J. Jablonskis apparently did not consider the content of insertions important: ”an inserted sentence can sometimes easily be omitted altogether, and this omission does not in the least alter the completeness of the syntax’s meaning. The utterance: Tu, sako, vakar mieste buvęs means the same as the sentence: Tu vakar mieste buvęs” (Jablonskis 1957: 521). 180 It is true that those constructions expressing restriction did not meet the most important criterion in J. Jablonskis’s definition—that parentheticals “have no grammatical connection with the sentence.” J. Balkevičius later classified such and similar constructions as parentheticals “grammatically connected with the sentence” (see Balkevičius 1963: 270 et seq.). J. Jablonskis’s concept of “interposed sentences” also encompasses constructions called insertions in the academic “Grammar of the Lithuanian Language” (1976: 714–719). Interestingly, J. Jablonskis presented typical cases of inserted sentences (from the present-day perspective) (e.g.: Once—when the girl was already twelve years old—she began speaking in the manor-house dialect) not together with “interposed sentences,” but separately, while explaining the use of dashes and parentheses (see Jablonskis 1957: 546–547, 548). This distinction, hardly accidental⁶, might allow us to cautiously surmise that J. Jablonskis sensed a certain difference between parentheticals and insertions (the present-day terms). J. Jablonskis also regarded an author’s words inserted into direct speech as “interposed sentences.” J. Jablonskis had ample reason to treat an author’s words as parentheticals. By considering sentences of direct speech with authorial insertions to be syntactic wholes⁷ (see Jablonskis 1957: 521), J. Jablonskis must have seen here the “subordination,” “coordination,” “coincidence,” or “insertion” of sentences. Understandably, the connection between an author’s words and direct speech is closest to “insertion.”⁸ Another factor also helped him perceive “insertion” here: J. Jablonskis did not differentiate between reported-speech sentences with parentheticals and direct-speech sentences with an author’s words. He presented both kinds together, using the same punctuation marks, cf.: “We were lying down,” he says, “the two of us (together)—me and our little girl.” Šn. “You, mother, stay with the sick person,” s a i d t h e f a t h e r, “and I’ll go fetch the doctor,” Žt. “We need to wash it first,” a d d e d t h e o l d m a n. Žt. “Go home now,” h e s a y s, “and later,” y o u h e a r, “we’ll find out who’s to blame here”; Nr. etc. The main reason that may explain why J. Jablonskis did not differentiate between these sentences is apparently that in colloquial speech (from which J. Jablonskis provided most of his examples) reported sentences often take the form of “recollected” sentences (cf. “<...>later,” y o u h e a r, “we’ll find out who’s to blame here”) and differ from indirect speech, which is “the speech of participial constructions” (Jablonskis 1957: 527). Interestingly, J. Balkevičius presented only participial indirect-speech sentences with the parentheticals you hear, he says. Sentences with parentheticals in which all the words are spoken by the speaker can be contrasted with direct-speech sentences containing an author’s words—the latter are “sentences of two persons with separate modal categories, indicating in one sentence the author’s, and in the other sentence the” 6 In illustrating the use of the cable, J. Jablonskis repeated the previously given sentences with parentheticals (see Jablonskis 1957: 544). 7 Anot A. Piročkino (1957: 81), ”sintaksinė pilnatis” dubliavo sakinio (dažniausiai sudėtinio) terminą. 8 Discussing the position of parentheticals in the sentence, J. Jablonskis noted: “<...> by moving an interposed sentence and placing it at the beginning, we will also get a simple declarative sentence. For example: The father said: ‘You, mother, stay with the sick person, and I’ll go fetch the doctor,’—there will be no interposed sentence” (Jablonskis 1957: 521). This observation shows J. Jablonskis’s effort to explain direct speech with an author’s words as a complex sentence. 181 another speaker’s attitude toward the relationship between the thought being expressed and actual reality (Balkevičius 1963: 390). J. Jablonskis did not emphasize this contrast, and, owing to the similarity mentioned above, an author’s words came to be included among parentheticals9. For a long time—from 1911, when Rygiškių Jonas’s “Lithuanian Syntax” appeared, until 1963, when J. Balkevičius’s “Syntax of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language” was published—there were no comprehensive works on sentence syntax. The development of Lithuanian syntax, and thus the understanding of parentheticals, can be traced through syntax textbooks intended for schools. The syntax textbooks by P. Klimas (first edition 1919), prepared according to the content of Rygiškių Jonas’s “Lithuanian Syntax,” as well as those by M. Durys (1927), P. Meškauskas (1929), Z. Kuzmickis (first edition 1930), J. Ambraškas and J. Žiugžda (1940), later J. Žiugžda (first edition 1945), and A. Kalnius (1943), neither attempted a particularly original discussion of parentheticals nor explained their conception in greater detail than J. Jablonskis had. As can be seen from the illustrative material in those textbooks10, parentheticals (especially interposed sentences) are understood almost as broadly as in J. Jablonskis’s work. Nevertheless, those textbooks did make some progress in refining the concept of parentheticals. First, in describing their semantic feature, they no longer relied on Jablonskis’s vague indication, but emphasized modal nuances of doubt, conviction, and so forth. Second, the inventory of parentheticals—especially parenthetical words—became broader and more precise, reflecting their frequency of use (cf. Kalnius 1943: 45–46); given a broad understanding of insertion, inserted “syntactic wholes” (textual insertions) were also included (see Kuzmickis 1930: 104, 160–161). This was influenced by the emerging new criterion for standardizing the literary language, which no longer relied solely on folk colloquial speech and instead reoriented itself toward material from written sources (cf. Palionis 1979: 277). Fundamental changes to the concept of parentheticals were made in scholarly descriptions of Lithuanian syntax—J. Balkevičius’s “Syntax of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language” (1963: 267–281) and the academic grammars of Lithuanian (LKG: 698–719, ГЛЯ: 666–670)11. Scholarly explanations of parentheticals were shaped by two different tendencies. The first tendency was to establish a broad category encompassing everything that is not a true sentence constituent (and thus also parentheticals). Several variants of such a category are known in syntax: the category of expanding sentence elements (осложнение—see, e.g., Руднев 1959), the category of accompanying sentence parts (see: Dumašiū- 9 It is true that the parenthetical says is associated with the construction says [someone], which has the syntactic function of an author’s words. 10 The sections on parentheticals in those textbooks do not come close to J. Jablonskis’s work in the abundance of examples; some authors (P. Klimas, M. Durys, P. Meškauskas) repeated the sentences with parentheticals given by J. Jablonskis. 11 The chapter “Parenthetical Words and Expressions” in the academic “Grammar of the Lithuanian Language” (1976, vol. 3) was written by Z. Dumašiūtė; of all Lithuanian linguists, she has examined parentheticals most extensively in separate articles, and she wrote a comprehensive chapter on parentheticals in the academic publication “Lithuanian Spelling and Punctuation” (1976: 299–323). In the Russian-language “Grammar of the Lithuanian Language” (1985), the chapter on parentheticals was written by A. Ružė. 182 tė 1963). Antroji tendencija – labiau diferencijuoti tuos reiškinius, kurie sintaksėje vadinami įterpiniais: nuo įterpinių buvo atskirti įspraudai (žr., pvz., Седун 1959: 186–194; taip pat žr. ГРЯ, 1960: 140–174; MLLVG: 566–681 ir kt.). J. Balkevičiaus ”Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos sintaksėje” įterpiniais laikoma maždaug tai, kas sudaro išplečiamuosius sakinio elementus, o abiejose akademinėse ”Lietuvių kalbos gramatikose” nuo įterpinių atribojami įspraudai. J. Balkevičius presents a very broad and distinctive conception of parentheticals in “The Syntax of Modern Lithuanian.” The breadth of this conception stems from a loosely defined primary criterion for identifying parentheticals—their insertion into a sentence, qualified somewhat in semantic terms: parentheticals do not develop the thought of the sentence12. The absence of a grammatical connection with the sentence, traditionally regarded as the most important feature of parentheticals, has only classificatory significance in “The Syntax of Modern Lithuanian”: according to whether they are grammatically connected with the sentence, all broadly understood parentheticals are divided into two types: 1) “parentheticals grammatically connected with the sentence” and 2) “parentheticals not grammatically connected with the sentence.” Parentheticals grammatically connected with the sentence were a new feature in Lithuanian syntax, and an important one at that: on the basis of the general feature of insertion, many syntactic elements were grouped together that, until then, had neither been properly discussed nor classified in any way in works on Lithuanian syntax. Incidentally, as will become apparent below, once parentheticals grammatically connected with the sentence were abandoned in academic works on syntax, these elements were not adequately explained from other perspectives either. What parentheticals grammatically connected with the sentence actually are is evident from their classification: they are 1) inserted sentence constituents and 2) explanatory parentheticals of sentence constituents. There are two subtypes of inserted sentence constituents: a) comparative inserted sentence constituents (Mėkatis, kaip žir jo lievas, mokėjo visiems įtikti), and b) inserted sentence constituents denoting an exception to a negation (Niekas tenai neauga, kaip tik grikiai). Explanatory parentheticals of sentence constituents include: Naminiai gyvuliai, kaip antai: arkl ys, karvė, kiaulė ir kiti, labai naudingi žmogui; Pusiasalis, arba ekvatorius, dalija žemę į du lygius pusrutulius; Pamiškėj, siaurame pūdymų ruože, arė berniokas. Their grammatical connection is the same in all cases: they enter the sentence through an intermediary word whose syntactic function they repeat. Their role in the sentence and their logical-semantic relation to the intermediary word, however, differ—and this was the basis for their further subdivision13. What “The Syntax of Modern Lithuanian” regards as parentheticals grammatically connected with the sentence are syntactic elements that are linked not by 12 This is evident from the definition of parentheticals: “Parentheticals are all those words and word combinations inserted into a sentence to expand the thought being expressed, explain individual sentence constituents or the sentence as a whole, or indicate the speaker’s remarks and arising emotions” (Balkevičius 1963: 268). 13 Cf.: “Explanatory parentheticals of sentence constituents differ from inserted sentence constituents in that they do not introduce new, adjacent phenomena <...>, but explain a phenomenon already denoted by a sentence constituent <...>” (Balkevičius 1963: 271). 183 but also the insertion-like nature of their use, their intonational separation, their special grammatical connection and syntactic function, and the distinctive nature of their logical and semantic relation to the intermediary word. Any one of these features may be given priority when grouping these syntactic elements with others and defining their syntactic status. Consequently, what “The Syntax of Modern Lithuanian” regards as parentheticals grammatically connected with the sentence may be assessed in several different ways, depending on the perspective adopted. In other works on Lithuanian syntax, the concept of parentheticals grammatically connected with the sentence was neither developed nor explored further for a long time. Elements corresponding to explanatory parentheticals of sentence constituents are interpreted in two ways: 1) as detached sentence constituents (detached appositives, detached specifying sentence constituents) and as insertions (in academic works); 2) as explanatory and specifying sentence constituents (Kareckaitė 1965: 5—18; Statkevičienė 1983: 182—198). Elements corresponding to inserted sentence constituents, by contrast, are hardly examined at all14. In the 1994 “Lithuanian Syntax,” V. Labutis, noting that conceptions of parentheticals may vary in scope, supports the broad conception of parentheticals developed by J. Balkevičius (see Labutis 1994: 101—106). Academic descriptions of syntax do not omit discussion of the grammatical connection between parentheticals and the sentence because it is no longer relevant; rather, they sidestep the issue of this connection. Thus, even the definitions of parentheticals in the narrower sense (LKG: 701; ГЛЯ: 666; DLKG: 641), while not mentioning grammatical connection, continue to treat as parentheticals constructions that do have such a connection15. And what about insertions? Many of them are grammatically connected with the sentence. J. Balkevičius’s work is important to the formation of the concept of parentheticals not only because it broadened the concept, but also because it introduced new propositions that made it possible to formulate a more precise concept of parentheticals. 1. For the first time in Lithuanian syntax, the specific content of parentheticals not grammatically connected with the sentence was indicated in general terms: “they speak not about objects and phenomena of objective reality, as do inserted sentence constituents or explanatory parentheticals of sentence constituents <...>, but bring to light the views, remarks, and emotions of the speaker or other persons with regard to the thought being expressed or individual sentence constituents” (Balkevičius 1963: 275). This feature is now used to distinguish parentheticals from insertions. Most importantly, this feature is an early formulation of the idea that, from a communicative perspective, all syntactic elements used parenthetically are peripheral in the sentence. 2. It was precisely explained that parentheticals (the genuine ones, of course) have no grammatical connection with other sentence words characteristic of the word-group level: “they <...> word combinations with other sentence words 14With only an occasional exception, they are not discussed even in general academic works (LKG; ГЛЯ). 15These are primarily governed prepositional constructions with be (be manęs, be gabumų and the like), as well as with greta, šalia (see LKG: 708), corresponding to inserted sentence constituents denoting an exception. They are apparently regarded as parentheticals because of a misleading analogy with genuine parentheticals (cf. such parentheticals as be abejo, be to, be kita ko, etc.); genuine parentheticals are constructions with specialized, fixed meanings. 184 do not form [a unit]—they are not coordinated with them, are not governed by them, nor attached to them” (Balkevičius 1963: 275). 3. Although in “The Syntax of Contemporary Lithuanian,” following the traditions of earlier syntaxes, the vocative is included among parenthetical elements that are not grammatically linked to the sentence, at the same time, on the other hand, certain groups of sentence elements used parenthetically are delimited—admittedly, without any single underlying principle—and may be regarded as the beginnings of a classification of genuine parenthetical elements. First mentioned (admittedly, among parenthetical words) are fillers 16 (so to speak, that is...), which in colloquial speech “are constantly repeated out of bad habit” (Balkevičius 1963: 279). Conclusive words are delimited separately (and that’s all, enough, that’s it...), with which “the speaker ends the sentence, emphasizing the expressed thought as their final and unalterable conclusion” (Balkevičius 1963: 281). Because parenthetical elements lack the usual grammatical connection with other words in the sentence and thus differ from them, traditional syntax describes them as individual, isolated elements. It therefore seems unnecessary to explain what rank they have or what position they occupy among other syntactic elements. This considerably reduces the possibility of characterizing parenthetical elements themselves by locating them within the system of other syntactic phenomena. The first to attempt to change this tradition in Lithuanian syntax was Z. Dumašiūtė, in the article “On the Parts of the Sentence and Their Interrelations” (1963). Arguing that “there are and can be no words in a sentence without any syntactic function,” Z. Dumašiūtė divided all words that can occur in a sentence into four groups: 1) words that serve as so-called meaningful sentence parts; 2) words that do not have meaningful functions and are used as an obligatory component of meaningful sentence parts; 3) conjunctions and words with a linking function; 4) words through which something is said from the speaker’s own perspective. Since the words in the second group do not function as sentence parts, there are three types of sentence parts: 1) meaningful, 2) linking, and 3) accompanying. Parenthetical elements belong to the fourth group of words and the third type of sentence part. Within the class of accompanying sentence parts, the exclusion from parenthetical elements of the vocative, already common in works on syntax, as well as of the affirmative так and the negative не, became justified; it also became clear that exclamations and demonstrative particles used expressively (for instance, look, here, etc.) need no longer be forced into the category of parenthetical elements (as is still done in contemporary descriptions of syntax)—all of these are accompanying sentence parts. Although accompanying sentence parts are delimited with some shortcomings (they do not form a classification together with other sentence parts, since all of them are delimited on different grounds; accompanying sentence parts themselves are highly heterogeneous; the greatest doubts concern the new relation with other sentence words “discovered” alongside predication, determination, and coordination—syntactic accompaniment17), and although they did not become a fact in the description of Lithuanian syntax- 16 J. Balkevičius (1963: 279) juos dar vadino požodžiais. 17 So-called relations at the level of sentence parts were invented in order artificially to distinguish relations between words in a phrase from relations between sentence parts in a sentence. In fact, the so-called relations between sentence parts are the same relations (between the same words) found at the phrase level: subordination, coordination and, in current terminology, mutual dependence (connection). Z. Dumašiūtė calls a syntactic accompaniment a relation between two sentence elements in which “one of them (the accompanying element) is related to the other (the accompanied, ‘meaningful’ element) only by its 185 syntax description, it must be acknowledged that the attempt to classify sentence parts and discuss syntactic accompaniment helped Z. Dumašiūtė to refine the concept and understanding of parenthetical elements, in comparison with the one presented by J. Balkevičius18, and to make a reasoned turn in the opposite direction. Z. Dumašiūtė observed that not all sentence elements then considered parenthetical have the kind of relation that she calls syntactic accompaniment. Having presented examples of this type of parenthetical element, as in the sentences I resisted the temptations and did not sin against the (imagined) duties of a priest. Remembering, I too—for the umpteenth time!—was seized by a shudder, she noted: “These latter parenthetical elements are linked to other linguistic elements by syntactic relations characteristic of the basic language plan. In this way, they seem to enter into the expanded composition of the basic (meaningful) linguistic elements. But, pronounced with the intonation characteristic of asides, such words and phrases are still merely parenthetical elements, as it were, said in passing; unlike the parenthetical elements mentioned earlier, however, the latter are called false parenthetical elements” (Dumašiūtė 1963: 245). This marks the beginning of the narrowing of the concept of parenthetical elements. Later, when writing the section on parenthetical words and expressions for the academic “Grammar of the Lithuanian Language,” Z. Dumašiūtė separated these “false” parenthetical elements from genuine parenthetical elements and classified them as insertions, evidently following the example of grammars of Latvian, Russian, and other languages. It is only regrettable that the idea was never developed further: according to their relation to the sentence, some of these “false” parenthetical elements “seem to enter into the composition of <...> basic (meaningful) linguistic elements”; in other words, they are merely certain syntactic constructions. In the academic “Grammar of the Lithuanian Language,” most insertions consisted of so-called free parenthetical elements (chiefly parenthetical sentences), which “have no specific semantic functions or defined lexical expression” and “because of their appended character <...> occur only in the middle or at the end of a sentence, usually after those sentence parts with which they are associated in meaning” (LKG: 714). Insertions are not limited to free parenthetical elements, which are distinguished from genuine ones—this is a syntactic phenomenon newly defined in part, since insertions were also used to describe sentence elements that had been overlooked in earlier works on syntax, for example, various “technical” interpolations (His student Vytautas (photograph on the right) is one of the most gifted young astronomers); various sentence parts and clauses in complex sentences, and even several sentences in a text, which, because of their parenthetical character, are set off by intonation (in writing, by parentheses or dashes). semantic functions, but do not expand one another <...>. Accompaniment is expressed by the necessary placement of the accompanying and accompanied elements within the same coherent linguistic unit and by a certain intonation of that unit, encompassing both elements. The form of the accompanying element does not depend on the accompanied one” (Dumašiūtė 1963: 246). As can be seen, the so-called features of accompaniment are not anything new either—they are more or less what is stated when explaining the claim that parenthetical elements have no grammatical connection with the sentence. 18 Z. Dumašiūtė did not reject the concept of parenthetical elements found in J. Balkevičius’s “The Syntax of Contemporary Lithuanian”; rather, she regarded it as “a broadly understood concept of parenthetical elements” (Dumašiūtė 1963: 245). 186 In “The Grammar of the Lithuanian Language,” all parenthetical words and phrases are initially examined together, and their general (albeit very vague) features are identified: 1) they express additional remarks related to the content of a sentence or its parts, and are thus associated either with the whole sentence or with individual parts of a sentence; 2) they are expressed by inflected and uninflected words, their conjunctions, and constructions; 3) in their structure, some parenthetical words and phrases correspond to parts of a sentence, while others correspond to clauses of complex sentences; 4) their relationship to the whole sentence or its parts is expressed by their position in the sentence and by a particular intonation (they are usually spoken in a lower pitch and at a faster tempo than the words that express the main idea; sometimes parenthetical words and phrases are set off by pauses19 (see LKG: 698–700). However, the parenthetical words and phrases in this “Grammar” cannot be considered a syntactic category encompassing parentheticals and insertions. The initial joint discussion of all elements used parenthetically seems to have been sustained by the tradition of treating these elements as undifferentiated. Several facts show that the concept of “parenthetical words and phrases” should be understood in this way. First, at the time when the third volume of “The Grammar of the Lithuanian Language” was published, the academic publication “Lithuanian Spelling and Punctuation” discussed only parentheticals, and some cases of parenthetical punctuation were justified by features such as being parenthetical, having distinctive intonation, and so on, which coincided with the general features of parenthetical words and phrases20. Second, if parenthetical words and phrases had had the status of a categorical concept, that category would presumably have been established in the 1985 academic “Grammar of the Lithuanian Language.” Yet this grammar no longer discusses sentence elements used parenthetically together, which makes it appear that insertions are more clearly distinguished from parentheticals here than in the 1976 “Grammar of the Lithuanian Language.” Finally, if parenthetical words and phrases had been a categorical concept, a term commensurate with its status would presumably also have been chosen. Thus, works on Lithuanian syntax developed the concept of parentheticals in two directions: it was broadened, especially in J. Balkevičius’s “The Syntax of Modern Lithuanian” and V. Labutis’s “The Syntax of the Lithuanian Language” (Part II), and narrowed in academic grammars of the Lithuanian language. By directing the analysis along either path, scholars in their own way clarified what parentheticals are. The aim in broadening the concept of parentheticals was to combine as many sentence elements as possible that display one or another feature of insertion, and to distinguish, albeit indirectly, 19 Such intonation and pauses, established through introspection, are more appropriate to insertions. 20 The example of an undifferentiated explanation of sentence elements used parenthetically in “Lithuanian Spelling and Punctuation” apparently meant that works on language practice and language teaching (e.g., LKKN: 15–16; Kniūkšta, Lyberis: 54–56; Gedvilas, Kadžytė, Kuzavinis: 198–200; Dobrovolskis: 122–129) retained the traditional (broad) concept of parentheticals. Thus, two concepts of parentheticals are currently used in parallel: the broad one in works on language practice and language teaching, and the narrow one in scholarly works on syntax. Although the broad concept of parentheticals is sometimes more useful for language practice, ambiguity in the concept hinders a better understanding of the phenomenon itself; moreover, punctuation would benefit from distinguishing insertions from parentheticals, since parentheticals are usually set off by commas, while insertions are also set off by parentheses or dashes. 187 from non-parenthetical sentence elements. Distinguishing insertions has made it possible to analyze parentheticals themselves more precisely: to differentiate them further, to develop a general system of elements used parenthetically, and to determine which specific features distinguish parentheticals within that system. LITERATŪRA A m b r a š k a J., Ž i u g ž d a J. 1940: Trumpa lietuvių kalbos gramatika 2. Sintaksė. Kaunas: Sakalas. B a l a š a i t i s A. 1961: Lietuvių kalbotyros terminų istorija: Filol. m. kand. disert. Vilnius. B a l k e v i č i u s J. 1963: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos sintaksė. Vilnius: Valst. polit. ir moksl. lit. l-kla. B a r a n a u s k a s A. 1896: [Baranauskas A.] Kalbomokslis lietuviszkos kalbos. Išzdūtas per LL. Tilžė: Jagomasto sp. B ū d a V. 1987: Lietuvių kalbos prijungiamieji sakiniai: Tyrimo istorija. Vilnius: Mokslas. DLKG: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika / Red. V. Ambrazas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų l-kla, 1994. D o b r o v o l s k i s B. 1988: Lietuvių kalba: Vadovėlis VIII—IX klasei. Kaunas: Šviesa. D u m a š i ū t ė Z. 1963: Dėl sakinio dalių ir jų tarpusavio santykių. — Lietuvos TSR MA darbai. Serija A, 2(15). Vilnius: Valst. polit. ir moksl. lit. l-kla, 237—248. D u r y s M. 1927: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė. Kaunas: Švyturys. G e d v i l a s L., K a d ž y t ė L., K u z a v i n i s L. 1982: Lietuvių kalbos vadovėlis. Vilnius: Mokslas. J a b l o n s k i s J. 1957: Rinktiniai raštai 1. Sud. J. Palionis. Vilnius: Valst. polit. ir moksl. lit. l-kla. J a n u š e v i č i u s P. 1905: [Januševičius P.] Petras Gražbylys. Santaika (Syntaxis) Lietuviškoje Kalboje. Kaunas: Sakalauskjo sp. K a l n i u s A. 1943: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė. Kaunas: Valst. l-kla. K a r e c k a i t ė J. 1965: Apie apibendrinančiuosius, paaiškinančiuosius ir patikslinančiuosius žodžius sakinyje — Kalbotyra 11, 5—18. K l i m a s P. 1915: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė. Kaunas-Vilnius: Švyturys. K n i ū k š t a P., L y b e r i s A. 1986: Mokomasis lietuvių kalbos rašybos ir kirčiavimo žodynas. Sud. P. Kniūkšta ir A. Lyberis. Kaunas: Šviesa. K u r s c h a t F. 1876: Grammatik der littauischen Sprache von dr. Friedrich Kurschat. Halle: Buch. des Weisenhauses. K u z m i c k i s Z. 1930: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė. Kaunas: Sakalas. L a b u t i s V. 1994: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė 2. Vilnius: VU l-kla. LKG: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. T. 3. Sintaksė. Vyr. red. K. Ulvydas. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1976. LKRS: Lietuvių kalbos rašyba ir skyryba / Ats. red. A. Valeckienė. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1976. LKKN: Lietuvių kalbos komisijos nutarimai. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1987. M e š k a u s k a s P. 1929: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė. Kaunas: Šviesa. MLLVG 2: Mūsdienu latviešu literatūras valodas gramatika. 2. Sintakse. Rīgā: Latv. PSR zinātņu akad. izdevniecība, 1962. P a l i o n i s J. 1957: J. Jablonskis ir jo lietuvių kalbos vadovėliai. — Jablonskis J. Rinktiniai raštai 1. Sud. J. Palionis. Vilnius: Valst. polit. ir moksl. lit. l-kla, 7—56. P a l i o n i s J. 1979: Lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos istorija. Vilnius: Mokslas. P i r o č k i n a s A. 1978: J. Jablonskis — bendrinės lietuvių kalbos puoselėtojas. Vilnius: Mokslas. 188 Sabaliauskas A. 1979: Lietuvių kalbos tyrinėjimo istorija (iki 1940 m.). Vilnius: Mokslas. Schleicher A. 1856: Handbuch der litauischen Sprache von August Schleicher. Bd. 1. Grammatik. Prag: Clave. Sirtautas V., Grenda Č. 1988: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė. Vilnius: Mokslas. Statkevičienė J. 1983: Apibendrinimas, aiškinimas ir tikslinimas vientisiniame sakinyje. — Lietuvių kalba mokykloje. Sud. V. Drotvinas. Kaunas: Šviesa, 182—198. Stuobris A. 1906: Kalbamokslis. Lietuviškos kalbos. Parašė Adomas Stuobris. Ryga: Jakavičiaus kn. Zinkevičius Z. 1992: Lietuvių kalbos istorija 5. Bendrinės kalbos iškilimas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir encikl. 1-kla. Žiugžda J. 1945: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 2. Sintaksė. Kaunas: Valst. ped. lit. 1-kla. ГЛЯ: Грамматика литовского языка. Гл. ред. В. Амбразас. Вильнюс: Мокслас, 1985. ГРЯ: Грамматика русского языка 2. Синтаксис 2. Ред. коллегия: В. Виноградов и др. Москва: Изд-во АН СССР, 1960. Останин А. И. 1969: Вводные слова и словосочетания в современном русском языке. Дис.... канд. филол. наук. Саратов. Руднев А. Г. 1959: Синтаксис осложненного предложения. Москва: Учпедгиз. Седун Е. П. 1959: О так называемых ”вводных” и ”вставных” конструкциях. — Славянское языкознание. Отв. ред. В. В. Виноградов. Москва: Изд-во АН СССР. Ц. 186—194. AUFFASSUNG DER EINSCHALTUNGEN IN DER LITAUISCHEN SYNTAX Zusammenfassung In der litauischen Syntax treten deutlich zwei Tendenzen der Auffassung der Einschaltungen zutage. 1. Es wird eine breite Auffassung der Einschaltungen geschaffen: man verbindet möglichst viele syntaktische Elemente zusammen, die irgendwelche parenthetischen Merkmale aufweisen (s. Rygiškių Jonas (Jonas Jablonskis) ”Syntax litauischen Sprache”, 1911; frühere und gegenwärtige Handbücher der Syntax, Werke der Sprachpraxis; eine eigenartige breite Auffassung der Einschaltungen bietet J. Balkevičius in ”Syntax der gegenwärtigen litauischen Sprache”, 1963). 2. Die Auffassung der Einschaltungen wird verengert: parenthetische Elemente werden differenziert — als Einschaltungen werden nur konstante, mehr oder weniger standardisierte Elemente genannt, die spezifische Funktionen im Satz und im Text erfüllen; die anderen nennt man Einfügungen (s. ”Grammatik der litauischen Sprache”, Bd. 3, 1976 — Autor des Kapitels Z. Dumašiūtė, ”Grammatik der litauischen Sprache”, 1985 — Autor des Kapitels A. Ruže; auch ”Syntax der litauischen Sprache” von V. Sirtautas und Č. Grenda). 189