LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXXV (1995)

LIETUVIŲ LEKSIKOLOGIJOS TYRINĖJIMAI

Rita Šepetytė

ADVERBIALIZATION OF NOUN CASES AND THEIR PRESENTATION IN THE DICTIONARY OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE

Adverbialization, or conversion into adverbs, is defined as “the transition of other parts of speech into the category of adverbs” (LKM: 204); in the most recent works on Lithuanian morphology, it is defined as “functional adverb formation,” whereby “due to certain semantic and functional circumstances, forms of various parts of speech and word combinations become adverbs” (Paulauskienė 1994: 380—381). The adverbialization of Lithuanian noun cases has been thoroughly investigated and described by K. Ulvydas; moreover, this linguistic phenomenon is generally discussed in grammars. In linguistic works of this kind, the following descriptions are used when discussing adverbialization: “has not completely severed its connection with the noun,” “intermediate stage,” “comes closest to adverbs” (Ulvydas 1967: 7, 28, 30, Ulvydas 1959: 80), and so on.

When compiling the “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language,” a decision must be made whether to retain a case’s status or raise it to the rank of a lexical unit and treat it as an adverb. The division (grouping) of the lexicon into classes (parts of speech) is, of course, a very complex linguistic problem. Adverbs further complicate matters because they are not a formally definable lexical class; rather, they are unified by the categorical meaning of an adverbial circumstance—more precisely, by the fact that adverbs characterize a dynamic (verb) or static (adjective) property of an entity. Given that fixed word combinations, e.g., immediately, from the ground up, from the beginning, are treated as adverbs in LKŽ, it becomes unclear why the combination į šalį is not considered an adverb (incidentally, LKG classifies it as an adverb of place), although it is semantically equivalent to the illative šalin, used in those dialects that lack the illative as a paradigmatic case. The problem of distinguishing parts of speech is resolved by functional grammar; it does not arise at all in the flow of speech. Nor are there major difficulties in discussing adverbialization in traditional grammars (e.g., LKM: 204), which list and define parts of speech and illustrate them with examples. Difficulties arise when words are entered into a register such as the “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language,” where a word must be assigned a morphological part-of-speech label.

First, the presentation of adverbialized noun cases in LKŽ should be reviewed (1); second, it should be assessed (2), and certain conclusions drawn (3).

1. As already mentioned, lexicographers, when describing a noun, very often face the problem of whether to treat a paradigmatic case that has become semantically detached as an adverb and present it in a separate dictionary entry, or to “squeeze” it into an illustration under the relevant noun (sometimes, admittedly, separately

142

explaining the specifics of its use). The “most complicated” cases are the singular accusative, instrumental, and locative, and the plural instrumental. The existence of this problem is very clearly evident in LKŽ, where the treatment of one case or another often depends on the opinion of the dictionary’s author or editor.

This situation could be explained by the fact that lexicographers essentially have no basis on which to rely—that is, Lithuanian grammars have traditionally failed to define precisely which words are “true” adverbs and which are merely adverbialized or “approaching adverbs” noun cases. In the first Lithuanian grammar, the adverbs of place include inside, downstairs (PG: 506), and the adverbs of time include sometimes, in the evenings, at night (PG: 507). It also notes that “just as the Greek dative of nouns often takes on the nature of an adverb, so the singular and plural ablatives of many nouns, and especially the instrumental ablatives, have become adverbs, e.g.: in a crowd and in crowds, by name, by division, with open [hands]...” (PG: 508). While recognizing the adverbial status of the cases of some nouns, grammars of modern Lithuanian state that “from the very beginning of the formation of this part of speech, there have been, and still are (and undoubtedly will be in the future), transitional phenomena between nouns and adverbs—words and constructions in which one can already discern a weakening of nominal or verbal character, but cannot yet establish complete adverbialization, e.g.:... in a crowd (cf. PG: 508—R.Š.), in a circle, like a pole..., on the shore,..., in the middle..., at the back, below,..., in a heap” (LKG: 428). In the most recent Lithuanian grammar, the distinction of adverbs is, one might say, confused even further: it states that “from the very beginning of the formation of this part of speech, there have been, are (and undoubtedly will be in the future), transitional cases between nouns and adverbs—constructions and words in which the actual adverbial meaning emerges only when there are no modifiers, e.g.: by sight, in the morning, in a circle, in a group, sideways, like lightning. But as soon as such constructions and words are used with modifiers, there can be no question of their being adverbial, e.g.: from early morning, in a large group, on the right side” (DLKG: 411). These two lengthy quotations are included to show that Lithuanian grammars do not provide a reasoned account of the classification of noun cases as adverbs (e.g., why does a modifier eliminate the “actual adverbial meaning”?). It is therefore understandable that dictionary authors and editors often include (or do not include) certain noun cases in the class of adverbs at their own discretion.

For example, the so-called temporal accusative, semantically detached from the paradigm, is systematically presented in LKŽ as an illustration of a noun. For instance, by day, treated in LKG as an adverb of time (LKG: 458), appears in the LKŽ entry for the noun day as an ordinary illustration (Some find the day easy, some the night, and some never See). Once is likewise not given a separate entry in LKŽ, whereas the analogous once is listed among the adverbs of time in LKG (LKG: 455) and is also given a separate entry in LKŽ with the label adv. Below is not singled out in LKŽ as an adverb, whereas aside (and at the side) is presented as an adverb (apparently, the same will be done with inside, in the middle, above). A review of the published volumes of LKŽ shows that in its most recent volumes there is a tendency to distinguish more consistently cases that have been semantically “detached from the paradigm” and to present them as separate entries as

143

adverbs. However, there is little consistency in these works either. Usually, those cases that express time or place are singled out, e.g.: pavakarė adv. “before evening” (alongside the entry pavakarė sf. 1. “the time around evening, before dusk”); pavakariais adv. “in the evening, before evening”; pagiriomis “while recovering from a hangover”; šalyje “nearby, alongside”; šalinis “from the sides, from the flanks”; kairėn “to the left”; kartais “sometimes, now and then”; prieblanda “at dusk”; prieblandžiu “the same”; priebrėkšmiu, priebrėkšmiais “at twilight, at dusk”; priekin “forward in the direction of movement, ahead”; priešryčiu “just before dawn”; šonais “alongside”; šonan “aside, away”; tamsėje “in the state of evening or night, after dark”; tarpais 1 “in places, in patches or strips, here and there” and tarpais 2 “sometimes, occasionally, now and then”; daiktais “in places”; amžiais 1 “all the time, for a very long time” oran 1 “outdoors”; lauke “outside” and so on. A few cases expressing manner are also singled out as adverbs, e.g.: drauge 1 “in one group, together, not separately”; mainais “by exchanging, in exchange”; skyrium “separately”; choru “all together, in unison”; balsu “aloud, in voices”; raštu “in writing”; šuoliais “by leaps, in sudden bursts, headlong”; risčia “at a fast, steady pace (of running, riding, or driving)” and so on.

2.1. In assessing the treatment of adverbialized noun cases in LKŽ, the discrepancy between this dictionary and LKG must first be emphasized. The substantial discrepancy between LKG and volumes 1–8 of LKŽ can be explained by the fact that LKG had not yet been published when these volumes of the dictionary were being issued (1971). From volume 9 of LKŽ onward, this discrepancy diminishes, but nevertheless persists. For example, forms mentioned in LKG as adverbs are not given separate lexical entries in LKŽ (pagrioviais, patakiais — LKG: 443, senybėj, senybėse — LKG: 455, pradžioje — LKG: 456, popiečiu, prievakarėj — LKG: 458, prieblandelėj, prietemelėj, prietemeliais, prietemelytėj — LKG: 459, šešiose — LKG: 436), nor are transitional cases (paavyzdžiais, pabalais, padebesiais, padirviais, pakluonėm, pakampėm, etc.).

2.2. Without calling into question the classification of adverbs in “Lietuvių kalbos gramatika,” the discrepancy between it and the dictionary is somewhat surprising. However, if the lexicographers take a critical view of LKG data, one would like to see more precise criteria in LKŽ for identifying adverbialized cases. It would be desirable to maintain a certain system. It is precisely this that LKŽ lacks in this respect.

2.3. One may assume that LKŽ draws on a lexicographic tradition. For example, F. W. Haack’s dictionary (Haack 1730) singles out as adverbs: drauge adv., iš vidaus, iš viršaus, lauke adv. loci, laukan adv. loci, priešais (without a label), rytmečiais adv. temp., rytą metą adv. temp., šalin adv. loc., vakarais adv. temp., vargu adv. dubit. In Pil. Ruigys’s dictionary (Ruhig 1747), in addition to these, the following are also listed: apačioj adv., kartais (without a label), čėsu adv., rytmetyj adv. LKŽ does not provide separate entries only for apačioj, rytmečiais, and rytmetyj (I am referring to the volumes already published). In G. H. F. Nesselmann’s dictionary (Nesselmann 1851), separate entries are provided for laukan, priešais (without a label), čėsu,

¹ Among the transitional plural instrumental forms, LKG also mentions pabobais, although this is not a case form—there is no paradigm at all for the noun *pabobys.

144

together, alongside, outdoors (orig. is waiting), beside, alongside, away with the label adv.; outdoors with the label adv. and the explanation “properly locat. of laukas”; the forms below, sometimes, at a trot, in the mornings, by leaps, intermittently, in short hops under the entries for the corresponding nouns; the phrases from inside, from above, from the beginning likewise under the entries for the corresponding nouns. In the dictionary denoted by the abbreviation NdŽ in LKŽ, the following are singled out as adverbs: together, alongside, outward, outward; opposite, beside, to the side, alongside, side by side, away, on the side, intermittently, at once, from the beginning (original spelling — R.Š.); a little is treated separately as meaning 2 of the noun a little bit. The forms a little, in heaps, by leaps, in chorus, in time, in exchange, during, at night, at dawn, in the late afternoon, at a trot, in writing, sideways given as adverbs in LKŽ are not illustrative examples under the corresponding nouns in NdŽ. Thus, it would not be accurate to claim that LKŽ follows the lexicographic tradition. Incidentally, this tradition is also not maintained in editions of the contemporary-language dictionary (DŽ¹, DŽ²), which, it seems, is based on LKŽ and its card index: the adverbs in chorus, aloud (only the adverbial meaning of the singular instrumental is indicated), in time (listed separately in DŽ²), at once, from the outset, at dawn, in the late afternoon, in writing, and so on, are not listed separately.

2.4. Thus, one can say that LKŽ develops a lexicographic tradition, i.e., compared with earlier Lithuanian dictionaries, an increasing number of case forms are included in the class of words—that is, adverbs. However, the lack of consistency is striking: it is unclear why the cases of some nouns are treated as adverbs while those of other, semantically analogous nouns are not. I will illustrate this with a few examples. The form pašalėje is listed as an adverb meaning “nearby, alongside,” whereas nuošalėje is presented as an adverbialized meaning 2 of the noun nuošalis; priešakyje and priekyje are not listed in separate entries, but for some reason the form prieky is listed (although the temporal meaning is characteristic of the noun priekis as well). The form priekin is listed, but its analogous form priešakin (“Jis žengia priešakin”). is not. The adverb daiktais (“Upė daiktais išdžiūvusi K”) is listed; presumably the same will be done with vietomis, but the analogous plotais (“Rugiai plotais išplikę K”) is not classified as an adverb. The adverb šoriais (according to LKŽ) is defined as “in patches, in gusts” and “in strips, streaks,” but neither gūsiais nor ruožais is treated as an adverb. Nuorudeniu “at the beginning of autumn, in autumn” is listed—apyrudeniu (Apyrudeniu numirė Grž) appears under the noun entry, aptemiais as an adverb, apytamsiais as a noun, and so on.

2.5. It should be noted that LKŽ most often treats cases expressing time and place as adverbs, apparently on the assumption that they are most likely to become detached from the paradigm. Cases expressing manner (the singular and plural instrumental) are considerably “shortchanged” in this respect. Only words denoting manner of movement are consistently singled out—risčia, šuoliais; apparently, žingine will also be listed. Other noun cases expressing manner (with a few exceptions—choru, balsu, mainais and the like) are not given separate entries; these include the forms ratu (cf. Paulauskienė 1994: 378), būriu, apskritimu, srove, jėga, lašais, vamzdžiu, tūta, glėbiais, gniužulais, and so on. There is also a reluctance to single out the accusative expressing quantity (except kruopą), i.e., forms such as kąsnį, krūvą, kupetą, and so on.

2.6. As can be seen from LKŽ, diminutive forms pose problems for lexicographers

145

classifying nouns, which are usually presented in the illustrative material of the headword entry, as adverbs. For example, adv. kruopą is illustrated by the formations kruopelę, kruopelytę. In later volumes of the dictionary, acknowledging that suffixes -elis, -ė, -ytis, -ė and the like are, in any case, noun-forming formatives, inflected forms of diminutive formations treated as adverbs are presented in separate entries, e.g.: adv. riščia and ristėlė, ristutė, adv. šuoliais, šuoliu and šuoleliais, šuoleliu (but not šuoliukais), adv. tarpais and tarpėliais, tarpučiais, tarpukais. But this system too is not followed consistently to the end; for example, šalele is presented in the entry for šalis.

3.0. Having reviewed some features of how the adverbialization of noun cases is presented in LKŽ, it would be appropriate to draw certain conclusions.

3.1. First, LKŽ is written without clear criteria (or with them applied inconsistently) for deciding which cases of which words should be treated as adverbs, when a case is semantically isolated (Ulvydas 1967: 7), and when its ending “loses its case-marker function” (Ulvydas 1959: 84).

The fact that one noun case functions as the subject of a sentence, another as its object, and a third as an adverbial does not yet mean that one of them is semantically isolated (diena prašvito; aš mėgstu dieną, nekenčiu nakties; dieną dirbu). Nouns with a temporal seme in the locative, instrumental, and accusative may have a temporal-adverbial meaning; those with a locative seme, a locative-adverbial meaning; and those with a manner or quantity seme, a manner-adverbial meaning. These are paradigmatic case meanings; grammars, after all, identify the temporal accusative (Jablonskis 1928: 73—74; LKG I: 197), the temporal instrumental (Jablonskis 1928: 81—83 — examples: nakčia, protarpiais, gaidgyste etc.; LKG I: 201 — example: kartais (sic!)), the path (locative) instrumental (Jablonskis 1928: 79—81 — examples: tarpais, daiktais, ruožtais etc.; LKG I: 203), the instrumental of manner (Jablonskis 1928: 86—88 — examples: balsu, šuoliais, kuliais; LKG I: 203—204), the temporal inessive, and the temporal illative (LKG I: 206, 208). In my view, the use of such forms without modifiers (cited as one of the principal indicators of “adverbialization” (Ulvydas 1963: 8; LKM: 204; DLKG: 411)) is not sufficient grounds for treating them as adverbs; on the contrary, the fact that they can be used with modifiers shows that they are merely case forms, not lexemes. For example, the phrase didokais šuoliais is given in LKŽ under the noun šuolis, whereas šuoliais is listed as a separate adverb; tarpučiais is listed as an adverb (Tarpučiais geriau, kai negeria. Jrb), while a phrase with an analogous (temporal) meaning — (Tokiais tarpučiais užeina lyt Jrb) — is given as an illustration of the meaning of the noun tarpas. Apparently, this merely complicates the dictionary’s structure. Those adverbs that are formally only case forms generally cannot take any modifiers, e.g.: retkarčiais, priešokiais (the noun priešokis is apparently merely a back-formation), pašokom and the like. The fact that accusatives denoting quantity, such as trupuči, kruopą, kasnelį, valandėlę and the like, belong to an inflectional paradigm is also shown by their becoming genitives when used with negation (palauk trupučio, nelauksiu nė trupučio); that is, they behave like ordinary paradigmatic case forms.

3.2. The label adv. should be assigned only after carefully considering whether a case has indeed fallen out of the paradigm or whether it can still be “fitted” into the other noun

146

cases. As a user of Lithuanian, I looked for sometimes² in the entry for the noun time (the two are linked by a temporal meaning), while I looked for together elsewhere in the dictionary. They stopped side by side (in a row) expresses manner (side by side—a manner of arranging objects; similarly, one could say stopped in a line, in rows, walk in single file, and so on); these phrases could illustrate the noun side by side. In the sentence I sat down, while she stood beside me, “beside” would be an adverb (locative meaning).

3.3. Most inconsistencies in the presentation of adverbialization should nevertheless be excused by the fact that there is no theoretical basis in this respect: grammars do not sufficiently substantiate the “petrification and adverbialization” of noun cases.

LITERATŪRA

DLKG — Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius, 1994.

DŽ¹ — Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, Vilnius, 1972.

DŽ² — Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, Vilnius, 1993.

Haack F. W. 1730 — Vocabularium Litthuanico-Germanicum et Germanico-Littvanicum, Halle.

Jablonskis J. 1928: Rygiškių Jono. Linksniai ir prielinksniai, Kaunas.

LKG — Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 2, Morfologija, Vilnius, 1971.

LKGI — Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1, Fonetika ir morfologija, Vilnius, 1965.

LKM — Jakaitienė E., Laigonaitė A., Paulauskienė A. Lietuvių kalbos morfologija, Vilnius, 1976.

LKŽ — Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 3—15, Vilnius, 1956 — 1991; II leid. 1—2, 1968—1969.

NdŽ — Lietuvių rašomosios kalbos žodynas. Lietuviškai-vokiška dalis 1—5. Sudarė H. Niedermnas, A. Sennas, F. Brendris, A. Saly s, Heidelberg, 1932—1968.

Neselmann G. H. F. 1851 — Wörterbuch der Littauischen Sprache, Königsberg.

Paulauskienė A. 1994: Lietuvių kalbos morfologija, Vilnius.

PG — Pirmoji lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius, 1957.

Ruhig P. 1747 — Littauisch-Deutsches und Deutsch-Littauisches Lexicon..., Königsberg.

Ulvy das K. 1959: Dėl vienaskaitos galininko prieveiksmėjimo dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje. — Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 2, 75—89.

Ulvy das K. 1967: Vienaskaitos vietininkų prieveiksmėjimo klausimu.— Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 9, 6—42.

ADVERBIALIZATION OF SOME SUBSTANTIVAL FORMS AND THEIR PRESENTATION IN THE DICTIONARY OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE

Summary

The article deals with the lexicographical problem of adverbialization. The author presumes that only those substantival forms which cannot be related to declensional paradigm of corresponding substantive, must be given separate entries in the dictionary as adverbs. The possibility of having attributes (bego šuoliais — bėgo dideliais šuoliais) and the usual transformation that takes place in negative sentences (davė truputį — nedavė nė trupučio) show that spoken forms belong to the class of nouns and not to the one of adverbs.

² Beje, J. Jablonskis šį žodį pateikia kaip laiko įnagininko iliustraciją: Kartais ir vilkai moka pasirodyti meiliūs (Jablonskis 1928: 81).

147