Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių valentingumas ir jo aprašymo principai

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXXIII (1995) GRAMATIKA IR LEKSIKOLOGIJA NIJOLĖ SLIŽIENĖ THE VALENCY OF LITHUANIAN VERBS AND PRINCIPLES FOR ITS DESCRIPTION 1. Introductory remarks 1.1. The verb is the center of the verbal sentence. Other words in the sentence cluster around it, either singly or together with their own dependents, forming various syntactic structures. Some words link to the verb quite freely; they may or may not occur in the sentence, and their form and meaning depend not on the semantic properties of the verb, but only on the needs of expressing a thought, that is, on what one wants to say, e.g.: They sing in this hall every evening; She sings every evening; She sings for the audience; She sings in a strong voice; She sings very beautifully, and so on. The linking of other words is determined by the meaning of the verb. Each verb has certain combinatory capacities, which are realized in the sentence when the corresponding words and their forms are attached to it. For example, the verb to eat requires two noun cases—the nominative and the accusative: The child eats an apple; to give requires three cases—the nominative, accusative, and dative: The teacher gave the pupil a book, whereas the verb to sleep needs only one nominative: The father is sleeping. With these words, verbs form the core of verbal sentences, that is, certain structural sentence patterns. These combinatory capacities of verbs constitute what is called verb valency in modern linguistics. To construct a sentence that is correct in every respect, one must take into account the valency properties of the verb functioning as the predicate; that is, one must know how many words and which ones, and what forms, must occur with it, which forms are obligatory in the sentence and which may be omitted, and what the meanings of those words are. To help people navigate this diversity of verb usage, dictionaries of verb combinability are compiled. 1.2. Dictionaries that indicate how verbs are used with other words vary considerably. Some show which word forms a given verb takes when used with one meaning or another. Examples include certain Russian dictionaries devoted to the combinability of verbs (or of other parts of speech as well). For example, in the dictionary “Учебный словарь сочетаемости слов русского языка”¹, the combinability of the verb лить in the meaning “to pour” is indicated as follows: ¹ Учебный словарь сочетаемости слов русского языка. Под редакцией П. Н. Денисова, В. В. Морковкина. Москва, 1978. 54 To pour what: water, milk, solution... To pour something into what: into a basin, a bucket, a barrel, a kettle, a cup, a glass, a decanter, a flask... To pour something onto what: onto one’s head, hands, the floor, the ground, the grass... To pour something from what: from a watering can, a kettle, a decanter, a bucket... To pour how: carefully, slowly, past, over the edge... To become, begin, continue, tell someone to pour something, make someone pour something. After that, one or another illustrative sentence is provided. As we can see, an effort is made to list all the word forms that can occur with that verb, without any regard for what determines their connection: the meaning of the verb, its valency properties, or its purely grammatical capacity, as a particular part of speech, to take other words and their forms. The dictionary ”The Russian Verb”2 lists only verb-governed and some adjunct word forms (cases, prepositional constructions, infinitives); their presence in the sentence is determined by the meanings and valency properties of the verbs. For example, the combinability of the same verb лить in the meaning “to pour” is specified much more narrowly: (1) transitive: what? water, liquid; where to? into a bucket, a glass (в+Acc); onto a plate, the floor (на+Acc); from what? from a tap, a mug (из+Gen); with what? with a mug, a spoon. Sentence examples are not provided. Other dictionaries are devoted specifically to verb valency. One such example is the dictionary of German verb valency compiled by G. Helbig and W. Schenkel (Helbig—Schenkel 1975). Its introductory section sets out the theoretical foundations of verb valency in some detail, followed by approximately 500 verbs. Their valency is indicated using three-level models. The first level marks the number of obligatory and optional valency dependents, the second their forms, and the third specifies the meaning of the valency dependents and provides examples. The meanings of polysemous verbs are most often associated with differing valency. Here, for example, is how the valency of the verb gehen “to move on foot, to walk” is represented in this dictionary (Sn — nominative, pS — prepositional construction, I — infinitive; +Anim — animate, Dir — direction, Act — action): I. gehen₁+(1) = 2 II gehen → Sn, (pS / I) III. Sn → +Anim (the boy, the horse goes in the stable.) p = in, an... (directional prepositions). pS → Dir (He goes to the city.) I → Act (He goes shopping.) The first level indicates that the verb has one obligatory and one non-obligatory (optional) dependent, and is therefore bivalent. At the second level 2 V. A n d r e y e v a - G e o r g, V. T o l m a c h e v a. The Russian Verb (Prepositional Government). Moscow, 1975. 55 It is indicated that the obligatory dependent is a noun in the nominative, while the optional one is a prepositional construction or an infinitive. The third level explains the meaning of these forms. A noun in the nominative denotes a living being, while a prepositional construction expresses the direction of an action, since it includes prepositions that denote direction. An infinitive denotes an action. Sentence examples are provided alongside each dependent. Every dictionary is useful to its readers, although dictionaries differ in the amount and nature of the information they provide. Recently, valency dictionaries have been becoming increasingly numerous in linguistics—not only for verbs, but also for other parts of speech, such as nouns and adjectives. 1.3. A Dictionary of Lithuanian Verb Combinability is currently being compiled at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language (Vol. I was submitted for publication in 1991; Vol. II is being written). It establishes the combinability of verbs on the basis of their valency properties; essentially, therefore, it is a valency dictionary of Lithuanian verbs. Unlike the dictionary by G. Helbig and W. Schenkel, it specifies not only the form and meaning of a verb’s valency dependents, but also their semantic functions (i.e. the verb’s semantic valency). The combinability of verbs is described in the dictionary on the basis of a particular conception of verb valency, presented in the author’s earlier works (1978; 1980; 1985; 1986; 1989; 1990), as well as in the introduction to the dictionary in progress. Here we will briefly discuss only the main points, to clarify how valency is understood in the dictionary being compiled and how it is related to verb meaning. 2. Three levels of valency: syntactic, semantic, and lexical valency 2.1. Verb valency is understood as a property determined by a verb’s meaning: the capacity to open a certain number of free slots, which in a sentence are occupied by words (or their equivalents) of particular meanings and forms. Valency is associated with three levels: the abstract level of logical semantics and two concrete levels of language—syntax and lexical semantics. At the abstract level, the number of a verb’s free slots and the semantic functions of the words that can fill them (agent, patient, etc.) are established; at the concrete language levels, words and forms capable of filling those slots and serving as the verb’s valency dependents are selected. At the syntactic level, the grammatical form of dependents and whether they are obligatory or optional are established; at the level of lexical semantics, their semantics are specified (i.e. which semantic classes of words can serve as dependents of that verb). Thus, at the level of logical semantics, a verb’s semantic valency is established; at the syntactic level, its syntactic valency; and at the level of lexical semantics, its lexical valency. These are three aspects of valency, inseparably interrelated and dependent on the verb’s meaning. In the dictionary they are indicated as follows3: 3 The following symbols for syntactic and lexical valency are used in the article: Nom — nominative (of a noun or its equivalent), Gen — genitive, Dat — dative, Acc — accusative, Instr — instrumental, AdvLoc — an adverbial dependent denoting location, plur — plural; Hum — human (also a group of people, an institution, etc.), +Anim — animate being, —Anim — inanimate object, Abstr — abstract entity. Symbols for semantic valency and their explanations are given below; see 2.4. 56 apdovanóti, ~ja, ~jo₃ Nom Acc Instr [A₁ P Con] – syntactic and semantic valency Nom Hum Acc Hum Instr ±Anim lexical valency 2.2. To determine a verb’s valency, we must know its meaning. A verb’s meaning usually becomes clear in a sentence, where other sentence words cluster around it. Meaning consists of certain elements (so-called semes) that require corresponding complementation. This gives rise to the verb’s combinatory potential, which is realized in a sentence by words attached to the verb—its valency dependents. These words also reveal the verb’s meaning. For example, in the sentence A person walks across a field, the verb to walk means movement along a path from one point to another, whereas in the sentence The clock is running it denotes only the operation of a certain mechanism. These differences in meaning are related to how many words occur with the verb and what forms they take, as well as to the lexical meanings of those words. 2.3. A verb together with its valency dependents (i.e. the sentence nucleus) represents a particular situation. A person perceives it as a structure of things, their properties, or relations. This is an abstract structure of thought, corresponding to the predicate of a verbal sentence with a certain number of arguments. In a sentence, the predicate is represented by the verb, and the arguments by the words attached to the verb and functioning as its valency dependents. 2.4. Relations between the predicate—the verb—and lexicalized arguments are understood as particular semantic functions (in linguistic literature, for example in the works of Ch. J. Fillmore and others, these are also called semantic cases). The number and nature of these functions vary considerably among individual researchers’ works, partly depending on the approach taken and the aims pursued. The following semantic functions are distinguished when indicating the semantic valency of verbs in the dictionary being compiled. Agent₁ [A₁] — initiator and performer of an action (a person plows); agent₂ [A₂] — an inanimate, immaterial performer (causer) of an action, lacking initiative (the train arrives, the sun rises); agent [A] — the general agent function; agent꜀ [A꜀] — a causative agent, i.e. an actor performing an action at another person’s initiative (she gets her hair cut by a good hairdresser); patient [P] — the recipient of an action’s effect or the bearer of a physical state (someone broke the glass, the glass broke, the flowers smell); resultant patient [Pᵣₑz] — the outcome of an action (they are building a house, a revolt broke out); percipient [Pcp] — experiencer of a mental state (the child wants to sleep, Jurgis is concerned about work); beneficiary [B] — addressee, recipient, possessor (he showed his son a stork, Petras received a letter, the parents have a garden); causer [C] — initiator of an action or state (the lord cleared the forest, the father greases the wheels); causative [Caus] — cause of an action or state (they feared for the future, the beginning delays the work); contragent [CA] — a force acting against an agent, opposed to it (the wolf defended itself against dogs, against hunger; people fight against pests); comitative— 57 vas [Com] – secondary agent, patient, perceiver, beneficiary (Jonas argues with Petras, he set his brother against his sister, Marcė quarreled with Pramu, the father divided the property between Jurgis and Antanas); result [R] – the result of an entity’s change or transformation into something (water turned into ice, ice, the witch turned him into stone); content [Con] – the content of an action or state (I hear voices, people are waiting for clear weather, he needs money, the son is learning to be a carpenter, the bank became overgrown with alders, the room filled with smoke); source [O] – the origin or initial material (initial state) of an action or state (I received a letter from my brother, he builds a shed out of clay, people are made out of children); motive [M] – the basis of an action or state (I repaid him for the work, she punished him for the theft, I worked in place of my brother); instrument [I] – the means of an action (I pricked myself with a needle, I ride a bicycle, sharpen the knife on a stone, he rides a horse); comparative [Comp] – the standard of comparison (the copy matches the original, the son follows his father’s example, Agnė differs from the other children); retributive [Rt] – compensation for something (I bought (sold) the book for two roubles, I repaid him with work); finitive [Fin] – purpose, function (the cat lies in wait for a mouse, I am looking for a mouse, part of the money was set aside for travel); quantitive [Q] – quantity (the volume, weight, capacity, price of entities, duration of an action, etc.) (the lecture lasted two hours, the bread weighs a kilogram); manner [Mod] – the quality or manner of an action (he behaves nicely, lives well; the work was evaluated positively, he feels tired, looks ill, keeps the horses hobbled); locative [L] – the location of an action or state (there is a banging in the room, they live nearby, the book lies on the table); directive [Dir] – the general function of direction of an action, with three subtypes: a) starting point [Ab] (he left the house, got up from the chair, untied the bandage from his head); b) path [Via] (people walk along the road, across the field; children run around the corridor, climb the stairs, walk past); c) endpoint [Ad] (we came home, I entered the room, I walked up to the window). 2.5. A predicative structure (F(x) or xRy....) with specified semantic functions of the arguments is the semantic structure of a sentence and, at the same time, the semantic valency structure (SemVS) of the verb functioning as its predicate. To determine a verb’s SemVS, one must have sentences formed with it. Only in a sentence does the verb’s meaning become clear, as does how the situation we perceive is interpreted. For example, sentence (1) Monika cleared the dishes from the table describes a situation involving three participants (referents): the person clearing (the actor, or agent), the dishes being cleared (the affected entities, or patient), and the table from which they were cleared (the location where the action began and from which the affected entities moved, i.e. the starting point). The semantic structure of this sentence consists of a predicate and three actants (i.e. arguments with specified semantic functions)—agent, patient, and starting point—which fully correspond to the roles of the referents in the situation we imagine; thus, in this case, the semantic structure is a direct representation of that situation. But in the sentence 58 (2) Monika cleared the table the same situation is described differently. Here the predicate has only two actants—agent and patient—and they do not correspond to the roles of the referents in the situation we imagine. The table from which the dishes are cleared is treated in this sentence as the patient (i.e. as an affected entity), thereby highlighting the relevance of this participant in the situation, while the items being cleared become entirely irrelevant and have no counterpart either in the sentence or in its semantic structure. The two sentences differ in signification: the first says what was done with the dishes, the second—what was done with the table. Thus, the semantic structure of a sentence (like the semantic valency of a verb) presents only certain aspects of the situation we perceive (cf. Starosta 1978: 512–518, 522–523). Different interpretations of the situation are reflected in different semantic valency structures of the verb: (1) [A₁ P Ab], (2) [A₁ P]. These valency differences are associated with certain differences in the meaning of the verb: in the first case, the verb means “to remove something from something”; in the second, “to make something empty, to empty it.” Thus, by taking into account the meaning of the verb in the sentence and how the described situation is interpreted, we can predict the semantic functions of the verb’s valency dependents and determine the verb’s SemVS. 2.6. On the other hand, a verb’s SemVS can also be inferred from the grammatical form of its valency dependents. The verb’s dependents are the syntactic counterparts of the predicate’s actants. There is a certain relationship between cases (either alone or with prepositions, i.e. the so-called prepositional constructions), which are the most characteristic forms of verb dependents, and the semantic functions of actants, although there is no complete correspondence (1:1). Some semantic functions are expressed fairly regularly. For example, with verbs denoting actions, the nominative generally corresponds to the agent (e.g. the child cries, the fly flies around the room), while with verbs denoting states or processes it corresponds to the patient (e.g. the child sleeps, the glass broke), beneficiary (with verbs denoting possession, e.g. the parents have a house, the brother won a television), or perceiver (with verbs of perception, e.g. the falcon sees its prey). With verbs denoting actions, the accusative most often corresponds to the patient (e.g. hares gnawed the saplings) and often to the content (the content of an action, e.g. the boys play basketball), while with verbs denoting states or processes it most often corresponds to the content (the content of a state, e.g. I hear noise, the team won the match), and less often to the patient (alongside a beneficiary, e.g. they [B] got an apartment, we [B] have a garden). The dative corresponds to the beneficiary with verbs denoting actions as well as states or processes (cf. the father showed his son a stork, Jonas is doing well, the house went to his brother), while it denotes the perceiver only with verbs denoting states (perception) (e.g. Rimui likes roses). 2.7. In the dictionary, a verb’s SemVS is recorded by indicating the semantic functions of its arguments. For example, the semantic valency of the verb duoti ‘give’ is marked as follows: [A₁ P B]. Thus, the meaning of this verb is understood as a relation between an agent, a patient, and a beneficiary, and the verb is trivalent. The SemVS of the verb sirgti ‘be ill’ is marked [P]; its meaning is understood as a property of a patient (the sole actant), and for this reason the verb is monovalent. 59 SemVS denotes the number and nature of a verb’s actants at the abstract level of logical semantics and indicates how many valency dependents the verb has at the external syntactic level and what their semantic functions are. The grammatical form of the dependents depends on which word forms the verb occurs with in a sentence, i.e., on its combinatorial potential. For example, compare the perception verbs fear and rejoice: the SemVS of both is [Pcp Con], but one is used with the genitive (fears the wolf), while the other is used with the instrumental (rejoices in spring). The verbs belong to the same semantic group, but their combinatorial properties differ. The syntactic valency structure (SinVS) of one is Nom Gen, and of the other, Nom Instr. A verb’s dependents are only those word forms dependent on it that correspond to the actants in that verb’s SemVS. Knowing the verb’s SemVS makes it possible to infer its SinVS, at least partly, because, as we saw earlier (cf. 2.6), there is a certain, though incomplete, correspondence between the forms of dependents and the semantic functions of actants. 2.8. The semantic functions of actants are closely related to the lexical meanings of a verb’s dependents; the semantic classes of words that can serve as dependents of that verb depend to a great extent on those meanings. For example, an agent, recipient, benefactive, and causer are usually associated with a living being, and so in a sentence they are most often expressed by concrete nouns denoting living things; a content is very often associated with abstract things and is expressed in a sentence by abstract nouns, subordinate clauses in complex sentences, infinitives, etc. However, much also depends on the lexical meaning of each verb and its capacity for semantic compatibility with other words. Hence, for example, we say a dog barks, a cat meows, a horse neighs, and a pig oinks. A verb’s ability to combine with words of a particular meaning, or its potential for semantic compatibility with other words, is usually called its lexical valency. Lexical valency determines the verb’s entire environment in a sentence, or its lexical distribution (that is, all the words that can combine with the verb), whereas its valency dependents constitute only part of that environment: they are the words and forms required by the verb’s meaning and belonging to the sentence nucleus. Only this part of lexical valency is relevant to the description of verb valency. In a dictionary, a verb’s lexical valency is described by indicating which semantic classes of words can serve as its valency dependents. For example, the SinVS of the verb fear is Nom Gen, while its lexical valency is described as follows: Nom + Anim, Gen ± Anim, Abstr; this means that the nominative form is occupied by words denoting living beings, whereas the genitive form is occupied by words denoting living beings, inanimate things, and abstract things (e.g., the child fears the dog, the belt, the darkness). In certain cases, for example when the lexical realization of a dependent is very limited, or when synonymous verbs differ only in the lexical expression of one dependent, specific words are also indicated (e.g., in the accusative position with the verb lay, when referring to birds, snakes, and some animals, only the noun egg can occur). 60 3. Obligatory and optional verb dependents 3.1. Those verb dependents that cannot be omitted from a sentence without making it incomplete or ungrammatical are called obligatory. Dependents that can be omitted from a sentence without making it ungrammatical are called optional. Whether dependents are obligatory or optional is determined by means of the deletion transformation: by omitting one sentence constituent and then another, one identifies which are obligatory and which are optional. 3.2. There are no more than three obligatory complements, but most often there are one or two. In a broader context, sentences may also be used without obligatory complements if the information they provide is clear from the context, already known, or has been mentioned earlier. In dialogue, omitting obligatory complements is sometimes even necessary to avoid communicative redundancy, e.g.: “The Jurgaičiai family bought a new television.” — “We’ll buy one too” (it is clear that a television is meant). The structural obligatoriness of verbal valency complements in a sentence differs from the communicative obligatoriness of other sentence constituents. A particular word may be obligatory with a verb only in a certain sentence; if it is omitted, the sentence becomes meaningless, e.g.: (3) You are worth all the treasures in the world to me. (4) A good hen can stand in for a goose. If the word to me is omitted, sentence (3) (You are worth all the treasures in the world) would have a different meaning. 3.3. Optional complements, like obligatory ones, correspond to the actants of the verb’s SemVS and count toward its valency number—when determining quantitative valency, they are counted together with obligatory complements. For example, in sentence (5) Men weave ropes from tow, the verb to weave has three complements and is therefore trivalent, although the prepositional construction is optional and can be omitted: (6) Men weave ropes. When writing syntactic valency patterns, optional complements are enclosed in parentheses. In this case, the verb to weave has the SinVS Nom Acc (from Gen). Sentences without optional complements mean approximately the same as sentences with them (cf. Храковский 1974: 350; Helbig 1971: 276; 1977: 65; 1979: 70; Viehweger 1977: 350), because they describe a certain part of the situation as we perceive it. Once semantically interpreted, this becomes part of the verb’s SemVS and enters its meaning in a very general form. For example, on hearing sentence (7) Father [A₁] sold the horse [P], we already know that someone bought the horse and that a certain sum of money was paid for it. Optional complements describe the part of the situation that is less relevant to the verb’s meaning. When this information becomes important to the speaker, it is specified by stating the optional complements, e.g.: (8) Father sold the horse to the neighbor [B]. (9) He sold the horse for two thousand litas [Rt]. In a personal sentence, nominative pronouns of the first or second person may be absent, since their meaning is implied by the meaning of the verb forms in the first and second person, cf.: I am selling a horse — Am selling a horse; You go home — Go 61 home. In other cases, the nominative subject is obligatory in the sentence, and sentences without it are treated as independent impersonal sentence patterns. An optional accusative object is relatively rare, since, like the nominative, it usually expresses the most significant elements of the situation described. Tautological nominatives and accusatives (it is raining rain, suffer a suffering) are redundant in the sentence and are not considered optional adjuncts. 4. Free members 4.1. Those sentence words that are neither obligatory nor optional verb dependents are free members. Their presence in the sentence is determined not by the meaning of the verb, but by its purely grammatical capacity to combine with words, which is characteristic of it as a particular part of speech. Free members can be added to or omitted from a sentence quite freely, although their semantic compatibility with the verb is taken into account. For example, one does not say suddenly lies, sleeps, laughs or for a long time jumped, struck, killed, because the meanings of momentariness and duration are incompatible here. Unlike optional dependents, free members do not have the verb’s SemVS as their anchor; consequently, when they are removed from a sentence, the information they contribute immediately disappears (cf. Храковский 1974: 9). In the predicative structure of a sentence, they correspond not to predicate arguments but to separate predicates; therefore, at the syntactic level they may be treated as reduced clauses and replaced by subordinate clauses, half-participle and gerund constructions, independent sentences, and so forth. E.g.: (10) We will go home in the evening ← We will go home when it is evening/when evening comes; We will go home. It will be in the evening. Free members are mentioned in the valency dictionary only in certain cases, when they are very frequently used with a particular verb and seem to stand in for the verb’s valency dependents, e.g.: (11) I heard it quite differently (cf. something else). (12) That way (cf. that) was what father wanted. (13) Aldutei darželyje (plg. darželis) nepatiko. He gave all his health to England in the mine (cf. to the mine) (LKŽ). (15) The family sat down to breakfast (cf. at the table, around the table). However, even in such cases free members are not included in syntactic patterns, but are presented in side notes. 4.2. The so-called free dative, which is nonetheless required in a sentence because another noun calls for it semantically, is also not included in the verbs’ SinVS. A part–whole (possessive) relation holds between them, one that in other cases is expressed by the genitive; cf.: (16) My hands are cold. (17) My hands are cold. The use of the dative rather than the genitive shows that the dative form here is determined by the verb, not by the noun. Thus, the dative is linked in the sentence by a double relation: it is semantically linked to the noun and syntactically linked to the verb. For this reason, some researchers consider it a verb va- 62 lentiniu palydovu (Erben 1968: 120). Iš tikrųjų tam nėra pagrindo, nes naudininkas, matyt, yra ne veiksmažodinio sakinio branduolio, o viso sakinio sintaksinės struktūros elementas, reiškiantis veiksmu suinteresuotą asmenį, rečiau daiktą, kuriam kas nutinka (beneficientą). Valentingumo požiūriu jis laikomas laisvuoju nariu ir dėl to veiksmažodžių junglumo žodyne tarp valentinių palydovų nenurodomas4. Tačiau visada reikia prisiminti, kad sakinyje normaliomis, įprastinėmis sąlygomis jis būtinas, jeigu kuris nors veiksmažodžio palydovų yra visumos dalį reiškiantis daiktavardis. 4.3. The dative drawn into the verb’s SinVS is one that the verbs govern and that corresponds to the patient in the sentence’s semantic structure, cf.: (18) a. A bee stung me [P]. b. The bee stung me [B] in the forehead [P]. (19) a. The owner whipped the horse [P] with a whip. b. He whipped the horse [B] across the rump [P]. In sentences (18) a and (19) a, the dative is an obligatory complement of the verbs, because it takes over the patient function from the verb-governed prepositional constructions denoting a directly affected part of a whole. In the b sentences, the dative is a free element, since the patient is realized by prepositional constructions. Although the latter lack semantic independence, they satisfy the verb’s valency, and the sentence predication appears complete. Thus, verbs that can govern either a dative or a prepositional construction are used according to two syntactic valency patterns, e.g.: (18) a. Nom Dat [A₁ P] b. Nom intoAcc [A₁ P] As we can see, the semantic valency structures of the verb to sting are identical in both sentences; only their syntactic correspondences differ. In such cases, different syntactic patterns are often combined into a single pattern with alternative forms in the dictionary, e.g.: Nom Dat/intoAcc [A₁ P]. 5. Verb Meaning and Valency: How Their Relationship Is Reflected in the Dictionary of Verb Combinability 5.1. Since verb valency depends on meaning, the same verb used with different meanings must have different valency in each case—if not syntactic, then semantic or at least lexical valency. The task of a combinability dictionary is to show how verb meanings relate to their valency. Let us see how this is done by looking at specific verbs included in it5. góbti, ~ia, ~ė 1. gobti (ap-, už-)₃ to cover, envelop with something Nom Acc (Instr) [A₁ P Con]. 4 Plačiau apie laisvąjį naudininką, taip pat literatūrą šiuo klausimu žr. Slizienė 1986: 60—62. 5The source abbreviations occurring in the illustrative sentences below are those used in the academic “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language” (the dictionary’s title is abbreviated as LKŽ). The symbols for syntactic and lexical valency are explained in footnote 3, while those for semantic valency are explained in the list of semantic functions (see 2.4). 63 Nom Hum | Women wrap the bride in a veil; Ap- Acc ±Anim | cover my head; Cover the child warmly; Instr −Anim | It is cold in bed; cover me with furs 2. gobti (už-)₃ to cover, envelop, wrap (around something) a) Nom Acc Dat [A₁ P B] b) Nom Acc antGen [A₁ P Ad] Nom Hum | a) Women used to wrap the bride in a veil; You incorrectly cover- Acc −Anim | ed me with a kerchief; b) Women used to wrap the bride with a veil over Dat Hum | her head; Cover my shoulders with furs antGen −Anim | 3. gobti (ap-)₂ to be covered; to cover Nom Acc [Con P] Nom −Anim | Her head was covered by thick, dense hair; The child was covered by warm Acc ±Anim | furs; A black cloud covered the sun Each meaning of the verb gobti is associated with a different syntactic, semantic, and lexical valency. turn, ~s, turned 1. turn toward, direct toward Nom Acc įAcc [A₁ P Ad] Nom +Anim | Merga turned her tear-streaked face toward her (Grigienė) Acc ±Anim | Krėv; Tigras turned its bared jaws toward us; Pakin- įAcc ±Anim | drive the horses and turn [them] toward the gates JV 2. turn toward, focus, concentrate (one’s attention, etc.) Nom Acc įAcc [A₁ P Ad] Nom +Anim | The peasants turned their attention to hemp, to hemp Acc Abstr | cultivation; Turn your gaze toward this breeding stallion; įAcc ±Anim, | The dog immediately turned its attention to the rustling behind the door Abstr 3. attract (the attention of others, etc.) Nom Acc (įAcc) [C/Caus P Ad] Nom ±Anim, | But at that very instant, everyone’s attention was drawn to him Abstr | Einžukas [C] Simon; His strange behavior Acc Abstr | [Caus] drew everyone’s attention; My gaze is drawn to intoAcc themselves | the two pines standing behind the garden fence [Caus] Three meanings of the verb are distinguished, although syntactic valency is exactly the same in the first two cases, while in the third case it differs only in the optionality of the prepositional construction. The first two meanings also do not differ in semantic valency; their differences are related only to lexical valency. The third meaning differs more: in this case, in addition to syntactic valency, semantic and lexical valency also differ. 5.2. One should not assume that different syntactic valency already indicates that the verb is used with a different meaning. This is by no means always the case. 64 Cf. (20) a and b, where the verb atsikratyti is used with the same meaning, while its SinVS differ in the two cases: (20) a. Senis [B] got rid of posūnio [Con]. Nom Gen b. Senis [B] got rid of posūniu [Con]. Nom Instr In this case, semantic and lexical valency, like the meaning of the verb, are the same. The different SinVS function as parallel models. However, such cases are uncommon. More often, a verb with the same meaning is used in different syntactic structures because the situation as we perceive it is interpreted differently semantically, and in one case one participant in the situation is foregrounded, while in another case a different participant is foregrounded. Cf. (21) a and b: (21) a. Sigutė [Pcp] remembered childhood [Con]. Nom Acc b. Sigurei [Pcp] remembered childhood [Con]. Nom Dat In the first sentence, Sigutė [Pcp] is foregrounded more by the nominative case; in the second, childhood [Con] is foregrounded, with the spontaneity of the state also emphasized more. There are also verbs whose use according to different syntactic valency models is associated with rather subtle shades of meaning, because the same situation is described and its semantic interpretation is the same. Cf. (22) a and b: (22) a. Jurgis [Pcp] doubts his friends, their promises [Con]. Nom Instr b. Jurgis [Pcp] doubts about his son, about the land [Con]. Nom dėlGen The first sentence means that Jurgis does not trust his friends and their promises, while the second means that he does not know what to do with his son or with the land. Some verbs with the same meaning are used according to two (or more) syntactic valency models associated with different lexical valency, corresponding to certain differences in the situation described, e.g.: to stroke, ~o, ~ė (pa-)₂ Nom Acc/perAcc [A₁ P] Nom Hum Children stroke a cat; With her own hand [Severiutė] stroked Acc ±Anim Mykoliuką across the cheek Vaižg; Father stroked the child perAcc –Anim the head; Juozapas stroked her on the head with his hand Žem According to the model with the perAcc construction, the verb is used only when speaking of stroking an inanimate object (usually a body part). Different syntactic valency models corresponding to the same semantic valency structure are generally combined in the dictionary into one model with alternative dependents, between which a slash (/) is written. Essentially the same meaning is sometimes possible even when both the syntactic and semantic valencies differ. In the dictionary, in such cases two or more valency models are given in one entry under a single definition of meaning, e.g.: likti₁(₂) to remain, persist, not disappear, not perish a) Nom [P] 65 b) Nom (from)Gen [P O] c) Nom AdvLoc [P L] Nom ±Anim, Abstr | a) The corvée remained as of old Myk-Put; Traces of events that remained; b) Of all the treasure, only the glasses remained for me (from)Gen ±Anim, Abstr Sruog; But of the dogs, only three were left (dogs); Of such words, now scarcely one or two remain; Now she has only one son left; c) Only a few crooked little pines remained on the bare field Baran; Only his traces remain here; Their names will always remain in the nation’s memory AdvLoc Although a common meaning has been identified for all three cases, certain nuances of meaning are associated with differences in semantic valency, depending on a somewhat different perspective on the situation being described. 5.3. Just as differing syntactic valency does not in itself indicate that a verb is used with a different meaning each time, so too identical syntactic valency does not indicate that it is used with the same meaning. Under a given syntactic valency pattern, a verb may be used with at least several meanings, which are associated with differences in semantic or lexical valency and are most often listed as separate entries in a dictionary. E.g.: 1. marinti (nu-)₂ to cause to become lifeless, dead; to destroy Nom Acc [A P] Nom ±Anim, Abstr | Diseases kill people; The cat played until it killed the mouse; That paper kills flies; Moisture easily weakened the lungs of sensitive children rš; Autumn kills the blossoms Acc +Anim, −Anim (plants, parts of animals) 2. marinti (nu-)₂ to attend to a dying person, to wait on them Nom Acc [A₁ P] Nom Hum | My uncle’s wife kept him company while he was dying, and dying, but he only got better LKŽ; The son let his mother die in his arms Acc Hum 3. marinti to intoxicate, to make drunk Nom Acc [C P] Nom Hum | Mother, will you now also make us drunk at the table? Cv Acc +Anim Note.The Instr of manner badu ‘with hunger’ is often redundant in the sentence, e.g.: Out of his stinginess, he starved both the animals and the family. 4. marinti (nu-)₂ to overcome, to take hold (of sleep) Nom Acc [A₂ P] Nom sleep | After lunch, everyone began to be overcome by sleep; Ilgis had barely sat down when sweet sleep lulled him to sleep Krėv Acc Hum 5. marinti (nu-)₂ to suppress, soothe Nom Acc [A₁ Con] 66 Nom Hum You soothe the little one, suppress hunger; We suppressed thirst; You must Acc Abstr suppress your own vices In all the cases presented here, both the semantic and lexical valency of the verb differ. When syntactic valency is the same and the meanings of the verb are so close that they can be described in the same way, different semantic valency patterns are sometimes presented side by side under one entry in the dictionary, or condensed into one by means of alternation, to save space. Lexical valency patterns are likewise combined into one when necessary, e.g.: ling uoti to sway, to rock Nom a) [P]; b) [A₁] Nom a) ± Anim a) The scale’s pointer begins to sway rs; The crowd [...] b) +Anim is swaying and roaring Bil; b) Why were you swaying as you danced? In one case (a), the state of an object is being discussed; in the other (b), the action of a living being. These differences in meaning are reflected in different semantic valency patterns. gaišinti (iš-, nu-)₂ (with hunger) to starve, to languish; to kill Nom Acc [A/C P] Nom ±Anim, You [C] are starving the cows with such feed (you will starve them); Someone [A₁] starved our dog; Fried toadstool Acc +Anim [A₂] is killing flies; Hunger and disease [A₂] are killing people Nevertheless, in such cases the dictionary more often also indicates in the same place differences in meaning associated with differing verb valency, e.g.: mainyti (at-, pa-)₂ a) to make different, to change; b) to become different Nom Acc a) [A P]; b) [P Con] Nom ±Anim, a) Mikas deliberately changes his voice; A white veil changes the face tts; Misfortune changes a person Kud; b) It seemed that even the bells had changed their voice rs; The snow bunting changes its color in winter Not only syntactic but also semantic verb valency can be the same, while differences in meaning may be associated solely with differing lexical valency. Cf.: 1. bėgti (pra-)₁ to go, to pass (of time) Nom [P] Nom Abstr Time passes; Summer, a year, two days have passed, youth 2. to leak a) to be leaky, let liquid through; b) (out-) to boil over as the boiling liquid spills over the edge Nom [P] Nom −Anim a) That bucket leaks; The barn’s roof leaks; The child’s nose is running; b) The pot is boiling over, take the lid off; The pots boiled over and put out the fire 67 In the first case, the nominative form is taken by abstract nouns denoting time; in the second, by nouns denoting inanimate objects. It should also be noted that in these cases the verb’s use with prefixes expressing the meaning of event aspect also differs: with one meaning, the verb is used with one prefix, with another meaning, with a different prefix or only without a prefix. Sometimes, when the meanings of a verb differ only in lexical valency, they are presented under a single entry; in that case, the differences in lexical valency are also indicated in one place (the different lexical valency structures are combined into one), for example: 3to plant around to make sure: a) that someone plants something all around, b) that someone plants something densely Nom Acc Instr plural [C P Con] Nom Hum a) We will plant the whole table with guests; They planted the old woman with distinguished female guests; b) We planted all the benches and chairs with guests Acc a) ± Anim b) — Anim Instr Hum Sometimes the syntactic and semantic valency, and at first glance even the lexical valency, are identical; in such cases, different verb meanings may be associated with fairly subtle differences in lexical valency, which are usually indicated in the definition of the verb meaning or in the lexical valency structure. For example, cf. the previously given bėgti 2 and the following bėgti 3: 3. to run (away)-l a) to melt, disappear (of snow); to be left without snow; b) to unravel, run (of stitches in lace) Nom [P] Nom — Anim a) The snow is already running off (has run off); The road is running (the snow on it is melting); b) The stitches in the stocking are unraveling (have unraveled) Moreover, in the latter meanings (see bėgti 3), the verb is also used with a different prefix expressing the meaning of event aspect (as compared with bėgti 1 and bėgti 2). Nevertheless, it should be said that subtle distinctions in lexical valency are not always indicated in the dictionary, in which case readers are left to infer them from the illustrative sentences provided, for example: laikytis₂ a) to stand firmly, hang, be attached to something; b) to be somewhere, live, dwell Nom AdvLoc [P L] Nom ±Anim a) I can barely stay on my feet; The shirt no longer stays on the back; The picture hangs on the nail; The man held firmly in the saddle; The rye is barely holding in the sheaves; b) Tailless monkeys live in the mountains, on rocks rš; The parents are staying at their daughter’s; What lives on land and in water? rš The difference between the indicated meanings of the verb is related to very subtle differences in the lexical expression of the locative-meaning constituent. In the second case, unlike the first, this constituent denotes a more or less permanent place or territory of being or living. 68 5.4. Thus, the relations between a verb’s meanings and its valency are quite complex. Syntactic valency, which is the first thing that catches the language user’s attention, does not by itself indicate whether verb meanings are identical or different. Individual verb meanings are more closely related to its semantic rather than syntactic valency; moreover, they are very closely connected with the verb’s lexical valency. When semantic valency differs, the verb is usually used with different meanings, although in such cases one often observes only differences of a significative nature, arising from different semantic interpretations of the situation being described. As we have seen from the examples given, the dictionary lists individual verb meanings and, in each case, specifies the verb’s syntactic, semantic, and lexical valency. Some difference in valency usually emerges: if syntactic valency is the same, semantic valency differs, or semantic and lexical valency differ; if both syntactic and semantic valency are the same, at least lexical valency differs. Very often, syntactic, semantic, and lexical valency all differ. 5.5. In determining verb valency and thereby clarifying their combinability, the dictionary draws on the descriptions of verb meanings given in the “Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian” (2nd supplementary edition, 1972) and the academic “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language” (vols. 1–15). In some cases, the distinctions between meanings or their descriptions are adjusted slightly. 6. On the Structure of the Dictionary 6.1. In the dictionary being compiled, verbs are listed in alphabetical order, with their three principal forms: the infinitive, present tense, and past tense. If a verb has only one meaning, or is given only in its most usual meaning, the valency index is marked immediately after the last form, and generally no definition of the meaning is provided. On the next line, the syntactic valency structure is given, alongside it in square brackets the semantic valency structure. The following line indicates the lexical expression of the verb’s dependents, i.e. the membership of words functioning as dependents in certain broadest semantic classes (lexical valency). Illustrative sentences are provided alongside. For example: apkálti, àpkala, àpkalė Nom Acc Instr [A1 P Con] Nom Hum They sheathed the bottom of the ships with thin sheets of lead; Acc —Anim The craftsmen sheathed the cottage with boards Instr —Anim After the principal forms of a polysemous verb, its individual meanings are listed in sequence, with the valency specified for each. The verb is given in the infinitive, followed by its valency index and a definition of its meaning. Then, as after the forms of a monosemous verb, the syntactic and semantic valency structures are given, and the lexical expression of the verb’s dependents is specified. For example: atkasti, àtkasa, àtkasė 1. to dig up2 to dig out, to scratch out; to clean by digging 69 Nom Acc [A₁ P] Nom +Anim The dog dug up a bone; The children dug up a large earthworm; the guard Acc ±Anim dug up a path 2. to dig up to remove by digging (earth, sand, snow) Nom Acc fromGen [A₁ P Ab] Nom Hum The guard dug the snow off the path Acc −Anim fromGen −Anim Optional satellites in syntactic valency structures are given in parentheses. In the example sections, optionality is illustrated by sentences with and without optional satellites, or optional satellites are written in parentheses within them. The symbols denoting semantic functions in semantic valency structures are presented in the same order as the forms of valency satellites corresponding to those functions in syntactic valency structures. 6.2. In the dictionary, non-prefixed verbs and those prefixed verbs that differ from their corresponding non-prefixed forms not only in aspect but also in lexical meaning are listed alphabetically (e.g., to drive, to arrive, to depart, to drive across, to converge; to hammer, to cover with slander, to unseal by hammering, to seal by hammering, etc.). Prefixed verbs that differ from their non-prefixed forms only in aspect are listed together with them (e.g., to make alongside to do, to mess up alongside to mix, etc.). Prefixes are indicated in parentheses next to the individual senses, following the infinitive form, because a verb used with different meanings is very often aspectually related to different prefixed verbs, or some of its meanings have no perfective counterparts at all. For example: to sting, stings, stung 1. to sting (in-)₂ to inject a stinger, to bite Nom (Acc/Dat/inAcc) [A₁ P] Nom +Anim Mosquitoes sting Mare; a bee stung the horse; a hornet stung me Acc +Anim in the leg; Mosquitoes sting badly before rain Dat +Anim įAcc −Anim 2. gelti₁ to be capable of, to have the habit of stinging Nom [P] Nom +Anim Bees, mosquitoes, and snakes sting 3. gelti (su-)₁ to hurt, ache Nom/Acc/AdvLoc [P] Nom −Anim All my bones (all the bones) ache; she was seized by a pain after Acc −Anim chest (in the abdomen) AdvLoc Prefixes are indicated alongside sense definitions if two or more senses are presented together that are associated with different perfective prefix counterparts, e.g.: 70 braukti a) (nu-) to strip bare; b) (iš-) to clean (a chimney); c) (į-, už-) to light (a match) Nom Acc [A₁ P] Nom Hum a) The child strips (strips off) twigs and gives them to his grandfather; Acc —Anim b) He cleans chimneys well; c) Strike (strike on, cross out) a match, make some light Prefixes that apply to all meanings, or to a verb listed with only one meaning, are indicated after the last of the verb’s principal forms, i.e. the past simple form, e.g.: increase, ~s, ~d (pa-)₁ multiply, ~s, ~d (pa-) 1. dauginti to make more, to increase 2. dauginti to perform multiplication 6.3. Reflexive verbs that are used interchangeably, without a difference in meaning, alongside their corresponding non-reflexive verbs are listed together with them in the dictionary, e.g.: remember, remembers, remembered₂; remember, remembers, remembered₂ fear, fears, feared 1. bijoti(s) (pa(si-))₂ to feel, to experience fear of someone or something 2. bijoti(s) (pa(si-))₂ to be afraid, to worry about something 3. bijoti(s) (pa-)₂ to be unable to bear, to endure Reflexive verbs that differ from their corresponding non-reflexive verbs only in the direct or indirect meaning of reflexivity—that is, they indicate that the action is directed at the agent itself or performed for its benefit (cf.: The mother is bathing the child — The mother is bathing; She picked a flower (for me) — She picked herself a flower)—are generally not listed in the dictionary. This distinction from non-reflexive verbs is regular and therefore irrelevant to the description of valency. 6.4. The dictionary is intended to include approximately 2,000 verbs. The aim is to select those whose use is more varied and complex, while also taking into account variation in usage, errors made, and so on. The predicate of the illustrative sentences is the finite form of the verb being described or its infinitive (less often, the active past simple participle) together with the finite form of an aspectual or modal verb (works, began to work, stopped working, can work). The view adopted is that an aspectual or modal verb merely modifies the meaning of the action denoted by the infinitive; therefore, the infinitive is not its valency companion but, together with the finite verb form, constitutes the verbal center of the sentence. 7. Concluding remarks 7.1. The aim of the forthcoming “Dictionary of Lithuanian Verb Combinability” is to provide basic information about how verbs are used with other words and constructions. In this respect it differs both from the “Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian” and from the academic “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language,” which seek to elucidate verb meaning as fully as possible, while their combinability 71 is explained to a greater or lesser extent only by the examples provided. The academic dictionary indicates whether verbs are transitive or intransitive, but this is not always enough to use a given verb correctly and form impeccable sentences with it. 7.2. Verb combinability in the dictionary in question is described on the basis of valency. Each verb entry presents three valency structures: syntactic, semantic, and lexical. These show what forms and meanings the words that serve as the verb’s valency companions have, and which together with it form the core of a verbal sentence; which of those companions are obligatory in the sentence and which are optional; and what their semantic functions are. 7.3. Most of the verbs included have multiple meanings. The dictionary lists the principal meanings of verbs that are most commonly used in the standard language and indicates how they relate to all three levels of valency (syntactic, semantic, and lexical valency). Differences in meaning may be associated with all three types of valency or with only one or two of them. Prepared according to the principles outlined above, the “Dictionary of Lithuanian Verb Combinability” should reveal the diversity and norms of verb usage in Lithuanian. LITERATŪRA 1. E r b e n J. Deutsche Grammatik. Frankfurt am Main, 1968. 2. H e l b i g G. (Hrsg.). Beiträge zur Valenztheorie. Halle (Saale), 1971. 3. H e l b i g G. Zur semantischen Charakteristik der Argumente des Prädikats. — In: Probleme der Bedeutung und Kombinierbarkeit im Deutschen. Leipzig, 1977, S. 40—92. 4. H e l b i g G. Zum Status der Valenz und der semantischen Kasus. — Deutsch als Fremdsprache. H. 2, 1979, S. 65—78. 5. H e l b i g G., S c h e n k e l W. Wörterbuch zur Valenz und Distribution deutscher Verben. Leipzig, 1975. 6. S l i ž i e n ė N. Veiksmažodžių valentingumo klausimu. — Kn.: Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai, T. 18, 1978, p. 107—123. 7. S l i ž i e n ė N. Subjektyvimo ir objektinimo vaidmuo nustatant lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių sintaksinį valentingumą. — Lietuvos TSR mokslų akademijos darbai. A serija, T. 1(70), 1980, p. 93—105. 8. S l i ž i e n ė N. Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių valentingumas ir sintaksinė klasifikacija. — Kn.: Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai. T. 25, 1986, p. 45—96. 9. S l i ž i e n ė N. Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių reikšmė ir valentingumas. — Baltistica. III (2) priedas, 1989, p. 414—420. 10. S l i ž i e n ė N. Rašomas veiksmažodžių junglumo žodynas. — Kalbos kultūra. Nr. 59, Vilnius, 1990, p. 73—77. 11. S t a r o s t a S. The One Per Cent Solution. — In: Abraham W. (ed.). Valence, Semantic Case and Grammatical Relations. Amsterdam, 1978, p. 459—575. 12. V i e h w e g e r D. u. a. Probleme der semantischen Analyse, als: Studia Gramatica XV. Berlin, 1977. 13. С л и ж е н е Н.К. К вопросу о переменной валентности глаголов литовского языка. Кн.: Baltu valodas senāk un tagad. Rīgā, 1985, c. 167—174. 14. Х р а к о в с к и й В.С. Пассивные конструкции. — В кн.: Типология пассивных конструкций. Диатезы и залоги. Ленинград, 1974, с. 5—45. 72 LITHUANIAN VERB VALENCE AND PRINCIPLES OF ITS DESCRIPTION Summary The present article deals with principles and methods of investigating verb valence and its description in a Dictionary of Lithuanian Verb Valence the first volume of which has already been finished and at present is in print, the second one is still in preparation. The aim of this dictionary is to present general information about the use of Lithuanian verbs with other words and constructions. This information is necessary to ensure the grammatically and syntactically correct use of the particular verb in the sentence. Verbs ability to take words and constructions in this dictionary is described on the ground of their valence. Syntactic, semantic and lexic valence structures are given. They indicate the right grammatical form and the semantic meaning of the words to be taken as certain complements by the particular verb, distinction between obligatory and optional complements is also made and their semantic functions are defined. All the three valence structures are furnished with examples. The majority of the verbs presented are polysemantic. The dictionary reveals links between the meanings of verbs and differences in syntactic, semantic and lexic valence. The dictionary is assumed to include about 2000 verbs. 73