Būdvardžių abstraktų semantika

LIETUVIŲ LEKSIKOS IR TERMINOLOGIJOS PROBLEMOS LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXIX (1991) RITA ŠEPETYTĖ THE SEMANTICS OF ADJECTIVAL ABSTRACT NOUNS 0.1. A detailed analysis of the semantics and usage of adjectival abstract nouns is not the aim of this paper—that would require a monograph. Abstract nouns derived from nouns and verbs constitute a complex area of linguistic semantics, in which elements of lexical, derivational, and syntactic semantics are intertwined. It has so far been little researched, since the most popular current methods for studying lexical semantics are better suited to the analysis of concrete vocabulary than to the “intangible” semantics of abstract nouns. Researchers in syntactic semantics more often direct their attention to verbal abstracts. In word-formation studies, adjectival abstracts, as derivatives, are analyzed or at least discussed, usually with the indication that they have a transpositional derivational meaning, i.e., they are not very “interesting” from the perspective of derivatology (“If word formation is understood primarily as nomination, the giving of a name to a certain (new) content, then the role of transposition in word formation can only be considered secondary, since it gives existing content, which already has a name in the language, a grammatically different expression” (Urbutis, 1978, 167). However, although abstract nouns are not, compared with other lexical groups, equivalent units of nomination, studying their semantics is essential, if only because their presentation in explanatory dictionaries is one of the most complex lexicographic tasks. 0.2. The abundance of adjectival abstract noun formation types in Lithuanian seems to contradict the principle of linguistic economy. The “Grammar of the Lithuanian Language” lists several adjectival abstract noun formation types, admittedly with varying degrees of productivity: with the suffixes -umas, -ybė, -ystė, -enybė, -uma, -ovė, -ulys, -atvė, -atis, -yba, -astis, and the endings -is, -a, -as (LKG, 306—312, 315—316). The illustrative material in the “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language” (LKŽ) shows that some of these forms are heterochronic and heterotopic, i.e., characteristic of different periods in the development of the language and of different dialects. The “Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian” (DŽ) also contains many adjectival abstract nouns. For example, aklybė and aklumas are listed under the adjective aklas without definitions (this is discussed in the dictionary’s “Introduction,” p. XII); aklatis is defined: “1. blindness, inability to see 2. fig. spiritual blindness, darkness” (without an illustration); aklystė “1. the condition of a blind person: The greatest misfortune is b. 2. fig. spiritual blindness”; tamsybė, tamsumas are listed under the adjective tamsus, while tamsenybė means “darkness, gloom,” and tamsis means “darkness, gloom”—listed separately and defined using words that themselves are not defined (the metatony characteristic of abstracts with the ending -is is not a particularly strong argument for listing them as separate dictionary entries, especially since their definitions essentially repeat those of abstracts with the suffixes -umas or -ybė). 128 0.3. The aim of this paper would be as follows: first, to analyze the semantic differences between the most common types of adjectival abstract noun formation (with the suffixes -umas, -ybė and the ending -is), which are mentioned in the “Grammar of the Lithuanian Language” (LKG, 306, 308, 316) and P. Skardžius’s “Word Formation in the Lithuanian Language” (Skardžius, 1943, 65, 97—98); second, to examine the relationship between the type of abstract noun and the semantics of the base adjective. More than 200 primary adjectives belonging to various semantic groups, along with their corresponding abstracts, were selected from LKŽ. The dictionary may, of course, fail to record all adjectival abstract nouns, but recording is precisely an argument for a word’s actual existence. 1.0. Abstract nouns with the suffix -umas are formed from all primary (and not only primary) adjectives, even from those that are not ordinarily gradable, e.g., pėsčias — pėstumas, raitas — raitumas, basas — basumas, and so on. Abstract nouns of the other two formation types (with the suffix -ybė and the ending -is) are not formed (or at least are not recorded in LKŽ) from every primary adjective without exception. Adjectives gaivus, gulščias, basas, bukas, dryžas, dubus, griežtas, keršas, kraupus, liaunas, pėsčias, rainas, palšas, sartas and others do not have abstracts with the suffix -ybė; abstracts with the ending -is are not recorded alongside the adjectives silpnas, senas, smagus, šaunus, šlapias, ramus, prastas, ėdrus, gležnas, klaikus, laisvas, aklas, aštrus, luošas, garsus, smalsus, markus, gobšus, gudrus, naujas, paikas, linksmas and others. Is this situation due to the needs of nomination, or is it determined by semantic or some other characteristics of the base word? As the examples show, the base adjectives belong to very diverse semantic groups. Apparently, setting heterochrony and heterotopy aside, the formation of adjectival abstract nouns with the suffixes -ybė, -umas and the ending -is should be regarded as regular word-formation types, especially since this is essentially reflected in the “Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian” as well. However, despite belonging to the same category of abstracts, the resulting derivatives differ in their nominative potential and degree of lexicalization. This differentiation is connected with the word-formation type and the semantics of the base adjective. On the other hand, the tendency toward unification and integration, generally characteristic of the development of the literary (standard) language, also has a major influence. 2.0. Abstract nouns with the ending -is are formed only from primary adjectives (an additional feature of this formation type is a lengthened stem vowel and metatony). Derivatives of this abstract-noun formation type tend toward lexicalization and are quite nominative. This is especially clear at present, as scientific terminology expands and is systematized. “It was agreed that the first (longer) terms (with the suffix -umas. — R. Š.) should be used to name general concepts (properties), and the second (with the endings -is, -a. — R. Š.) to express a particular measurable quantity or dimension of concepts, e.g., height 12 meters, capacity 10 liters” (Brazdžiūnas, 1977, 5). It is admitted, however, that “this system has still not been fully implemented” (Ibid.). Linguists also doubt that this can be done (Kruopas, Kaulakienė, 1971, 11). Be that as it may, the aim in scientific terminology of naming parameters with abstracts ending in -is is well founded. One could cite as evidence the fact that, of the abstract nouns formed from adjectives making up antonymic pairs, only one has nominative force, while the other generally remains within the realm of pure abstracts. I have in mind pairs of abstracts such as storis — plonis, plotis — siauris, sunkis — lengvis, tankis — retis, dydis — mažis, greitis — lėtis, 9. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 29 t. 129 length — *shortness. This property of abstract nouns ending in -is is partly reflected in the definitions in the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language. For example, sunkis 3. physics “a quantity describing the force of gravity exerted by the Earth or another celestial body” and lengvis “lightness”; greitis 2. “the degree or quantity of speed of movement” and lėtis “slowness”; storis 1. “the distance between the two surfaces that define an object’s width,” storis 2. “circumference, bulk” and plonis 1. “thinness,” plonis 2 “slenderness,” plotis 1. “the length of the diameter” and siauris “narrowness”; ilgis 1. “the dimension of an object between its two most distant points” (DŽ) and *trumpis: aukštis 1. “rising from bottom to top” (the examples given in LKŽ under this meaning illustrate both a pure abstract: Kas per aukštis to medžio! Vvr, and one expressing the measure of a property: Kiek aukščio turi trikampis? Z. Žem.) and *žemis. Abstract nouns ending in -is, derived from adjectives that are not characterized by marked antonymy, do not exhibit such clear polarization. 2.1. A few abstract nouns ending in -is have a considerably lexicalized meaning, e.g.: karštis (karštis 1. “heat, warmth,” karštis 2. “elevated body temperature (during illness); warmth”); šaltis (šaltis 1. “cold, low-temperature weather (a state of atmospheric conditions)”); lygis (lygis 1. “height of elevation,” lygis 2. “degree of quality, size, development”); skystis (skystis 1. “liquid substance,” skystis 2. “fluidity”), pyktis “hostile attitude resulting from an injustice suffered; anger, irritation, wrath” (DŽ), etc. 2.2. Most other abstract nouns ending in -is are defined using abstracts with the suffix -umas, e.g.: baltis “whiteness,” pygis “cheapness,” pilkis “grayness,” etc.; and, judging from the illustrative material in LKŽ, they are often used synonymously, e.g.: Kokio dailaus margumo karvikė Skr and Abu veršiukai vieno margio Gs or Kas veido do baltis, kas lūpų raudonis Kltn and Netur jokio raudonumo, geltonas į geltonas Pvn. However, one cannot fail to notice (or at least sense) a certain difference. Abstract nouns ending in -is are better suited to expressing a property’s parameter than abstract nouns with the suffix -umas. This is especially evident in the case of the abstract noun skonis. This abstract is no longer synonymous with skanumas. Saldūs, kartis, rūgštis, sūris would probably denote variants of taste. Similarly, geltonis, raudonis, baltis, juodis, etc. would denote variants of color. For example, the phrase pipirų kartis means “the taste (bitter) that pepper has,” whereas the phrase pipirų kartumas already means a modulation of that taste, and seems to call for elaboration or an explanation of what that bitterness is like (unusual, awful, well, and … and so on). Pienių geltonis means the color generally characteristic of dandelions, whereas pienių geltonumas means (or at least can mean) a variant of this color, etc. These hypothetical observations could be summarized as follows: abstract nouns ending in -is are often semantic invariants with respect to abstracts with the suffix -umas (cf. also grožis — gražumas, gėris — gerumas). Therefore, in terminology, abstract nouns ending in -is (or other forms), but not abstract nouns with the suffix -umas, should be used to name a parameter of some property (as a semantic invariant). 3.0. Abstract nouns with the suffix -ybė are semantically more transparent. They have features that distinguish them fairly well from other abstract nouns. “The most characteristic difference is that derivatives with the suffix -ybė are especially favored when the property being denoted needs to be emphasized or intensified—in other words, when a very pronounced, strongly manifested property is being discussed” (LKG, 308), “… sometimes derivatives with the suffix -ybė 130 denote not so much an abstracted property as the very object that possesses the property...” (LKG, 308). The meaning of intensity is partly reflected in the definitions in LKŽ (smailybė 1. “great pointedness”; statybė “great steepness”; plokštybė “very great flatness”; šlapybė “great wetness”); lexicalized meanings are recorded in the entry of many an abstract noun, e.g.: retybė 2. “a rare object, rarity”; rūgštybė 2. “a very sour food or drink”; šlykštybė 1. “a disgusting, repulsive object or thing”; sunkybė 2. “a heavy object, burden”; bjaurybė 1. “an ugly, disgusting object”; baisybe 3. “a terrible thing,” baisybe 4. “a scarecrow, ghost”; smailybė 2. “a pointed object,” etc. However, by no means does every abstract noun with the suffix -ybė have lexicalized meanings, nor do all have a meaning of intensity. This seems to be related to the semantics of the base adjective. The lexicalized meaning “a place characterized by a property” is found in abstract nouns derived from the adjectives aukštas, artus, platus, ankštas, tolus, gilus, as well as šlapias, sausas, slidus, that is, from adjectives that themselves can be grouped under the seme vieta ‘place’. It should be noted that the meaning of place is most often reflected in the plural form of abstract nouns, e.g., Mes... žiūrime... į mėlynąsias jūros plat ybes J. Balč, Tauta turi visokių pasakų apie aukštybių dvasias rš. These abstract nouns are synonymous with formations using the suffix -uma. Abstract nouns derived from adjectives denoting taste (kartus, rūgštus, etc.), as well as from the adjectives smailas, lengvas, sunkus, bjaurus, gražus, šlykštus, baisus, retas, have the meaning “an object characterized by the property”; this meaning is recorded in the entries for the corresponding abstract nouns with the suffix -ybė; apparently, other abstract nouns with this suffix could potentially acquire this meaning too. By the way, it would be more precise to define it as “an object characterized by the intensity of a property.” 3.1. A large group of abstract nouns with the suffix -ybė are synonymous with abstract nouns with the suffix -ystė, which are characterized, in P. Skardžius’s words, by the meaning of “a state of having a property.” These are abstract nouns derived from adjectives denoting a person’s external or internal qualities: drąsybė, dosnybė, gudrybė, gobšybė, girtybė (girtybė 2. “a habit or inclination to drink intoxicating beverages; drunkenness”), raišybė, puikybė, luošybė, kurtybė, etc. They name the possession (being) of a property. It should be noted that abstract nouns with the suffix -ybė are often used to name a property. They lose their transpositional meaning and pass, one might say, into the category of concrete nouns, that is, they inflect for number, e.g.: Jis turi daug silpnybių, trys dorybės, keletas šnektų bendrybių, etc. Abstract nouns with the suffix -ybė are, essentially, the most “noun-like” among the abstract nouns formed by the types of derivation discussed here. 4.0. The most “abstract, transpositional, syntactic” are abstract nouns with the suffix -umas. This property of theirs is also reflected in dictionaries: they are not defined, but merely linked to their base adjectives (in DŽ by being listed under the entry for the corresponding adjective, in LKŽ under a separate entry, but without defining their meanings and only referring to the meaning of the base adjective). On the one hand, this makes lexicographers’ work easier; on the other, it does not reveal the semantic properties of abstract nouns. For instance, the transpositional derivational meaning limits an abstract noun’s nominative capacity, but, like every noun, it does have such capacity. Therefore, one should at least try to distinguish the purely transpositional, syntactic use (and meaning) of abstract nouns with the suffix -umas from their nominative use (naming a property). For example, the abstract noun margumas is described in LKŽ as follows: margumas → margas: 1. Nuo gėlių margumo net akys raibo rš. Spalvų margumas rėžė akį rš. Višta vanago 9* 131 of variegation Šts. What variegation the little cow has! Sk. In the first two illustrative sentences, there is clear transposition: the abstracts function here as a sentence-forming device; in the last two, the abstract serves to designate a property. Transposition (nominalization of a predicative phrase) often entails ambiguity; for example, the sentence I don't like his cleverness can be interpreted in two ways: I don't like the fact that he is clever and I don't like how clever he is. 4.1. It would, of course, be necessary to investigate in detail which syntactic structures abstracts with the suffix -umas nominalize (transpose) when based on adjectives. However, this is not the aim of this short paper. We shall discuss a couple. First, the content of the predicative phrase “X is very Y” (X is a subject expressed by a noun, Y a property expressed by an adjective) is transposed into a subject phrase (the corresponding adjective abstract and the genitive of the noun), e.g.: The ugliness of that dog—it won’t even let anyone into the yard Rm, The dullness of an awl—it can’t pierce even a rotten hide! Ér. What can you do about your blindness—you’re standing right in front of it and still can’t see Gs, and so on. This kind of transposition is very widespread in colloquial folk speech because, when negative properties are being discussed, it also serves a euphemistic function: that is, the utterance What foolishness of yours! is not as insulting as You are very foolish. Second, the content of sentences of the type “X is Y, but Z” (X is the subject; Y and Z are properties attributed to it) is very widely transposed through a structure in which property Y is expressed twice—by the genitive of the corresponding abstract and by the adjective in the nominative—while the specification of property Z in the surface structure is optional. The following use of abstracts is meant: As for decency, she is decent, but uncomprehending Pn, As for pleasantness, this is a pleasant place Skr, As for age, he is not very old, just no longer strong Rm, etc. In these examples, adjective abstracts serve an emphatic function. 4.2. The lexicalization of abstracts with the suffix -umas is, incidentally, less extensive than that of abstracts with the suffix -ybė, and is likewise related to the semantics of the base adjectives. For example, abstracts formed from adjectives denoting taste mean “a food having (some kind of) taste”: skanumas 4. “tasty food, delicacy,” rūgštumas 3. “sour food, sour dish,” saldumas 2. “sweet thing, sweets,” and so on; abstracts formed from adjectives sharing the “space” seme can acquire a locative meaning, e.g.: smailumas 3. “see smailuma 2”: On that hill, on that very peak, there is a hole Skr, statumas 2. “a steep place,” lygumas 4. “see lyguma 1,” and so on. Most abstracts can acquire the meaning “an object (thing) possessing the property,” e.g., kvailumas 2. “something incompatible with reason,” piktumas 3. “evil, wickedness,” bjaurumas 2. || She eats all sorts of nasty things, just so she’ll get better faster Ds, and so on. Lexicalized abstracts are often used in the plural (the plurals of some abstracts are listed in LKŽ as separate words, e.g., skystumai, riebumai). The *Grammar of the Lithuanian Language* states that “abstracts with the suffix -umas tend to acquire a somewhat more concrete meaning when their plural forms are used” (LKG, 306). In fact, the opposite is true: only once they have acquired a more concrete meaning do they acquire a feature characteristic of concrete nouns—number inflection. The use of the plural itself may not indicate concreteness of meaning, but may instead be a stylistic device, e.g.: Oh, the prettiness, the newness of your little scarf! And such daintiness—they barely managed to nibble that little piece of meat! Those are whites—an umpire would carry them off on its tail! Sl. 132 5.0. Comparing the semantic differences among the abstracts discussed, it becomes clear that, in terms of nominative capacity, abstracts with the suffix -umas and the ending -is are closer to one another. In terms of the nature of lexicalization, abstracts with the suffix -umas are closer to those with the suffix -ybė. In some positions, all these types of abstracts can be used synonymously. However, the following tendency should also be noted: abstracts with the ending -is designate parameter properties; abstracts with the suffix -ybė designate the presence of a property; and abstracts with the suffix -umas, in addition to designating a property, function as a means of syntactic transposition. Owing to the influence of various asystemic factors (e.g., euphony), this systemic tendency is not always clearly discernible. ABBREVIATIONS DŽ – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. V., 1972. LKG – Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. V., 1965. T. 1. LKŽ – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas. V., 1956–1986. T. 1–14. LITERATŪRA Brazdžiūnas P. Fizinės lietuviškosios terminijos kūrimas // Kalbos kultūra. V., 1977. Sąs. 44. P. 4–8. Kruopas J., Kaulakienė A. Dėl būdvardžių abstraktų su priesaga -umas ir galūnėmis -is, -a diferencijavimo terminijoje // Kalbos kultūra. V., 1971. Sąs. 21. P. 8–11. Skardžius P. Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba. V., 1943. Urbutis V. Žodžių darybos teorija. V., 1978. Р. ШЯПЯТИТЕ СЕМАНТИКА ДЕАДЪЕКТИВНЫХ АБСТРАКТОВ Резюме 1. На материале многотомного „Словаря литовского языка“ и „Словаря современного литовского языка“ рассматриваются различия в семантике словообразовательных типов деадъективных абстрактов с суффиксами -umas, -ybė и окончанием -is. Практически не имея деривационных ограничений со стороны мотивирующего слова (прилагательного), абстракты, принадлежащие к определенным словообразовательным типам, различаются своим значением, а также степенью лексикализации и номинативной потенцией. 2. Несмотря на определенную гетерогенность абстрактов вышеуказанных типов, а также взаимопроницаемость их семантики, из взаимозаменяемости в некоторых контекстах, прослеживается тенденция использовать в языке абстракты с окончанием -is для именования параметрических качеств предмета, абстракты с суффиксом -ybė для именования качества, свойства как такового, отвлеченного от его носителей, а абстракты с суффиксом -umas, как наименее лексикализованные, — в качестве средства текстообразования и синтаксического варьирования.