LIETUVIŲ LEKSIKOS IR TERMINOLOGIJOS PROBLEMOS

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXIX (1991)

ADĖLĖ VALECKIENĖ

A FEW QUESTIONS OF PRONOUN SEMANTICS

001. When writing new Lithuanian grammars or compiling dictionaries, pronouns pose many problems, including the establishment of their inventory and the treatment of certain pronoun forms.

Recently, pronouns have attracted greater interest in Lithuanian linguistics. V. Žulys (1969, 167—177; 1974, 83—92) has proposed significant recommendations for the treatment of certain pronoun forms. Recently, an article by the prominent Russian linguists, researchers of Lithuanian, and friends T. Bulygina and J. Stepanov (Булыгина, Степанов, 1988, 17—33), raising problematic questions concerning Lithuanian pronouns, appeared in the journal “Вопросы языкознания”. A. Rosinas (1984) has published a study on pronoun semantics (for a review, see Tekorienė, 1987, 86—92). The problems raised in these works prompt further reflection and consideration of various questions related to pronoun semantics.

Pronouns form a small, one might say closed, class of words. Their core consists of old words characteristic of many Indo-European languages. Therefore, the class of pronouns has a considerable number of universal features. On the other hand, each language has specific features relating both to pronoun semantics and to their formal expression. In Lithuanian, many uncertainties arise from the semantic boundary between pronouns and other word classes, especially adjectives. Certain words, by virtue of their meaning and use, are close to both pronouns and adjectives. However, pronouns have discrete forms, and even in transitional cases, a classificatory decision—pronoun or adjective—should be made, if only for practical purposes.

Determining the categories of gender, number, and case for certain Lithuanian pronouns poses considerable difficulty. Sometimes it is unclear whether one is dealing with two or more gender, number, or case forms of the same lexeme, or with two or more separate lexemes.

When addressing questions related to pronoun semantics in one way or another, the criterion of expediency should not be forgotten: a particular theoretical decision should not burden or complicate the description of grammatical structure, but should make it easier.

002. Pronouns can be distinguished from other word classes on the basis of three criteria: the semantics of words, distribution, and morphological properties. The main semantic feature of pronouns as a word class is their referential meaning. As R. Jakobson (1971, 132) points out, pronouns are distinguished from other elements of the linguistic code by their obligatory reference to a particular message. Moreover, unlike nouns, the meaning of pronouns is very general and indefinite. In their distribution, pronouns likewise

134

also differs from nouns. Unlike nouns, they do not take modifiers; for example, one says: a tall man, but the expression *a tall I is not possible. Unlike adjectives, pronouns cannot take adverbs; for example, one says: very beautiful, but one cannot say: *very such. The distributional properties of pronouns also affect their semantics. The morphological properties of gendered pronouns coincide in many respects with those of adjectives, since adjectives have adopted their declension from gendered pronouns; however, in individual cases the morphological criterion can also help establish the boundaries between word classes, especially when the semantic criterion is of little help.

He, she

003. This pronoun differs from the others in that it is used substantivally, that is, it usually occupies the subject or object position, but has distinct masculine and feminine forms, like adjectival pronouns. In this respect the pronoun he, she corresponds to nouns of the “substantiva mobilia” type (teacher (masculine), teacher (feminine)). The masculine and feminine forms of nouns of this type are distinct lexemes, since the gender of nouns determines their lexical autonomy. For this reason, in recent years the gender forms of the pronoun he, she have also come to be regarded as two distinct lexemes, that is, the pronoun he and the pronoun she (see Žulys, 1969, footnote 174; 1974, 91; Rosinas, 1984, 31).

On the other hand, there is no complete correspondence between nouns of the aforementioned type and the pronoun he, she. Nouns of the type teacher (masculine), teacher (feminine) usually denote people, and less often other living beings; they do not denote inanimate things. These nouns agree with other nouns not only syntactically but also semantically, that is, their gender forms are distinguished according to the sex of the person (living being) denoted, for example: The father is a teacher (masculine), the mother is a teacher (feminine). Thus, the gender forms of nouns of this type have different meanings: masculine forms denote male persons (living beings), while feminine forms denote female persons (living beings). For this reason, they must be considered distinct lexemes. The pronoun he, she, by contrast, refers not only to people or other living beings, but very often to inanimate things as well. When referring to inanimate things, agreement between the noun antecedent and the pronoun he, she is purely syntactic, for example: There was a table in the room. It was covered with a tablecloth; There was a chair in the room. It had a backrest. In this case, the pronoun forms he, she have no additional semes. The change in form does not change their meaning. In both cases, they refer only to the thing mentioned above (the anaphoric meaning of the pronoun). The agreement of the forms he, she with noun antecedents is purely grammatical, that is, the choice of pronoun form depends on the grammatical gender of the noun. This allows the pronoun forms he, she to be treated not as separate lexemes, but as different gender forms of the same lexeme, needed in a text to indicate the relation to nouns of the corresponding gender.

Moreover, treating the forms he, she as separate lexemes is complicated by another feature of Lithuanian. It has quite a large number of demonstrative, interrogative-relative, and indefinite pronouns that inflect for gender and are used both adjectivally and substantivally. In noun position, they are used in the same way as the pronoun he, she—

135

—used. Just like the pronoun he, she, demonstratives that (masculine), that (feminine), this (masculine), this (feminine), this (masculine), this (feminine), that (masculine), that (feminine), the same (masculine), the same (feminine), relative pronouns with anaphoric meaning which (masculine), which (feminine), which (masculine), which (feminine), the indefinite pronoun oneself (masculine), oneself (feminine), and others are used in noun position and agree in gender with their antecedents, for example:

Between Vilius and Martynas sits Mrs. Gaidienė, wedged in. She is beautiful and cheerful. She talks to Vilius, while he meanwhile says nothing Simon; After a break of a dozen years (a child was born)—Martynukas. For this one she almost gave her life Simon; And the princess gave him a sword studded with gold coins; they proved very useful to him Balč; He asked his father: “Will you let your daughter go?” He answered: “I will.” He asked his mother: “Will you let her?” She answered again: “I will” Val; She held out half a bushel of potatoes, and those same ones were blown away by the wind Balt; The squint-eyed man dug up an old stump, tossed it with a stone into a sack, while he himself hid under the bridge with the shepherd Cv; There the foolish, angry old woman has no little ones of her own, so she has no eggs to send either Vaižg; And the rye belongs to Plaučiūnas, who beats the scythe Don; As they walked, the two of them found a very thick pine, whose middle was hollow BM.

The following other indefinite or interrogative pronouns, which inflect for gender, are also used in noun position: one (masculine), one (feminine), some one (masculine), some one (feminine), not one (masculine), not one (feminine), other (masculine), other (feminine); one or another (masculine), one or another (feminine); whole (masculine), whole (feminine), certain (masculine), certain (feminine), each (masculine), each (feminine), whichever (masculine), whichever (feminine), some (masculine), some (feminine), any (masculine), any (feminine); whichever (masculine), whichever (feminine); one or another (masculine), one or another (feminine); any (masculine), any (feminine); some (masculine), some (feminine), whichever (masculine), whichever (feminine); any (masculine), any (feminine); whichever (masculine), whichever (feminine); which (masculine), which (feminine), which ones (masculine), which ones (feminine), several (masculine), several (feminine), how many-th (masculine), how many-th (feminine), for example:

Some call that hill Milžinkapis, others Šmeklų Hill Krėv; Each of the women knew the circumstances of her relatives, so one brought swaddling cloths when she came, another a patterned sash Cv; Once seated, everyone began eating honey and each praising the bees Žem; One of the workers said a few words, and the others laughed in agreement Balt; No one could have said that Mykoliukas had ever disagreed with anyone Vaižg; A certain man, having only just stepped over the threshold out of the hut, quickly darted back inside Bil; Ah, how a certain woman among us has dressed herself up so, that even an old woman already bent over with age is squatting Don; Those (birds) all refused, none having seen the (brothers) anywhere, none knowing anything Jabl; There are more linden trees in the village, but not one of them can compare with Galinis’s linden Myk-Put; How many of you will be here tomorrow? Jabl.

If the forms he, she were treated as separate lexemes, then the gender forms of all the pronouns mentioned earlier that occur in noun position would also have to be treated as separate lexemes. This would create considerable inconvenience and make the grammatical description more difficult. For example, instead of one pronoun that (masculine), that (feminine), that (neuter) (tatai), there would be four or even five different pronouns: 1) the adjectival that (masculine), that (feminine), 2) the substantival that (masculine), 3) the substantival that (feminine), 4) the substantival that (neuter) (tatai) and, if we treat variants as separate pronouns (see 015), 5) that ‘that’. Accordingly, the other pronouns would also have to be “split up.” The description would become very unwieldy. Moreover, it would be difficult to distinguish separate cases of usage.

Finally, the pronoun he, she is not in any way specific to Lithuanian. Pronouns of this type are also used substantivally in other languages and have distinct forms for gender—even three gender forms, for example: Russian он, она, оно, German er, sie, es, English he, she, it, and so on. This is a very old feature, which took shape in individual Indo-European languages as a result of agreement with the antecedent, possi-

136

a thing, even before the attributive use of gender forms. In the grammars of the languages mentioned, gender forms of pronouns are generally not treated as separate lexemes. Thus, it is hardly advisable for us either to split such pronouns in grammars or dictionaries into separate lexemes according to gender forms.

I, we; you (singular), you (plural)

004. As is well known, the pronouns I, we; you (singular), you (plural) have formed suppletive paradigms since Proto-Indo-European times, i.e., their individual case forms differ in their roots. Singular forms differ especially from plural forms, as does the nominative from the other cases. In addition to their external structure, the semantic relationships of these forms also differ. There is no equivalent singular/plural relationship between the forms I and we, you (singular) and you (plural). For this reason, there is grounds for treating I and we, you (singular) and you (plural) as different pronouns.

On the other hand, in Lithuanian, as in other Indo-European languages, the forms I and we, you (singular) and you (plural) are not completely distinguished according to the singular/plural relationship. In Lithuanian, the singular/plural opposition between you (singular) and you (plural) is generally maintained. You (plural) is often used to refer to two or more people (sometimes living or even inanimate things—personification) who are being addressed, i.e., you (plural) has a grammatical plural meaning: “you+you+you,” e.g.:

— Laurynas, brother! Sister-in-law! You don’t envy me, you just love me, and I ask you to come to the wedding; — So you’ll lie here, while the pigs dig up the potatoes over there! I’ll show you! — he threatened with his whip (to the shepherd boys) shouted Pliauga Krėv; — You roosters with your hens, and you who are poking around in the manure, run, hurry up, and have some fun at least once more! Don;

The meaning of you (plural) is also close to the plural meaning when the addressee is referred to together with another person or persons, e.g.:

You see, it is immediately clear that we old folks have a hard time with young people. You (“you” and other young people) think differently Vencl.

The same meaning is conveyed by you (plural) in constructions with the preposition with: you with Petras = you (singular) with Petras.

We cannot equal “I+I+I” simply because of the meaning of the pronoun I—“the speaking person”—since several people do not usually speak together, although such a speech situation can sometimes occur, e.g.: We all shouted together: “We agree! That’s right!” and so on. Here we= means “I+I+I.”

The meaning of we is also close to the grammatical plural meaning when it refers to the speaker together with another person or persons whom the speaker represents, i.e., when one person speaks on behalf of several, e.g.:

We are soldiers. Cold wrath froze on our faces S.Nėr; We old-timers all remember the days of tsarism well Vencl.

A similar meaning is conveyed by we in a construction with the preposition with: we with Petras = I with Petras.

Such use of the pronouns under discussion shows that I and we, you (singular) and you (plural) are not fully grammaticalized number-category forms (because of their specific meaning), but it cannot be denied that they also have features of this category. Incomplete grammaticalization of the number category is characteristic of other pronouns as well; see § 008.

137

According to syntactic patterns, aš, tu are singular, while mes, jūs are plural forms: that is, the former are used with singular forms of words that inflect for number, and the latter with plural forms; cf.: aš einu – mes einame; tu eini – jūs einate, aš geras – mes geri, tu geras – jūs geri.

In terms of case endings, the paradigms of aš ir tu are close to those of singular nouns, while the paradigms of mes, jūs are close to those of plural nouns.

Thus, taking meaning and syntactic and morphological features into account, we believe that aš ir mes, tu ir jūs may be regarded as singular and plural forms of the number category, especially since Lithuanian also uses dual forms of these pronouns: mudu, mudvi, judu, judvi. These forms may be regarded as variants of the plural forms mes, jūs (they too are used with plural forms; cf.: mudu einame, judu einate). If aš, mes, tu, jūs, mudu, mudvi, judu, judvi are treated as separate lexemes, all the semantic relations of these forms associated with the number category would be captured.

005. Lithuanian aš, mes; tu, jūs; tamsta, savęs, like nouns of the type akiplėša, kerėpla, have no distinct gender forms, but semantically agree, according to the gender of the person referred to, with forms that inflect for gender, e.g.: Aš, tu, tamsta geras (of a man); Aš, tu, tamsta gera (of a woman); Mes, jūs, tamstos geri (of men); Mes, jūs, tamstos geros (of women); Savęs paties nekenčia (of a man); Savęs pačios nekenčia (of a woman). Cf.: Tas (toks) akiplėša (of a man); Ta (tokia) akiplėša (of a woman). Therefore, it has recently been quite reasonably pointed out that, because of “semantic agreement” with forms that inflect for gender, first- and second-person pronouns could likewise be regarded as dual-gender (homonymous) forms, like nouns of the type akiplėša (see Булы́гина, Степанов, 1988, 23).

But the counterevidence lies within the language itself, due to the uneven development of individual subsystems. Words of the type akiplėša form a relatively small group of nouns in Lithuanian. Their use is restricted and, in part, becoming obsolete. They generally occur only with words that inflect for gender and indicate the gender of the person referred to: Koks tu kerėpla; Didelis nemokša; Tokia akiplėša and so on (see LKG 1976, 401). Therefore, there is reason to regard such nouns as two distinct (homonymous) lexemes, one of each gender (see ГЛЯ, 1985, 84), like “substantiva mobilia” (mokytojas, mokytoja), although the latter have distinct gender forms whereas the former do not. By contrast, the pronouns aš, mes; tu, jūs are used relatively rarely with words that inflect for gender; most often, the gender of the person they refer to is clear from context. That is, these pronouns often lack not only morphological but also syntactic and semantic markers of gender distinction; cf.: Aš rašau. Often, the gender of the people referred to by these pronouns is entirely irrelevant. Thus, treating them as dual-gender would cover only a small part of their usage. In most cases, they are gender-neutral.

In terms of semantic agreement with forms that inflect for gender, the pronouns aš, mes; tu, jūs may also be compared with jis, ji, jie, jos; cf.: aš geras – aš gera, tu geras – tu gera, mes geri – mes geros, jūs geri – jūs geros, jis geras – ji gera, jie geri – jos geros. However, there are also fundamental differences between them. The pronoun jis, ji is a substitute; always occupying a noun position, it replaces antecedent nouns. This is why distinct gender forms developed for these pronouns. They are necessary

138

for agreement with the antecedent noun, and are used not only with words that inflect for gender (jis geras, ji gera), but also with verbs (jis eina, ji eina — according to the antecedent).

Aš, mes; tu, jūs are not substitutes; they have no direct syntactic-level relation with nouns, that is, they have no noun antecedents. Consequently, aš, tu, mes, jūs are often entirely unnecessary in a text, for example when they occur with verbs that mark person: (Aš) einu (the person is marked by the morpheme -u). The category of gender, based on agreement with antecedent nouns, is simply irrelevant to them. Thus, here too, the category of gender is limited in its syntactic interpretation for the pronouns aš, mes; tu, jūs.

On the other hand, the dual forms of these pronouns inflect for gender (cf.: mudu geri, mudvi geros; judu geri, judvi geros).

Thus, the pronouns aš, tu, tamsta, savęs are gender-neutral, but also have some characteristics of gendered pronouns.

Mine, yours, one’s own

006. V. Žulys’s (1969) proposal to combine these forms into the I, you, oneself paradigms, initially received with skepticism, is now increasingly accepted and substantiated. T. Bulygina and J. Stepanov’s (Булыгиna, Степанов, 1988, 20) view should be endorsed that it is expedient to distinguish two genitives in the pronoun paradigms I, you, oneself: I, the non-possessive of me, of you, of oneself, and II, the possessive my, your, one’s own. These forms are distributed according to the principle of complementary distribution (each excludes the other), but are clearly distinguished by their meaning according to whether or not they have a possessive nuance.

Although my, your, one’s own have been incorporated into the paradigms of the I, you, oneself pronouns, it nevertheless cannot be assumed that Lithuanian no longer has possessive pronouns. As the possessive pronouns manas, -a, tavas, -a, savas, -a disappear and become fixed in poetic language (savas, -a is used more often, but its meaning changes), their pronominal forms manasis, -oji, tavasis, -oji, savasis, -oji are becoming increasingly established in neutral utterances. Between manas, -a and manasis, -oji, as well as other corresponding forms, the opposition between simple and pronominal forms has now disappeared. Pronominal forms are becoming established as possessive forms in place of the simple forms (see Valeckienė, 1964, 46–47).

007. To avoid confusing possessive pronouns with possessive genitives, it is expedient to include possessive pronouns, as well as the reflexive pronoun, in the general section on personal pronouns and treat them as subsections of that section. Both reflexive and possessive pronouns indicate relations between persons: the reflexive pronoun indicates the relation of a person, understood in the sentence as the subject of an action or state, to that person’s own self, whereas possessive pronouns indicate the belonging of an object (person) to a person. Possessive pronouns are directly related to possessive genitives: they have the same meaning and, when used in the same position, form optional variants. The possessive forms of the root man- (mano, manas, -a, manasis, -oji, maniškis, -ė) indicate that an object belongs to the speaker; forms of the root tav- (tavo, tavas, -a, tavasis, -oji, taviškis, -ė) indicate that an object belongs to the addressee; and forms of the root sav- (savo, savas, -a, savasis, -oji, saviškis, -ė) are a kind of reflexive-possessive pronouns: they indicate that an object belongs to the person who is the subject of an action or state.

139

By including possessive pronouns among personal pronouns, the genitives of personal pronouns mūsų, jūsų; jo, jos, jų; mudviejų, judviejų, judviejų; tamstos, tamstų; paties, pačios, pačių, which have a dual meaning—non-possessive and possessive—even though their forms do not vary according to these meanings, are also more readily explained within a single subsystem.

Whole, -a; all, -os

008. As is known, the singular and plural forms of this pronoun differ in their shades of lexical meaning. The singular visas, -a has the meaning “wholeness, extent,” that is, it indicates that an object is whole, complete, or wholly encompassed by a certain quality, for example: The whole body ached; I sang the whole song (from beginning to end). The plural visi, -os has a distributive (distributional), collective meaning, that is, it indicates that the number of objects has been exhausted, for example: All people talk like that; I sang all the songs (that I knew) (see Valeckienė, 1984, 74). Some languages have two different pronouns to denote these meanings, for example, German ganz=Lithuanian visas, -a and German alle=Lithuanian visi, -os.

The question arises whether visas, -a, visi, -os should be regarded as two distinct lexemes or as the singular and plural forms of one lexeme, and also whether the singular visas, -a is a pronoun or an adjective.

It should first be said that the meanings of the singular visas, -a and plural visi, -os, while different, are also related to and intertwined with one another; they are not lexically sharply demarcated. With plural nouns, visi, -os has not only a collective meaning but also the meaning “wholeness, extent” (characteristic of the singular forms visas, -a), for example: I served the entire year means “throughout the whole year, to the end” (the “extent” meaning). By contrast, I worked in one place all the years of my life means “for many years, all my life” (the collective meaning). On the other hand, the singular visas, -a, in addition to the meaning “extent, wholeness,” also implies a collective meaning (characteristic of the plural forms visi, -os) when it combines with singular nouns that have an ordered, aggregate—that is, collective—meaning, for example, a whole life – all the years of life. Thus, the differences in meaning between the singular visas, -a and plural visi, -os depend directly on their scope, that is, on the semantics of the nouns.

Furthermore, the semantic relation between visas, -a and visi, -os is complicated by the specificity of pronouns and the category of number. As is known, the category of number—“one/more than one”—developed through the grammaticalization of words with collective and aggregate meanings. Traces of this development have survived to the present day in the Lithuanian pronoun system. For example, the plural of the pronoun kiekvienas, -a is not used, because the grammatical meaning of the plural conflicts with the lexical meaning of this pronoun: “one taken individually from the common whole, all taken separately in sequence to the end.” Constructions characteristic of Lithuanian, such as we each, none of us, children one…another, and others, clearly reveal the stages in the formation of the category of number; there is no number agreement in them because, in such groups, the pronouns each, not one, one…another, and others have a distributive, individualizing meaning. The semantic relation between the forms visas, -a, visi, -os is also connected with the development of the category of number. Both visas, -a and visi, -os retain the referential, generalizing meaning characteristic of pronouns—they indicate

140

sąsają su visuma, tik vienų ir kitų formų apibendrinamoji reikšmė nevienodai santykiauja su gramatine skaičiaus kategorijos reikšme. Visi, -os formų, vartojamų su daiktavardžių daugiskaitos formomis, apibendrinamoji kolektyvinė reikšmė atitinka daugiskaitos gramatinę reikšmę – nurodomi ir kartu apibendrinami daugiau kaip vienas asmenų arba daiktų. O visas, -a formų, vartojamų su daiktavardžių vienaskaitos formomis, apibendrinamoji leksinė reikšmė konfliktuoja su vienaskaitos gramatine reikšme „vienas, -a“. Dėl to gramatikalizacijos procese vn. visas, -a formų apibendrinamoji reikšmė stabarėjo ir neišvengiamai gavo „apimties, ištisumo“ atspalvį, tuo būdu priartėdama prie būdvardžių ištisas, -a, pilnas, -a reikšmių.

The pronoun visas, -a and the adjective ištisas, -a also draw closer in meaning because the latter, in certain contexts (and only in certain contexts), likewise approaches the meaning of a pronoun; cf. ištisi marškiniai “of that cut” and ištisi metai “the whole year.” In the latter case ištisas, -a is very close to the meaning of the pronoun visi, -os. But this does not mean that ištisas, -a in the aforementioned sense is a pronoun, just as visas, -a in the sense “entirety, extent” is an adjective. Synonymy and substitution are not, in this case, sufficient criteria for identifying a word class (cf. Tekorienė, 1987, 88). Borderline phenomena between word classes are often synonymous. On the other hand, synonymy here is rather limited. The following expressions would be unusual: *Ištisas kūnas skaudėjo instead of Visas kūnas skaudėjo, or *Išgėriau ištisą puodelį pieno instead of Išgėriau visą puodelį pieno, and so on.

As the points raised show, the meanings of the forms visas, -a and visi, -os are not so distinct that they must necessarily be considered different lexemes. The semantic relationship between visas, -a, visi, -os represents not the lexical separation of these forms, but rather the fact that their grammaticalization for the category of number is incomplete. The meaning “entirety, extent” of visas, -a retains the referential, generalizing character typical of pronouns and is thus related to the meaning of visi, -os.

In determining the relationship between the forms visas, -a, visi, -os, the morphological criterion must also be taken into account. In terms of external structure, visas, -a constitutes the singular paradigm, while visi, -os constitutes the plural paradigm. The syntactic criterion is also decisive here: visas, -a is used with singular noun forms, while visi, -os is used with plural noun forms. Thus, in our view, from both a theoretical and a practical standpoint, it is appropriate to treat the forms visas, -a and visi, -os (especially in grammatical descriptions and dictionaries) as the singular and plural forms of a single lexeme—the pronoun.

Drawing on the differences in meaning between visas, -a and visi, -os and their synonymy with the adjectives ištisas, -a, pilnas, -a, A. Rosinas (1984, 101–102) distinguishes three separate lexemes: 1) visas, -a—an adjective meaning “extent, entirety”; 2) visas, -a—a pronoun when used with nouns having a collective meaning, e.g., visa grupė; 3) visi, -os—a pronoun with a collective meaning. According to this classification, one should also distinguish 4) visi, -os—an adjective meaning “extent, entirety” when used with plural nouns, e.g., Visas duris nuvaliau, i.e., one set of doors from beginning to end, as in Visą langą nuvaliau. But that is not the point. The point is that A. Rosinas treats the separate meanings of visas, -a, visi, -os as different lexemes. Such a decision would greatly complicate grammatical description. First of all, it would be difficult to determine the boundary between cases where visas, -a is an adjective and those where it is a pronoun, since these distinctions are determined by the semantics of the noun, not the pronoun; cf. Visa klasė “a room” would be an adjective (Visa kla-

141

sė buvo gražiai sutvarkyta), whereas “the whole class” meaning “the students” would be a pronoun (Visa klasė tam pritarė). Complications would also arise concerning the number category of these forms. Both the “pronouns” visas, -a, visi, -os and the “adjective” visas, -a would have to be treated as separate words without a number category, which does not correspond to the actual situation. Thus, given the dynamic development of these pronouns, there is greater reason to follow the path of reducing, rather than differentiating, the forms—that is, to treat visas, -a, visi, -os as a single lexeme, a pronoun, while also highlighting the differences in their lexical meaning and the specific nature of their number category.

Visoks, -ia

009. Like visas, -a, A. Rosinas (1984, 11; 1988, 185–189) considers visoks, -ia an adjective rather than a pronoun. The argument also relies on synonymy: visoks, -ia is said to correspond to the adjective įvairus, -i and to be replaceable by it. In fact, the correspondence is limited. The pronoun visoks, -ia is not an absolute synonym of the adjective įvairus, -i. For example, this pronoun cannot be replaced by the adjective įvairus, -i in expressions of the following type: Ans y(ra) visoks amatininkas: viską mok dirbti Šts. The expression *Ans y(ra) įvairus amatininkas. would be unusual. The meaning of the pronoun visoks, -ia only approaches (and only in certain contexts) that of the adjective įvairus, -i; this does not, however, make the pronoun an adjective. Its meaning remains referential and pronominal even in such cases. It is generalizing and distributive, that is, related to the division of a whole: visoks, -ia means “this kind and that kind, any kind taken together”; cf. Lūžo ten aruodai nuo visokio javo Balt. If in this sentence we replace the pronoun visokio with the adjective įvairaus (javo), we highlight only the diversity of grain varieties—the presence of several kinds—with no relation to the whole; the pronoun visoks, -ia, by contrast, primarily emphasizes the selection of the grain varieties as a whole, that is, it indicates their relation to the whole. Thus the emphases of the meanings differ. The meaning of the pronoun visoks, -ia approaches, but does not coincide with, the meaning of the adjective įvairus, -i.

Neįtikina A. Rosino (1988, 186–188) aiškinimas, kad vn. visoks, -ia formos iš pradžių turėjusios įvardžio reikšmę „kiekvienas, -a“, o vėliau gavusios būdvardžio reikšmę „įvairus, -i“. Iš tikrųjų įvardžiai kiekvienas, -a ir visoks, -ia iš seno turi labai artimas reikšmes. Kartais tam tikrame kontekste šių įvardžių reikšmės susisiekia ir atrodo beveik sinonimiškos, plg.: išliuוסuodama juos… iš visokio reikalo ir smurto DP 566, taip pat galima: išliuոսuodama juos iš kiekvieno reikalo ir smurto. Pasakymų reikšmė beveik ta pati, tik semantinis rezultatas pasiekiamas iš skirtingo taško: visokio reikalo reiškia „ir tokio, ir tokio, bet kokio kartu paėmus“ — akcentuojamas įvairumas; kiekvieno reikalo reiškia „ir to, ir to, bet kurio iš bendros visumos, visų atskirai paėmus“ — akcentuojamas eiliškumas. Senuosiuose raštuose ir kai kuriose tarmėse visoks, -ia truputį plačiau vartojamas, „užgriebia“ įvardžio kiekvienas, -a semantikos, plg.: Visokį žodį užrašyk Zt (Vidugiris, 1960, 122), t. y. „ir tokį, ir tokį, bet kokį kartu paėmus, kiekvieną“.

The fact that the superlative form visokiausias, -ia is used for the pronoun visoks, -ia is likewise not a criterion for classifying it as an adjective. Visokiausias, -ia is used only in contexts where the pronoun visoks, -ia approaches the adjective įvairus, -i in meaning, and thus not without the latter’s influence. The numeral pirmas, -a is also used in degrees

142

forms: first, -ė, earliest, but this numeral does not thereby become an adjective: what determines its classification is its relation to other words of this kind denoting the order of objects—first, -a, second, -a, third, -ia, and so on—even though the latter have no degree forms. The superlative form of the pronoun visoks, -ia, visokiausias, -ia, arises from contextual semantic circumstances, so there is no need to regard it as a separate lexeme as well, as D. Tekorienė proposes (1987, 89).

Visoks, -ia should also be classified as a pronoun because of its derivational properties. The suffix -oks, -ia is characteristic only of pronouns. It is used to derive adjectival pronouns from nominal ones, modifying their meaning accordingly. The relation is consistent: just as toks, -ia – tas, ta; šioks, -ia – šis, ši; šitoks, -ia – šitas, -a; anoks, -ia – anas, -a, and so on, so too visoks, -ia – visas, -a (visi, os). Thus, there is a complete derivational system of pronouns, and visoks, -ia is part of it. The adjectival suffix okas, -a (mažokas, -a) is entirely different in derivational and semantic terms: it denotes a certain degree of a property.

From all this, only one conclusion can be drawn: visoks, -ia should still be regarded not as an adjective, but as a pronoun.

Certain; just the right one; some such

010. On the basis of synonymy, A. Rosinas (1984, 11) regards all these words not as pronouns, as is customary in Lithuanian linguistics, but as adjectives. Tam tikras, -a is said to have the meanings of the adjectives defined, -a, special, -i, particular, -a; šioks toks, šiokia tokia those of the adjectives ‘average’, slight, -a, insignificant, -i; and pats tas, pati ta those of the adjective suitable, -a. The same should be said of these pronouns as of visoks, -ia. They merely approach the meanings of the indicated adjectives but are not identical to them. All these words retain the referential meanings characteristic of pronouns. Tam tikras, -a has a meaning associated with distinction and division. It denotes an object set apart from others, individualized but unknown beforehand and indefinite, and no longer has a semantic connection with the adjective tikras, -a, cf.: For the service I will give a certain percentage Vencl.

011. Šioks toks, šiokia tokia denotes a precisely unspecified, relatively small property of average quality, cf.: As long as the farmhouse can stand, there is always some little benefit Žem. Moreover, it is illogical to classify šis tas as a pronoun but šioks toks, šiokia tokia as an adjective. Their semantics are identical; only šis tas is nominal, whereas šioks toks, šiokia tokia is an adjectival pronoun. Both are indefinite pronouns.

012. Pats tas, pati ta reikšmė susijusi su parodomaisiais įvardžiais. Lietuvių kalboje, be pats tas, pati ta, yra ir tas pats, ta pati – su atvirkščia dėmenų tvarka, nuo kurios priklauso jų semantikos skirtumai. Abu jie sudaryti iš parodomojo įvardžio tas, ta ir pabrėžiamosios reikšmės pats, -i, tik pats, -i eidamas prieš tas, ta suteikia samplaikai vienokią reikšmę, o eidamas po tas, ta – kitokią. Taigi neracionalu vieną laikyti įvardžiu (tas pats, ta pati), o kitą jau būdvardžiu (pats tas, pati ta). Pats tas, pati ta nurodo žinomą daiktą su pabrėžimu: „būtent tas, kokio reikia tam tikroje situacijoje“, pvz.: Vanduo pats tas: nei šiltas, nei šaltas Ktk. Plg. tas pats, ta pati: Šeimininkė ta pati (ta kaip anksčiau, ne kita).

143

Thus, all these pronouns have the generalized meaning characteristic of pronouns and stand in relation to other pronouns close to them. A. Rosinas’s reasons—their meanings’ similarity to certain adjectives—are too weak to classify them as adjectives. Moreover, because of their formation, these pronouns would be foreign elements among adjectives: compound formations are characteristic of pronouns. Therefore, like the compounds mentioned earlier, they should appropriately be regarded as pronouns, not adjectives.

A certain one, -a, some

013. Tūlas, -a is synonymous with the adjective frequent, common, but for that reason it should not be regarded as an adjective either. In certain contexts they can replace one another, though not always, e.g.: Frequent shots can be heard, but not *Certain shots can be heard. Tūlas, -a has a referential meaning characteristic of pronouns, associated with division and generalization of a whole: “many from among a whole, more than one: this one and that one.” The closest equivalent in meaning among pronouns is many, e.g.: A certain person (= many people) thinks that the words of his surroundings are familiar everywhere Balč. Thus, semantically, tūlas, -a is related to pronouns and should be considered a pronoun.

The pronoun tūlas, -a is known from old writings; it was used beautifully by our distinguished linguists K. Būga, J. Jablonskis, and J. Balčikonis, and by literary classics K. Donelaitis, A. Baranauskas, S. Daukantas, J. Biliūnas, V. Kudirka, and others; it is familiar to many Lithuanian dialects, both Aukštaitians and Samogitians. For example:

A certain person laughed at the change that had happened to Skrudžius, but he was not at all afraid of it Jabl; A certain friend of Juozapota’s, of the same age, had children and grandchildren Bil; A certain man, turning around, glanced toward the meadow in the direction of the manor Myk-Put; While I was at my mother’s, a certain person said this: “A beautiful girl” JV; Why doesn’t that person do another job, as certain others do Prk; A certain person does and says things that way Plv; There are apples in a certain place this year Ds.

Nowadays tūlas, -a is rarely used. Gradually it is becoming unfamiliar, acquiring an archaic shade of meaning, and in neutral, unmarked speech it is replaced by other pronouns close to it in meaning. Because of its limited use, A. Rosinas (1984, 11) does not include this pronoun in the list of pronouns. This pronoun should not be abandoned altogether. It is needed in fiction. Every word enriches a language. Synonyms exist precisely because they are not identical. Another matter is that, when the semantics of this pronoun are not properly understood, it is often used incorrectly in place of some, such, whichever and others; cf.: [A certain person named Jonaitis contacted the editorial office (=such, some) Jonaitis tsp (KPP, 1985, 318). It should be used more carefully, without confusing it with other pronouns.

A. Rosinas (1984, 12) ir įvardžio aliai vienas, -a linkęs atsisakyti. Jis esąs tarminis. Su tokiu tvirtinimu sutikti negalima. Įvardis aliai vienas, -a priklauso apibendrinamųjų būriui, bet turi nuo kitų skirtingą reikšmę ir kitais įvardžiais nepakeičiamas. Aliai vienas, -a — tai „visi iki vieno, iki galo išsemtus visumą“. Nuo dg. visi, -os įvardis aliai vienas, -a skiriasi pabrėžtu visumos apibendrinimu. Dažnai šios įvardžių formos vartojamos kartu, kai reikia ką pabrėžtinai nurodyti, pvz.: Visi aliai vienas išvažiavo. Taigi atsisakyti šio įvardžio nereikia. Jis vartotinas.

144

Pronoun pairs and combinations

014. The Academic Grammar (LKG, 1965, 721) separately identifies the so-called reciprocal pronouns (reciproca), which, by virtue of their meaning, correlate with one another, are used in pairs, are contrasted with one another, and have a distributive or separating meaning, e.g.: one... another, one... a second, another... another, one kind... another kind, that... that, that... another, this... that, this kind... such, what... what and others:

The little birds fell silent, some had already stopped chirping, others... flew south Žem; In one place one kind of trouble, elsewhere another Žal; The clothes of this and that (bird) had become very worn Don.

These pronoun pairs clearly arise from the relationship between their meanings. For example, one and another correlate because their reference is opposed: one indicates an object, distinguishing it from others, while another indicates the second, remaining one of two opposed objects or groups of objects. Objects are grouped similarly by using ordinal numerals, except that these enumerate the order of the objects. Thus, pronoun pairs formed on the basis of opposing meanings or enumeration are not separate pronouns. (In the Academic Grammar they are not considered separate lexemes.) Here they are simply specific uses of these pronouns, conditioned by their meaning. Such pronouns are also used outside pairs. Therefore, it is not appropriate to distinguish, alongside the pronouns one, another, a separate pronoun one... another, and so on.

Dar daugiau neprimtina, kai A. Rosinas (1984, 11) ne tik čia išvardytas įvardžių poras, bet ir tokias sustabarėjusias samplaikas kaip: vienas kito, vienas antro, kitas kito, taip pat sujungiamuosius junginius: šis bei tas, šioks ar toks, tas ar kitas, toks ar kitoks, vienas ar kitas, laiko atskirais įvardžiais (įtraukia kaip atskiras leksemas į įvardžių nomenklatūrinį sąrašą). Tokios įvardžių samplaikos bei junginiai susidarė dėl jų pastovios sintaksinės vartosenos. Vartojami daiktavardžių pozicijoje ir atsidūrę greta vienas kito jie stabarėjo, plg.: Jie vienas nekenčia kito → Jie vienas kito nekenčia. Abiem atvejais jų reikšmė nekinta, t. y. išlieka skirtingos dviejų įvardžių (vienas ir kitas) reikšmės pagal nurodomųjų asmenų pasiskirstymą. Būdinga, kad tokios samplaikos jungiamos prie asmeninių įvardžių ar daiktavardžių daugiskaitos formų, ir nėra derinimo tarp jų skaičiumi, pvz.: jie vienas kito (nekenčia); mes vienas kito (nekenčiam), jūs vienas kito (nekenčiat) ir pan. Taigi šie įvardžiai vartojami pastoviose samplaikose, sustabarėję sintaksiškai (subjekto ir objekto linksniai), bet ne semantiškai: naujos reikšmės du greta vartojami įvardžiai neįgyja. Be to, ir nenuoseklu — tik su objekto kilmininku samplaikas (vienas kito ir kt.) laikyti atskirais įvardžiais. O kaip vienas antram (pavydėjo), vienas kitą (mušė), vienas kitu (pasitikėjo)? Tada ir samplaikas su kitais objekto linksniais reikės laikyti atskirais įvardžiais, ir tai aiškiai rodo, kad čia turim reikalo su sintaksiniais junginiais, o ne atskiromis leksemomis. Dar labiau atskira reikšme įvardžių, vartojamų su sujungiamaisiais ar skiriamaisiais jungtukais. Neturi jokios reikšmės tai, kad visa samplaika kartais priartėja prie atskiro įvardžio reikšmės ir galima juo pakeisti, pvz.: Vienas ar kitas Šimonių išliks (= Kai kas Šimonių...). Tai sinonimija, bet ji įvardžių vienas, kitas skirtingų reikšmių nepaneigia. Pasakyti tą

10. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 29 t.

145

The same idea can be expressed in various ways, by any means. In dictionaries, such collocations cannot be presented as separate entries; they should be included under the entries for the relevant pronouns as fossilized syntactic constructions.

Variant forms

015. As certain subsystems develop and regroup, optional variants arise in the language; they have the same meaning and are used in the same position. They reflect ongoing development and differ from one another only in stylistic or formal rhythmic nuances. In the pronoun subsystem, numerous variants are formed by the following forms: visa, visa kas, viskas, visas, visas kas; kits, kita kas, kitkas, kas kita, kitas, kitas kas, kas kitas; tai, tatai, tas, etc. These variants reflect processes of the loss of neuter forms taking place in this subsystem, that is, the replacement of neuter forms by masculine singular forms, the attachment of the pronoun kas as a grammatical marker without a difference in meaning to certain neuter forms, and so on. The variant forms reveal the direction of a given subsystem’s dynamic development. Optional variants do not constitute separate lexemes; that is, they are not different pronouns (cf. Rosinas, 1984, 11). For the sake of compactness, it is appropriate to describe them together in grammars. Only in dictionaries can they be highlighted in separate entries to show their differences in formal expression.

LITERATŪRA

Булытина Т. В., Степанов Ю. С. Теория грамматики и теоретическая грамматика // Вопросы языкознания. 1988. № 3. С. 17—33.

ГЛЯ — Грамматика литовского языка. Вильнюс, 1985.

Jakobson R. Selected Writings: Word and Language. The Hague—Paris, 1971. Vol. 2.

KPP — Kalbos praktikos patarimai. V., 1985.

LKG — Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. V., 1976. T. 3.

Rosinas A. Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos įvardžių semantinė struktūra. V., 1984.

Rosinas A. Dėl žodžio visoks reikšmės ir statuso // Baltistica. 1988. T. 24(2). P. 185—189.

Tekorienė D. rec. Rosinas A. Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos įvardžių semantinė struktūra // Baltistica. 1987. T. 23(1). P. 86—92.

Valeckienė A. Dėl įvardžiuotinių savybinių įvardžių savarankiškumo // Kalbos kultūra. 1964. Sąs. 7. P. 46—47.

Valeckienė A. Anaforiniai įvardžiai — daiktavardžių variantai // Baltistica. 1971. T. 7(2). P. 139—146.

Valeckienė A. Lietuvių kalbos gramatinė sistema. Giminės kategorija. V., 1984.

Vidugiris A. Zietelos tarmės įvardis // Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai. 1960. T. 3. P. 113—131.

Žulys V. Vadinamųjų nekaitomųjų įvardžių vieta lietuvių kalbos gramatinėje sistemoje // Baltistica. 1969. T. 5(2). P. 167—177.

Žulys V. Trečiojo asmens nėra // Kalbotyra. 1974. T. 25 (1). P. 83—92.

146

А. ВАЛЕЦКЕНЕ

НЕСКОЛЬКО ВОПРОСОВ О СЕМАНТИКЕ МЕСТОИМЕНИЙ

Резюме

В статье обсуждаются спорные вопросы о семантике местоимений. Делаются следующие выводы:

1. Двуродовые формы местоимения jis, ji, в отличие от существительных типа darbininkas, -ė, часто указывают на предметы и в таких случаях не имеют разных сем. Согласуясь с антецедентами, они только выполняют референтную функцию, поэтому их можно считать одной лексемой.

2. Местоимения aš, mes; tu, jūs можно считать формами единственного и множественного числа. Местоимения aš, tu, mes, jūs, savęs, tamsta следует считать неродовыми формами. Референция на пол этими местоимениями обычно не выражается или является неактуальной (за исключением в сочетаниях с именами прилагательными или другими словами, изменяющимися по родам).

3. Следует признать рациональным включение форм mano, tavo, savo в парадигмы личных и возвратного местоимений как второй, вступающей в отношения дополнительной дистрибуции с формами родительного manęs, tavęs, savęs. С другой стороны, нельзя отрицать существование притяжательных местоимений в литовском литературном языке типа manasis, -oji, manas, -a, maniškis, -ė, которые целесообразно включить в раздел личных местоимений как его подгруппу.

4. Формы ед. ч. visas, -a и мн. ч. visi, -os, которые различаются между собой оттенками значения, можно считать одной лексемой, так как эти оттенки резко не разграничены и проявляются на базе неполной грамматикализации числа.

5. Слово visoks, -ia считаем местоимением, а не именем прилагательным, ибо по характеру референтного значения оно не отличается от других местоимений своей группы (visas, -a, visi, -os); случаи синонимии с именами прилагательными не могут быть решающим критерием причисления их к имени прилагательному. На основе характера референтного значения и связи с другими местоимениями слова и словосочетания: tūlas, -a, aliȧ vienas, -a, tam tikras, -a; pats tas, pati ta; šioks toks, šiokia tokia, также следует считать местоимениями, а не именами прилагательными.

6. Застывшие словосочетания типа vienas kito нельзя считать одной лексемой, ибо они содержат значения разных местоимений и развились на базе противоположных значений данных местоимений при помощи эллипса и перестановки порядка слов, напр.: Vienas (žmogus) nekenčia kit o (žmogaus) ⇒ Vienas nekenčia kit o ⇒ Vienas kito nekenčia. Не являются отдельными лексемами (местоимениями) словосочетания такого же типа и с другими падежами: vienas kitam (paydi), vienas kitą (myli), vienas kitu (pasitiki), а также словосочетания типа: šis bei tas, šioks ar toks, tas ar kitas и др.

7. Формы местоимений типа: kita, kitkas, kita kas, kas kita, kitas kas, kas kitas, kitas (kito) и др., — следует считать факультативными вариантами, а не отдельными лексемами, ибо они имеют тождественное значение и употребляются в той же позиции.

10*