Įterpiniai ir lietuvių kalbos modalinių žodžių klausimas

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS SANDAROS TYRINĖJIMAI LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXVI (1987) GINTAUTAS AKELAITIS PARENTHETICALS AND THE QUESTION OF MODAL WORDS IN THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE In general works on Lithuanian linguistics (the academic “Grammar of the Lithuanian Language,” textbooks on linguistic disciplines for higher education institutions, etc.), modal words are not distinguished as a phenomenon of the language system. This does not mean that modal words are uncharacteristic of Lithuanian or that their interpretation is an irrelevant matter. Words marked modal. (modal word) can be found in the “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language”1, for example: pagaliau IX 72, rods XI 810, sakyk, sakysim, sakau, sakytum… XII 3422 and so on; the concept of modal words is used in more than one scholarly work on the Lithuanian language3. Following the example of Russian, Lithuanian modal words were specifically discussed by A. Laigonaitė in a work intended for teaching purposes, “The Category of Modality and Modal Words in Contemporary Lithuanian” (V., 1967, pp. 11–16). A. Laigonaitė identifies the following characteristics of modal words: as a word passes from an independent part of speech into the group of modal words, it loses its nominative meaning and acquires a new syntactic function; morphologically, modal words are fossilized and invariable; modal words do not function as sentence constituents, but they can form an incomplete sentence (in dialogue), attach to a sentence constituent and modify its meaning; modal words most often occur as parentheticals, and their additional function is to connect sentences through semantic relations. From A. Laigonaitė’s examples, one can compile a list of words that should be regarded as the principal modal words in Lithuanian: aišku, savaime aišku, aiškus daiktas, aiškūs dalykas, be abejo, be abejojimo, be abejonės, be jokios abejonės, galbūt, turbūt, greičiausiai, galimas daiktas, galimas dalykas, matyt(i),4 1 The abbreviation modal. (modal word) is used in the “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language” beginning with volume X; modal words were also indicated in earlier volumes. 2 After each example, the volume and page of the “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language” are indicated. 3 Lietuvių kalbos gramatika / Vyr. red. K. Ulvydas. — V., 1971, t. 2, p. 425–542; Jakaitienė E., Laigonaitė A., Paulauskienė A. Lietuvių kalbos morfologija. — V., 1976, p. 198; Valeckienė A. Lietuvių kalbos gramatinė sistema/Giminės kategorija. — V., 1984, p. 171. 4 The question of modal words in Lithuanian was, and continues to be, prompted by the sustained interest in this linguistic phenomenon in Soviet linguistics, especially Russian linguistics. As is known, V. Vinogradov’s works greatly intensified this interest: the chapter on modal words and modal particles in the book “Русский язык. Грамматическое учение о слове” (1947), and especially the separate work “О категории модальности и модальных словах в русском языке” (1950). Over the past two or three years, the following two monographs on modal words have been published: Баудер А. Я. Части речи — структурно-семантические классы слов в современном русском языке. — Таллин, 1982; Петров Н. Е. Модальные слова в якутском языке. — Новосибирск, 1984. 77 apparently, it seems, it appears, supposedly, in truth, indeed, certainly, probably, truly, in fact, really, most likely, of course5. What has been said indicates, at least in part, the tendencies in interpreting modal words in Lithuanian. Although, as can be seen, a very wide range of linguistic elements are considered modal words, those that function as parentheticals are nevertheless central (this is acknowledged by many researchers of modal words)6. What is the relationship between parentheticals and modal words, and, most importantly, do the words that express modality when used parenthetically have the status of a distinct morphological phenomenon7? The relationship between modal words and parentheticals—parenthetical words and parenthetical word combinations—is established when parenthetical words and word combinations are understood as names of syntactic elements on the same level as the concepts of sentence constituents8. In this case, modal words are treated as a morphological (morphologized) means of expressing parentheticals. Many very different words that function as parentheticals do not differ from one another at all in their degree of fossilization, for example: matyt, regis and girdit, žiūrėk or aišku, tiesa and gaila, laimė, and so forth. Whether we regard all of them as modal words or only some will depend on how modality is understood. Modality is most often defined as the subjective-objective attitude expressed in language by the speaker toward the relation between the thought being expressed and reality9. Two varieties of modality are distinguished: 1) primary modality and 2) secondary (subsidiary, actual) modality. Words used as parentheticals express secondary modality. Secondary modality is understood in a narrower and a broader sense. If secondary modality is taken to consist only of problematic reliability (doubt, conjecture, uncertainty) and categorical reliability (emphasis on assurance, obviousness, certainty), then secondary modality is understood in the narrower sense; consequently, only regis, rodos(i), 5 Laigonaitė A. Modalumo kategorija ir modaliniai žodžiai dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje. – V., 1967, p. 11–16. 6 Plg. Виноградов В. В. Избранные труды: Исследования по русской грамматике. – М., 1975, с. 75; Баудер А. Я. Указ. соч., с. 100; Баудер А. Я. Семантико-синтаксическая квалификация ядерных модальных слов. – В кн.: Значение языковых единиц и категорий. Таллин, 1984, с. 63; Петров Н. Е. Указ. соч., с. 50. 7 Researchers of modal words emphasize that parenthetical words are a syntactic concept, whereas modal words are a morphological category; cf. Laigonaitė A. Min. veik. p. 16, Баудер А. Я. Указ. соч., с. 63. 8 Understood in this way, the threefold division into parenthetical words, parenthetical word combinations, and parenthetical sentences is in fact dichotomous: parenthetical words and parenthetical word combinations are “parentheticals corresponding to a sentence constituent,” while parenthetical sentences are “parentheticals corresponding to a sentence component” (“Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos”, 1976, vol. 3, pp. 701–710, terminology). The concepts of parenthetical words (individual words and word combinations) and parenthetical sentences, which are distinguished dichotomously, have this same meaning. The concepts of parenthetical words, parenthetical word combinations, and parenthetical sentences may be assigned a structural meaning (see Мустейкиене И. Современный русский язык, II. Синтаксис. – В., 1984, с. 145). This classification of parentheticals is only threefold; parenthetical words, parenthetical word combinations, and parenthetical sentences understood in this way cannot be connected with modal words. 9 Modality is characterized in this or a similar way in Lithuanian linguistics: in the academic “Grammar of the Lithuanian Language” and in the works of linguists J. Balkevičius, V. Labutis, A. Laigonaitė, A. Paulauskienė, and others. 78 Clearly, apparently, of course, and other words with similar meanings may be considered modal. It has also been proposed that modal meanings include the speaker’s emotional attitude toward what is being said, broadly speaking, “statements about the statement,” and various indications that the subject under discussion is being repeated, is customary, and so on. With such a broad understanding of secondary modality, all words functioning as parentheticals may be considered modal10. The broad conception of modality is rightly criticized: the very diverse meanings mentioned above are distinguished on different grounds. With a narrower understanding of secondary modality, it must be explained why words that regularly function as parentheticals but do not express modality do not form some kind of morphological category. One can argue that words such as gala, girdai, laimė, žiūrėk, and the like are not linked by a single generalized meaning. Grammatical distinctions are also sought. Some researchers point out that modal words have two syntactic functions: 1) they function as parentheticals, 2) they function (especially in dialogue) as minor sentences, whereas non-modal words function only as parentheticals11. In fact, words with modal meaning can form separate sentences, cf.: — <…> After all, you yourself were quite conscious at forty-one? <…>/ — Of course. I had no intention of boasting <…> AvyžKK 164. What kind of park is this, if heaps of logs are piled beneath the shade of centuries-old oaks, the grass is trampled, and at night the farm’s residents let their livestock loose? A pasture? Perhaps. Just not a park T 1981 276. Of course. Perhaps and the like can also be regarded only as sentences of a text: although they have the intonation of a one-word sentence, they can function only when “anchored” in a text. Their modal meaning is somewhat faded, secondary: these words primarily express agreement with what has been said, with modal nuances of certainty or doubt. They may follow turns in a dialogue or other phrases whose content they affirm. If the turns or phrases were repeated, the structure would be complete, cf. A pasture? Perhaps a pasture; sometimes this is indeed the case: — Surely no one had come? | — Of course, no one VienR I 27. Here, everywhere, we have not sentences but parentheticals that have additional functions: they stand in for a proposition and have a conjunctive meaning—they link dialogue turns or sentences more generally. In their second additional function, these modal parentheticals come close to other parentheticals whose primary function is conjunctive: conversely, what is more, moreover, on the contrary, and the like. Incidentally, the latter can also function as separate sentences, cf.: Bitumen perlite is now used to insulate pipes; it conducts heat better than mineral wool. What is more. During transportation <…>, storage in warehouses, and placement in trenches, the pipe insulation coating is often damaged T 1981 225. Only conjunctive parenthetical sentences result from weak parceling. Other kinds of parentheticals can also be parceled, cf. <…> passengers must be courteous and helpful <…>to one another everywhere and always. Unfortunately. I often have to travel as a passenger too, and I see all sorts of things T 1985 32. Thus, the ability to function as a sentence of a text is not a separate syntactic function of words expressing modality, and therefore is not a distinguishing feature of modal and non-modal words functioning as parentheticals. 10 Plg. Петров Н. Е. Указ. соч., с. 16. 11 Василенко Л. И. Структурно-семантическая роль модальных слов в тексте: Автореф. дис. … канд. филол. наук. — Минск, 1985, с. 16. 79 When modal words are treated as a morphological category, they are generally regarded as a separate part of speech12. It is difficult to answer whether modal words can constitute a part of speech, because parts of speech, as is well known, are distinguished according to a set of criteria (taking into account the specific nature of lexical meaning, morphological properties, and syntactic functions), yet in one case one criterion is given priority, and in another, a different one. Moreover, there are words to which not all these criteria apply; individual words are at a stage of transition from one part of speech to another. In distinguishing particles in Lithuanian, V. Labutis emphasized: “a group of words can be considered a separate part of speech when it meets the two most general conditions: 1) <…> it must have a feature (or several features) common to the words in that group and uniting them, and 2) it must not be a constituent part of any other part of speech (or several of them)”13. Let us examine the words regis, rodos(i), atrodo, matyt(i), which could be regarded both as the most characteristic Lithuanian parentheticals and as the most characteristic modal words: do they acquire any specific morphological properties when expressing modality, and do they meet the second condition for distinguishing a part of speech? According to the verb scholar A. Paulauskienė, reflexive verbs (along with other forms of a similar type, of course) express spontaneous action and have an indefinite-person meaning; in literary language, the infinitive is preferable to the indefinite-person form, cf. matyt(i). The prefix of the verb atrodo has become inseparably incorporated into the stem (without the prefix, this verb—rodo—has a different meaning). Verbs of this type generally denote non-directional action or an indefinite state of the agent14. The words regis, rodos(i) are in fact impersonal forms. Their impersonal character is determined by the ability of these forms to express an indefinite person and by their lexical meaning (they denote spontaneous, natural action independent of the agent’s will); in addition, their impersonal nature is connected with the function of the reflexive particle. Like other impersonal verbs, regis, rodos(i), atrodo have defective paradigms—third-person forms in all tenses and third-person forms of the conditional mood. When functioning as parentheticals, almost all forms of these verbs can have modal meaning, with the exception of the future indicative forms (regėsis, rodysis, atrodys) and the conditional forms (regėtųsi, rodytųsi). Why do future-tense forms not function as parentheticals? Morphological verb-tense forms record the relation of an action to the moment of speaking15. The tense forms used in a sentence (and other linguistic elements expressing time) indicate syntactic time, which is determined by the temporal reference point chosen by the speaker. This reference point can coincide with the moment of speaking only in ordinary- 12 Laigonaitė A. Cited work, p. 11; Grammar of the Lithuanian Language, vol. 3, p. 484; Александров Н. М. On the question of the classification of parts of speech in Indo-European languages. – In: Вопросы теории частей речи (на материале языков различных типов). L., 1968, pp. 109–110; Мустейкиене И. Cited work, p. 145; Петров Н. Е. Cited work, p. 16. 13 Labutis V. Dalelytės ir jų vieta kalbos dalių tarpe. – Kn.: Literatūra ir kalba. V., 1962, t. 6, p. 365. 14 Paulauskienė A. Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodis. – V., 1971, p. 21, 25. 15 Paulauskienė A. Gramatinės lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžio kategorijos. – V., 1979, p. 168. 80 in the necessary situation16. Parentheticals are a relatively autonomous syntactic element, and their temporal meaning is determined independently. The temporal meaning of parentheticals is determined by the relation between the moment of perceiving the content or forming the thought and the moment of speaking17. A thought usually arises at the moment of speaking, and therefore words expressing modal doubtregis, rodos(i), atrodo most often take the present-tense form; it is entirely irrelevant whether the statement whose truth is doubted refers to an event that is happening, has happened, or is yet to happen. Cf. Rodos, raudonuoja (raudonavo, raudonuodavo, raudonuos) visa padangė. If the speaker perceived what is being said earlier, if the thought being expressed arose earlier, the word expressing doubt may take a past-tense form (simple or frequentative). Cf. Rodės/rodydavos, raudonuoja (raudonavo, raudonuodavo, raudonuos) visa padangė. Modal doubt and future tense are incompatible, since the moment of speaking cannot lie in the future. Thus, with respect to the category of tense, forms expressing modality are genuine verbal forms. They have modal meaning not because they have become a new morphological category—modal words—but because they function as parentheticals. It should be added that the use of the form atrodytų, like that of other conditional forms functioning as parentheticals (manyčiau, sakyčiau), is motivated more by stylistic than grammatical considerations: doubt expressed by the conditional form (atrodytų) carries nuances of reduced categorical force, caution, and sometimes modesty. The length of this article does not allow for an examination of other linguistic elements considered modal words, especially those having the form of adverbs, and what has been said is insufficient for general conclusions about all modal words. Nevertheless, a few conclusions can be drawn. Words that express modality when functioning as parentheticals lose their individual lexical meaning, in whose place a modal meaning develops. Words that do not acquire modal meaning also undergo this change in lexical meaning when functioning as parentheticals. Word forms that function as parentheticals generally exhibit the weakest categorial features of their respective parts of speech. Because of their constant syntactic function and automated use, they may become shortened, but they do not become fixed at a special morphological level of modal words; instead, they pass directly into the class of particles, e.g.: berods, esą, rasi, tarsi, tartum and the like, and in part galbūt, turbūt, mat, usually also lose their parenthetical function. Parentheticals are not a syntactic “space” in which a special morphological category (part of speech)—modal words—could develop. It would seem more appropriate to classify modal words in Lithuanian as a semantic or functional-semantic group that, without morphological restriction, would include modal particles, modal verbs, adverbs expressing modality, and, of course, forms from various parts of speech that express modality when functioning as parentheticals. 16 Золотова Т. А. Очерк функционального синтаксиса русского языка. — М., 1973, с. 173. 17 Cf. the three differently determined present-tense meanings in the sentence Rodos, ji ne pieną, o kraują iš manęs atima, ponaitčuke CvR V 100. The form atima (outside the sentence) indicates that the action coincides with the moment of speaking. The sentence is in the present tense, although its time does not coincide with the moment of speaking; the temporal reference point is not strictly fixed: the reference is to an unfinished past event. The present tense of Rodos coincides with the moment of speaking, since the thought arises and is expressed at that moment. 81 PARENTHETICAL UNITS AND THE QUESTION OF MODAL WORDS IN THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE Abstract Since the main criterion for identifying modal words is their syntactic function—their use as parenthetical units—the article discusses the morphological status of words that are regarded both as grammatical parentheticals and as central modal words in Lithuanian: regis, rodos(i), atrodo, matyt(i) and others. Through analysis, it is shown that the forms of these and similar words, when used as parenthetical units, retain their morphological characteristics. For these words, modality is established in the sphere of their lexical meaning: they lose their individual lexical meaning but retain the core of their generalized meaning. In Lithuanian, it is probably more appropriate to regard modal words not as a distinct morphological category (a separate part of speech), but as a semantic group of words encompassing all words with modal meaning: modal particles, modal verbs, modal adverbs and, of course, words that are modal when used as parenthetical units.