Pagrindiniai sakinių modeliai su predikatinėmis negimininėmis būdvardžio formomis

LITHUANIAN LANGUAGES SANDAROS INVESTIGATOR MAY LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS, XXVI (1987) DALIJA TEKORIENĖ MAIN SECTIONS MODELLS SU PREDICTIVE NON-RELATED BŪVDARDŽIO FORMOMIS 1. Formally beautiful, good grammatical nature is one — of the iš unsolved problems of Lithuanian grammar. It is not possible to solve in the framework of ja morphology alone. It is necessary to rely on the functional analysis of these forms, because only in the sentence the meaning of lexical-grammatical morphological categories is revealed systemic ir relationships. ir The function of a language unit is defined primarily as its role in the jo structure of a higher-level unit: the function of a morpheme in a word, word sentence, word combination, — text, sentence text. — The more complex a unit of language is ir from a structural semantic point of view, the more aspects it can be examined, the more complex the functions of the constituent lower-level ir units. jį The adjective is a word, therefore as a ir component part it enters the higher level units of syntactic structures, į word combination, sentence, text, — the most important of — which is the sentence. Current syntax distinguishes iš four aspects of sentence analysis: formal, logical-grammatical, semantic of the actual division. mo ir Therefore, ir jo component elements, among jų ir adjective and non-noun jo forms, functions must be examined in all four aspects. Nė one aspect taken alone does not reveal the essential totality of the adjective’s functions. ir Moreover, if the functions of the adjective are considered only in one aspect, they can be even misunderstood and distort the systemic relationships of language. ir In Lithuanian language studies, it was attempted to describe the distribution of forms gražus, geras in the formal sentence structure, describing the belonging of sentence components to the language part ir jų morphological form, without paying attention į to the semantics of the components, nor į jų the necessity of the sentence's communicative autonomy. Syntactic patterns identified by this method often unite sentences of completely different syntactic structure. For example, sentences She's scared. ir Is it good for the state? are assigned to the same model simply because the formal structure consists of the non-noun form of the jų adjective noun. It is easy to see that identical morphological forms here ir form different semantics of the sentence: sentence She is scary describes the state of the subject, in the sentence Is it good for the state? expresses the evaluation of the phenomenon of something (not expressed in the sentence, because the to sentence is communicatively non-independent) in relation to the comodal beneficiary. To ar assign these sentences to a single syntactic model, despite semantics, means to contradict not only the principle of systematicity, but simply linguistic intuition. jų ne ir ! Mycreiikuc K. B. CortocrasnrejibHas MOpOOJIOTHS pyCCKOTO are H JIHTOBCKOTO S3EIKOB. — B., 1972, c. 247. 165 The semantic ir autonomy of the communicative sentence is disregarded in ir such cases as, for example, the structures Here burned, clear ir Now it was clear to him that he was not in the castle? jų considered separately, completely unrelated to each other. su Thus, the functions of non-noun forms of adjectives, ir like any other language unit, are revealed only in such a sentence model that summarizes only the formal structure of the ne sentence, but ir jo logical-grammatical structure, i.e. sentence model, which is understood as ‘a minimal predicative combination of mutually determined components that can function as an autonomous, context-independent unit of communication that has a certain typical meaning’. This understanding of the sentence pattern requires that, when determinisu ng the patterns neg. b. forms, the factual material, which consists of sentences written in iš current texts of various ir styles and genres, would be examined in several aspects. 2.1. Structural analysis of sentences. First, sentences are selected in which neg. b. forms are used in the basic, jų predicative, function. Neg. b. The functions of the complement of ir the form factor are secondary, because in this case they are used as typical words denoting a sign, as substantived, noun forms, Obviously, noun neg. ne o b. The functions of forms are also important for functional semantic characteristics, jų but they are not ir the main ones, so it is appropriate to analyze them only after examining the forms used as predicative ir functions. po According to the number of components, the selected sentences į are divided into single, binary, and trivial ir quaternary sentences: I'm cold. The room is cold. I'm cold in my room. It's cold to sleep in my room. However, such a division is not purely mechanical, because it takes into account the relationships of belonging į of components within the sentence. Therefore, mononymous, binary does not iš mean one word of ar two words. The words considered to be members of the sentence, which belong to ir the whole su sentence, are connected by the — predicative center of the sentence neg. b. form. For example, scary. I'm scared. I am afraid of the wolf are considered, respectively, unilateral, ir binary triangular, because all members are directly related to the neg. b. form the — center of the sentence. The words that realize the valent powers of other sentence members are not considered sentence members. ir For example, her shy brother ir She is shy of her little brother's two sentences being considered binary. Po to describes the morphological ir composition of single, double and triple quaternary sentences. If we understood the sentence model as a model of formal structure, we would have done our job. However, the model of the sentence, as we understand it, must bea minimal, but independent, ti context-independent communicative unit, that is, it must have a final logical-grammatical structure, the main o members of whichmust be the predicate, or the word signifying the predicative pozymi, the subject, or the word signifying the holder of the je predicative characteristic. du — ir 2.2. Logical-grammatical analysis of structural models. After describing the morphological composition of jų sentences, it is ir necessary to determine the logical subject predicate. Morpho2 Banenrexe A. A. ®opMsl cpeHEro pojia rpaMMaTHYECKOH B CHCTEME JIATOBCKOTO S3BIxa [ Jac. ... n-pa Ouzo. Hayk [Mammmomwce]. — B., 1983, c. 199, 224. 8 3onorosa I. A. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. — M., 1982, c. 98. 166 logical characteristic helps to identify only the predicate it always goes neg. — b. form. The morphological characteristics of the components are not sufficient to determine the logical subject, because the member of the same morphological form in some cases is a logical subject, in others not, depending on the lexical meaning of the predicate, cf. : Man leftma (for me — logical subject), For me beautiful (no logical entity). The criterion of the sentence's communicative completeness must be followed. The subject predicate ir compound forms the basis of the formal, semantic communication structure of ir the sentence, without one of these two components, — the sentence is incomplete. iš Although the texts often contain such “missing” sentences, the jų lack of communicative information is additional context, i.e. iš jų the subject is expressed in context or implied. Thus, the principle of communicative completeness helps to distinguish sentences that contain a predicate minimum from sentences that do not contain a predicate minimum. to According to him, it is considered that such sentences occurring in texts as comfortable to sit? Ar — Royal! represents ne sentence models, certain modifications o of sentence models in the text. 2.3. In this way, by analyzing iš the material collected by the texts from a structural ir communicational point of view, a single binary 1 sentence ir 8 models with predicative neg. su b. forms that we will symbolically mark Praed. 1. Praed It's windy. Giedra. 2. Nsom + Praed The fruit is healthy. 3. New + Praed I'm having fun. 4. Ngen+ Praed Time is running out. 5. Nyy. + Praed The garden is green. It's beautiful around here. 6. Pronoun + Praed Everything is nice. 7. Inf + Praed It's not fair to comply. 8. Praed + Side effect I'm sorry you didn't tu ask. 9. prep. N + Praed Su bread hard. 3.1. Typical values of models. The sentence, as a higher-level unit of language, is biplanar, it has a form, content, and therefore the established ir sentence ir models have a certain ir typical meaning. ri For example, I'm having fun. For a child, scary means the state of the subject, Here is beautiful. The garden green — characteristic of the place, Lying disgraceful. Learning interesting evaluation of — abstract processes, evaluation of the fact that it is not nice that you tu lied, etc. — ir However, it is debatable how the ta typical meaning helps to distinguish individual sentence models. There are du possible basic cases: 1) communicationally independent minimal sentences of the same grammatical structure have several typical meanings. The question arises, they ar represent separate sentence models, one polysemantic ar model; sentences of different 2) formalids structure have a very close semantic structure. This case is relevant for the present study, because the established patterns have a similar semantic structure. Since these models have different formal structures, they are 2, 7 ir 9 considered separate but synonymous sentence models. 4.1. Lexical implementation of models. The ir subject predicate must be semantically consistent, but each ne subject predicate is ir consistent, i.e. ne all predica167 te attributes may be attributed to the same entities, and not all entities may be described by the same attributes. For example: : It's cold in the yard —* It's right in the yard, It's cold for me —* It's right for me, Everything is soft —* It's soft, It's soft for me to sleep — *I'm cloudy to sleep etc. ir Subject and neg. b. the combination of forms is not a feature of individual adjectives, because whole groups of adjectives are compatible or incompatible with a particular subject. Therefore, they are characterized by certain common semantic categories, therefore, to understand and explain the neg. b. functional characteristics of forms, it is also necessary to recognize and describe those common functional-semantic classes of adjectives. A 500-unit neg was compiled to determine the limits of the lexical realization of models. b. a list of forms, and each form taken from the list is matched to each of the 9 established models. The results of the study were threefold: (a) Negative. b. the form is not combined with the second component at all: *Kieme stupida, teisinga, b) neg. b. form compound with the second component is possible, but communicatively inadequate: Useful for the state, Loyal to the friend, Beautiful to me, c) neg. b. the form compound with the second component is regular according to the laws of conjunction and communicatively complete: Man nejaukiai. It's deep on the shore. Bathing is dangerous. The study of the lexical realization of models allowed to clarify the established models, highlighted their semantic structure and, most importantly, showed that neg. b. the ability of forms to function in certain models depends directly on the semantics of the adjective. Therefore, the main sentence models with neg. b. forms are important material for studying the semantics of adjectives. 4.2 The mononymous model Praed consists of only a few so-called non-subjective adjective forms, denoting characteristics of atmosphere, temperature, time and illumination: Windy. It's cloudy. Dark. Light. It's late. It's cold. It's hot. The single sentences in the text, composed of adjectives of different semantics (Royal. Great. Ugly. Interesting. Clear) are not independent from a communicative point of view. They are only incomplete variants of realization of binary models. Their variantity is, of course, significant both from a semantic and from a communicative point of view, but it constitutes a separate problem — the problem of realization of the basic sentence models in the text and their derivation. 4.3.Examining the possibilities of lexical realization of the binary model [vardas+ Praed], it became apparent that the possibilities of joining the pronoun to with neg. b. forms are markedly different from other non-noun pronoun conjugation possibilities, such as everything, who, nothing, but who, much who, something, other: viskas nagi — *it's naked, everything is viscous — *it is viscous, everything is white —*it is white, etc. Such facts indicate that it belongs to a different functional-semantic class than everything. The semantic peculiarity of this pronoun is explained by the fact that the antecedented jo can be only a process or fact, even when it is not structurally defined or expressed by a specific noun. A. Rosen classifies the noun as a separate absolute demonstrative class*. The same semantic specificity explains the different ir pronoun this conjunction neg. su b. in forms: ¢ Rosinas A. The semantic structure of Lithuanian common language pronouns, V., — it is joined 1984, p. 53— 62. 168 only by adjectives whose su characteristics can be attributed to the process to the fact, not joined by ar adjectives denoting ir characterissu tics of specific objects. The semantic functional characteristics of the pronoun give ir grounds for considering that the model [name+ Praed combines du actually different models Everything + Praed ir Thai + Praed. Therefore, there is a 10 distinction between predicative su negs of the main sentence models. b. forms. 4.4. Neg. b. forms are almost unlimitedly joined with su the noun, but from a communicative point of view the independent sentence is made up only of neg. b. forms denoting a state, combined with the noun of a living being: I'm happy. The kid is having fun. Father is angry. The girl is sad. The other binary structures Nisa + Praed do not form an independent sentence from a communicative point of view. For example, if you use the sentence "It's beautiful to me" out of context, the question "What is beautiful?" immediately arises. or I'm deep —Who|Where is deep? In these sentences, the utner does not perform the function of the possessor (subject) of the predicative characteristic, but other semantic functions: the evaluated subject (I am beautiful), the comodal member (I am dangerous), the evaluation criterion (I am deep), the perceptive subject (I am clear). 4.5. Typical value of Ng,,+ Praed models —quantitative characteristic of the subject: Restlessness low. There's plenty of work. The snow is thick. People are rare. Wealth is abundant. However, not every neg. b. a form compound with a parent has a quantitative meaning. The second (complementary) negative of the divalent can be expressed by the genitive. b. form member: Scary wolf. It's worth the effort. Such sentences do not form a separate model, because they are either communicatively non-independent (they do not have a subject): Not worth your tears —What is not worth your tears? or denotes the state of an undefined person and the cause that caused it and should therefore be considered variants of the Ng, + Praed model, 4.6. The typical meaning of the sentence models N,,./Adv,,.+ Praed is the place and its characteristics. This model consists of all neg. b. forms denoting both natural and non-natural characteristics that can be attributed to a particular object: Deep by the shore. It's warm at home. It's all green. It's a beautiful city. Neg. b. forms that denote only characteristics attributable to the process or fact, compounds with the locative do not form a full-meaning sentence: Prie kranto pavojinga —Kas yra pavojinga? Swimming? Play? Such are the adjectives hopeless, difficult, stupid, purposeful, etc. 4.7. Although neg. b. forms are widely associated with communicative, but there are limitations, and not every such combination forms a full-fledged sentence. The following shall not be combined with communication: (a) Negative. b. forms, representing characteristics of specific objects perceived as objectively existing and unchangeable from subjective perception, such as colour, shape, etc. ; (b) Negative. b. forms capable of evaluating only facts (situations), but not individual processes, e.g.: disk, mark, sign, obvious, reasonable, lem, etc. Neg. b. forms representing subjectively perceived natural characteristics of objects do not form a full-fledged sentence with the communicative part (Nelybu rašyti — "Where is not equal to write?") or represent extended variants of non-subjective models, in which the communicative part represents a criterion of evaluation (Darko rašyti. 169 The Inf+ Praed model consists only of estimated neg. b. forms (To reproach is disgraceful. To flatter is ugly) and neg. b. forms denoting a state, which in combination with the communicative acquire the evaluative semiotic (Reading is interesting, riding is fun). 4.8. In sentences It is natural that young people are not satisfied with traditional means. I wonder why the actress chooses such a role. Importantly, what he meant in the side sentence is neg. b. the subject of the form, i.e. it represents a fact that is evaluated by neg. b. the form of the sign. 4.9. While syntactic structures Fruits healthy; Cheese tastes components are not grammatically matched, they are fully-fledged communicative units, and therefore must be considered sentences. The absence of coordination between their subject and predicate signals a special semantics of such sentences, namely: neg. b. the sign expressed by the form is not attributed to the specific object that the noun denotes, but to the fact of the existence of the object or to a certain implied action related to that object, etc. If the action to which the attribute may be attributed cannot be anticipated, the sentence is incomprehensible, cf. : Puzzles hard (i.e. solve puzzles hard) and Mushrooms hard (What is difficult? Digesting mushrooms? Collecting? Cleaning- ?). Thus, the Nn + Praed model has a semantic structure close to the Inf + Praed semantic structure, so we consider these models synonymous. The same group of synonymous models includes prepN + Praed: With bread it is difficult. Thus, we distinguish 1 single and 9 binary sentence models, which we consider as the basic sentence models with predicative negs. b. forms, because they are minimal, communicatively complete sentences, which have a characteristic semantic structure and are not derived from other structures by any syntactic derivation. su b. forms, on the contrary, themselves are neg of other su structures. b. forms the basis of work. OCHOBHbIE MOJIEJIH MPEJIJIOXKEHHAH C NMPEAWKATHBHBIMH HEPOJOBbIMH $OPMAMH IPHJIATATEJIbHOTrO Pe31oMe B craThe moj ONDpejJIeJIEHHEM MOEN IIpeliJIOXKEHHSA HOHHMAeTCA MHHHMAJISHO JOCTaTOYHOE TIpEIMKATHBHOE COYETAHHE B3aMMOOOYCIOBJIEHHBIX KOMIIOHEHTOB, O0pasyiollee KOMMYHHKATHBHYIO €IHMHHIY C ONDpeJIEJIEHHLIM THIIOBHIM 3HaueHueM. Mcxons u3 3Toro YcTaHaBJIHBAeTCH 10 OcHOBHBIX MojeJieil IpE/UIOXKEHHH C IpeMKAaTHBHBIMH HepOJIOBLIMH (dopMamu IrpujiaraTeJIbHOTO B COBPEMEHHOM JIMTOBCKOM 5135IKe, YCTAHOBJIEHHBIE MOJIEJIH PAaCCMATPHBAIOTCH Kak OCHOBA JUTS JAaJIbHEHIero M3y4eHus rpaMMAaTHYecKoi, OyYKHKIMOHAJILHOK H CEMAaHTHYECKOH IIpHDpOJIbI HEDOJIOBLIX (OPM JIMTOBCKOrO IPHIIAraTe/bHOrO.