Lietuvių kalbos sakinio sintaksinės ir semantinės struktūros vienetai

LITHUANIAN LANGUAGES XXV (1986) VYTAUTAS AMBRAZAS UNITIES OF THE SYNTACTICAL AND SEMANTIC STRUCTURES OF THE LITHUANIAN SENTENCES 0.1.Lately, researches on the sentence structure of Lithuanian language are becoming more intensive, and the methods used in this field are changing and becoming more varied. They are directly or indirectly conditioned by those general theoretical principles, views and models that prevail in all modern linguistics. When intensive attempts to describe the structure of the language by bypassing the meaning of its units did not yield the expected results, the problem of the relation between the syntactic structure and semantics of the language came to the fore. It is reflected in one way or another in the works of Lithuanian language syntax researchers. Some of them rely first on the grammatical form of the sentence and its components, according to which they define the units of study, and then try to interpret them semantically, i.e., link them to the concepts of the semantic level. This direction was followed, for example, in „Lietuvių kalbos gramatika“ (1965, 1971, 1976), and this article is also intended to follow this direction. Others look for syntactic correspondences to semantic or semantic-related categories of the internal structure of the sentence (Baneiika 1980, in part Paulauskienė 1979). It is also suggested to follow the third path: while examining a sentence in one respect (syntax form or meaning), the second aspect should also be taken into consideration (Sirtautas 1978; 1980; Labutis 1981). Each of these paths, more or less walked, there are mountains and descents; choice ultimately depends on the purpose, purpose and tasks of the work. However, in order to be able to compare the results obtained in one way or another and to use them for further research, it is necessary to try to define as clearly as possible and to distinguish at least the most important categories of form and semantic domains on a single basis. This is an elementary requirement for every scientific theory, but it is also important for school syntax, which is increasingly lagging behind the level of modern linguistics. Unfortunately, just syntax, in particular. In the works of the so-called “semantic syntax” researchers we constantly notice the mixing of logical, pragmatic, semantic and syntactic concepts or ambiguous use, which is sometimes attempted to cover up with double terms: we are talking about logical-grammatical,. syntactic-semantic, logical-syntactic, etc. categories. This leads to misunderstandings and fruitless debates. The ambiguity of the categories of syntax and semantics cannot be justified by the specificity of language phenomena, their connections with thinking or their social nature. The syntactic structure of language is too complex to be successfully studied using vague or ambiguous concepts. In order to contribute to the refinement of the methodology of studying Lithuanian language syntax, we will try to discuss separately several most important units of sentence syntactic and semantic structure. 4 0.2. Although syntax researchers are ir concerned ir with the už structure of larger and smaller sentence-length text units, the main object of syntax is almost universally considered to be the sentence. A comprehensive definition of the sentence, which would satisfy the requirements of various syntactic directions, has not yet been formulated. This is understandable: the primary concepts of all fields of science are difficult to define. Sometimes it is attempted to define a sentence by listing the characteristics that are jo considered most important (plg. Pycerxas rpammartnka 1980, 85-90), any number of ty properties character of ir the selected system. For specific syntax studies, it is important to define the sentence as well as to ne exclude other objects. The most important distinctive jo features of iš the sentence are related ji ir su grammatical, ir su communicative level: the sentence is the smallest grammatically formalized unit of communication (communication). In the sentence differs from the morphemes ar of the word, which also have a grammatical form used for communicatir ion, but cannot be considered as units; a word becomes such a unit jo only when it goes in a separate sentence. However, it is not sufficient to indicate that a sentence has a grammatical form. Forms of language (in the broadest sense) are twofold: dependent ir independent. In addition, the forms that are included in the composition of other forms are called dependent į forms. o — Based on this, the above definition can be clarified as follows: a sentence is the smallest unit of communication (communication) with intonation, having a grammatically independent form. This conception of the sentence is close to that which we find formulated A. Attached (1934, 355) ir L. In (1935, 170) Bloomfield's works. Ji distinguishes a sentence from other, broader units of communication (groups of sentences, ir paragraphs, etc.), which are studied by text linguistics. To differentiate more clearly between languages (langue) ir šnekos (parole) verbs, the communicative unit of speech should be considered to be the statement (ėnoncėe, utterance), o the unit of language — should be called sentence, the grammatically independent form of statement itself. Many features of the sentence, drawn from various definitions, į are left jo unmentioned here: expression of a finite thought, structural scheme (model), walking predicate unit (or simply predicativeness) — etc. ir However, these features of the sentence are not distinctive. Thoughts are ne expressed only by sentences, ir but by combinations of words, sentence démens by ir groups of sentences (the concept of “final thought”, which is often used, is completely iš vague). According to structural schemes, or patterns, only sentences ne are formed, but word combinations. ir Iš of all the signs by which one tries to define a sentence, the most vague is the predicate (or “predictivity”). The present logic predication is called attribution of attribute (predicate) šį to the ir object; so the term should be used. We find this predicate in many ir word combinations (e.g., attributes). Some people try to give the term predicate a special, allegedly linguistic meaning “relationship with reality” su (this is often done in Russian studies, cf. BuuorpauosB 1975, 267; Pyccxast rpammatuxa 1980, 86). However, the su relationship in ne reality means only sentences, but ir jų parts (plg. JloMresB 1979, 65). It is even more difficult to understand predicativity as some special force indefinite relationship, ar transforming a word combination into a sentence ar construction (Myxnx 1968, 77). Not Random M. Steblinas-Kamenskis tą "predictivity" compared to the su phlogiston invented by the chemists of the past (Cre6jxmn-K amMekcknit 5 1974, 136—140). Such signs, of be course, do not help to distinguish the sentence from other syntactic units. 0.3. Both continuous and composed sentences have a grammatically independent ir form. In addition, the term is also used by some authors to refer to a group of people. Elements of a compound sentence may correspond to verbs in their structure, but intonation, usually in conjunctive Words ti ir (t. y. by certain grammatical means) they are included in a larger unit, so they are not grammatically independent. The į most important characteristic of the structure of a compound sentence, which distinguishes it from a continuous sentence, is bicentricity or polycentricity. A single sentence is a sentence whose jį components are grouped around one syntactic — center, a compound sentence is a sentence with o — du ar several such centres. Since the following will mainly talk about the continuous sentence as the main simple sentence type, it will be ir called simply a sentence for convenience. 0.4. The sentence in contemporary linguistics is studied in various aspects: as a form of realization of the thought expressed by the statement (logical aspect), as a means of expressing relationships of certain ir jų meanings (semantic semiological aspect), as a ir set of grammatical relationships of word forms (syntactic aspect). From the point of view of communication, it is important to explain which sentence bu components have the greatest information load, how the sentence reflects the relationships of the participants in the speech situation ir su the content of the statement (a pragmatic aspect). In each aspect of the sentence, other units are distinguishejo d, other ‘parts of a sentence’. Due to the complexity of the ir sentence, it would be difficult to expect to find a method of analyzing the splitting ir that would reveal the characteristics of all jo the above-mentioned points of view at least ar several times. iš Long experience of grammar shows that such efforts usually lead to iš a multitude of ambiguities, contradictions and ambiguities. ir Thus, when studying the relationship of the syntactic form of the su sentence with semantics, it is important to clearly differentiate the aforementioned views. Only by excluding the main units of the study in each area of analysis can one expect to determine more accurately the jų interrelationships. 1. SAKINIO SYNTACTICAL STRUCTURE UNITS 1.0. The syntactic structure of a sentence consists of the interrelationships of word forms. We see word-form connections in all sentences except singulars (e.g., Aušta; Demesio! ), whose structure consists of a single word form. A word form is a — lexicon used in any of its characteristic morphological forms defined in terms of morphology (noun ir originator, verb direct essence). 1. 3 person ir pan. ). Kaileksema is unchanged, the scope of ir word concepts in word form coincides; in other cases, the word is called a set of jo paradigmatic forms. The smallest syntactic — units of word form, between which syntactic relations are established; they relate morphology to syntax su similarly to phoneme phonology to morphology. — su | When studying the structure of the sentence, it is important to establish the relationships between the independent word forms, because (e.g., conjunctioar ns prepositions) used in the sentence as means of expression of syntactic ir connections in this respect are close to flexional morphemes (Kurytowicz 1964, 21). Therefore, we will further talk about syntactic relationships as about 6 relationships between independent word forms (free forms), o official words (bound forms) will be treated only as binding indicators tų modifiers. ar 1.1.0. Syntactic relationships of word forms are direct (t. y. direct) ir indirect (interme- — diate through other word forms). Through a direct syntactic connection, the word form is included in į the sentence; all other relations are indirect. — For example, in the sentence A magical lamp appeared on a high mountain (J. The bridge was built on a hillside, į with a bridge over the su river, and a bridge — over the river. su L. Barchudarov calls such relationships syntactic functions (Bapxyaapos 1966, 32). In the following, we will refer to direct syntactic relationships as vertical syntactic relationships. Indirect word-form relationships are not a special type of syntactic relationships, but rather further relationships — between Word-forms directly related at a different level of division. The sentence, kuThere are direct indirect ir syntactic connections, form a hierarchically organized two-tier ar (ranking) structure. There are three main types of syntactic relationships: connective, interdependence (interface) connective relationships?. ir 1.1.1. Connective connections are between such word forms, one of which is connected to the sentence through the — other main, but vice versa. į — ne Connected form in typical cases? has some formal indicator of belonging (marker). Tas A todic can be a flexion, a servile word, a certain place in relation to the main form of the Word, intonation. In Lithuanian, the most important f indicators ir are lexical functions Words (prepositions- ); the position of the connected word usually plays a secondary role. Connecting connections are directed in one direction; it is marked by an arrow pointing from the main (determined) form connected į (determining)*. Connecting links are strong (necessair ry) weak (optional). We see strong conjunctives in cases where the conjunctive form is absolutely necessary to preserve the grammatical structure of the sentence, e.g. : The mother finished eating, the soldier reported the news. The connected form connected by weak connective links is optional: it can be omitted without affecting the grammatical ji structure of the sentence, although the communicative content due to jo to ir altered, e.g. : Beware of bad people. We came back late. — According to the formal expression of the connective verb in Lithuanian (as in many ir other flexual languages) there are three types of connection: tuning, control and fusion. ir * Plg. already L. Hjelmslev’s (1953) distinction between determination, interdependence and constellation ir Trubetzkoy's (1939) classification of word compounds-syntaį gms into determinative, ir predicative, and sociative. (similarly Pauliny 1981, 24-26). * AtypicalIn many cases, the form of su the characteristic indicator replaces another be form of it, having the tą same distribution. For example, in the sentence The communicative form brought to drink used in the syntactic position of the genitive or adjective; although it does not have these verb flexions, but the ji connection between its determining word atnešė is considered connective. ir 3 Syntactic relationships of words are marked by Martinet- (1973) 's proposed principles, cf. but Myxm 1964, 42 tt. ; 1968, 68 etc., only the direction of the arrow of the connecting relationships corresponds to the dependency grammar. Adaptation is the adaptation of the connected word form to the main one according to the morphological category. The conjugated form of the joined word receives the indicators of the verb, number, gender category characteristic of the main form (plg. Sirtautas 1978, 50—54 su lit.): copper handle, all friends, nine brothers, flying bird. A special case of coordination is the independent coordination of nouns with adjectives, having the categories of genus and number verbs, with other ir nouns: karalius su Mindaugas, deceased father, widowed mother. Coordination when — «— which proposes to consider a separate way of connection due to the independence of the noun morphological categories (Cro6jxuxrosa 1971, 206—225; Labutis 1976, 30—32). However, this should not be an obstacle to treating coordination as a kind of subspecies of harmonisation, because in such cases we also see the application of the attached form to the main one. Similarly, the forms of the participants su of adjectives are applied with ir insignificant pronouns: someone angry, someone invisible, no one foreign. The debugging method usually refers to a weak > — connecting link. Control is the choice of a variable form (usually different) of the connected word, depending on the grammatical characteristics of the conjugation of the main word. The form of ir the controlled word — various syllables without prepositions (non-conjugated control) or with prepositions (conjugated control). The main word is very often verbs verb derivatives ir (writes a letter, I write, letter ———> er tf —— raSymas...), but there can be nouns, adjectives, ir numerals, pronouns, some adverbs, occasionally emoticons, e.g.: troop of soldiers, field tree, golden — ring, sweet to ir all, full of grain, a hundred soldiers, three ——> archersMUSE. MA. liy, a few children, someone- (from) neighbors, a lot of water, far from home, Se money, bang through the sah. With a strong connection, we have strong control, e.g.: I finish work, there is no water, we represented the workers, I am interested in art, I lived in the city, I became a beggar, I jumped over a ditch. In such cases, the form of the controlled word is usually determined by the valence of the main word, sometimes depending on the adjective characteristics (e.g., the prefix, cf. I swam over the river and I swam over the river). The form of the controlling word depends on the grammatical characteristics of the main Word, e.g., the už greater mountain, the highest of all, I was sorry, setting sun, or on the meaning of the controlling wordet Ks kraeam— nio relation to — the main Word, e.g., su brought goods brought goods. ir With a weak connection, we have a weak control, e.g.: I came for an axe, I worked for myself, I traveled through the forests, I bled from worries, I sat with friends. The form of the controlling word here depends especially on its meaningful relationship to the main word. It is a non-expressive verb, meaning it does not change its form. In this respect, blending is the opposite of harmonisation and governance taken together. The most commonly used unchanged forms of words are: common nouns, adverbs, 8 I'm sorry. Their main words are verbs, their derivatives, adjectives, some nouns, pronouns, adverbs. All of the above mentioned unchangeable forms of Words can be added to verbs. The adjectives are accompanied by adverbs, to a limited extent, by general adverbs, e.g., pleasant to look at, relatively small. Verb nouns and some other nouns can be accompanied by communicative nouns (hope to return, opportunity to visit) and only in certain cases by adjectives (step back, life abroad). Only adverbs can be added to adverbs, e.g.: no bad, very much. The absence of a variable form is a characteristic of the majority of conjugated forms, particularly pronounced in flexional languages. Together with the verb forms of the joined forms and the position in the sentence, it helps to identify the nature of the connective connection. The frequent opinion that the meaning of words only shows the weaving connection is correctable. Sometimes we see weaving between variable forms, which are related to other forms by two-way syntactic links. However, in such cases, the inflections of the merge words do not indicate merge, but a different syntactic connection with another word. For example, in the sentences The passenger fell asleep while driving; The boy returned cheerful word forms riding, cheerful inflection is in conjugation forms passenger, boy indicators, unconditional conjugation verbs fell asleep, returned. su su The link is usually a weak link. There is a strong fusion between some of the indefinite verbs (modal, phase, etc.) and the communicative verbs, e.g.: stop working, I tried to come back, I can eat. Some verbs are joined with strong adverbs, e.g. I was here, we looked nice, behave manly. ir 1.1.2. Relations of interdependence (interface) are reciprocal: ta Shape of the Zodi (main), through which the other form is included in the sentence, is į formally dependent on the latter. The relationship of interdependence is typically expressed by the coordination of forms. It is marked with an arrow į pointing in both directions. The most obvious example of mutual dependency is the verb — interaction with the noun su pronoun ar (verb). The form of the noun pronoun depends on the verb, but the ar latter in turn determines the number form of the verb. The personified form of the verb is also associated with the noun member expression su 1, 2 or 3 personal pronouns (plg. aš returned, we returned ———— —e Zome, they returned); coordination is ju also mutual, because to consider the action of a personZodiac category dependent on pronouns is not grounded. The personified form of the verb to be also determines the form of the noun (e. g. : Brother was imi angry); changing the personified ———>=—$ form into a participle, the noun must also be changed to another syllable, ar e.g. na The brother was evil, (How) the brother to be evil. Meanwhile, the forms su of nouns (pronouns) connected by conjunction are combined with each other by vowel, number, ir sometimes gender (for more information see Sirtautas 1978, 57 tt. ). In the position of the nominative of su a noun connected by a verb, a form without inflections can be used, for example, the ir common noun of a verb, e.g. : ar To live (life) pakyréjo; It has been heard that a part of the 9 (Thunder) In such cases, the mutual dependence does not have clear flexual indicators, but is shown by substitution and a very limited mutual selection of associative forms (cf. Sirtautas 1978, 56—57 with lit.). The question of the interdependence of word forms is sometimes solved differently. Some consider this connection to be conjunctive, and the form of the verb, coordinated by the number (in Russian) — iš genus) of a ir noun with a su pronoun ar —dependent, connected (so already IllaxąMaros 1941, 31; Karcevskij 1948, 33; at present Exn3apenroBa, Tonopos 1965; IluBssau 1979; Jlomtes 1979, 52—53). The dependence of the form of the noun on the verb is considered not syntactic, 0 semantic or content (JIoMreB 1979, 67), to explain it, in addition to objective, subjective, local, etc. relations, predicative relations are distinguished (IluBsan 1979,239—241). Other researchers believe that the verb is separated from the noun form in the syntactical case, and the noun from the verb in the communicative case (Ilonos 1974, 42—55 with lit.; Illy6ur 1982, 132). However, many circumstances do not allow to deny the syntactic nature of the denominator- 's belonging. The form of the nominative in the sentence is conditioned by the syntactic conjunction of the verbs: it is possible only with verbs that open the position of the nominative, and it is not possible in sentences with such verbs as reikėti, pakankati, norėtis, etc. The syntactic affiliation of the form of the noun is also shown by such pairs of compounds as subėgo vanduo —pribėgo vandens, mes norime —mums norisi, liko ašarai —neliko ašų, as well as the change of the vowel when the form of the verb changes, e.g.: mes einame — mums einant, tėvas atėjo —tėvo ateita and so on. Some have compared this belonging to control (Mpas3ex 1964, 60; Beromamnkosa 1981, 389—390). On the other hand, the dependence of the verb on the form of the noun is much more limited: in Lithuanian, only the first and second person forms of verbs that go with personal pronouns are combined by number, and the category of number itself is clearly secondary to the verb (cf. Lyons 1968, 281; Cro6xuxrosa 1971, 201). Thus, the syntactic nature of the mutual relationship of the members is quite clear. 1.1.3. Connective connections are between two or more independent word forms, each of which is included in the sentence through an equal connection with the other word form. This connection can be both mutual dependence (The pine saw, the strawberry blossomed) and connection (The long and rainy autumn has come). Because of this special nature, connective relationships are the opposite of connective and interdependent relationships taken together. Each form || || of the word connected by a conjunction can function without the other (or others); their connection has no direction. Connective connections are expressed not by word flexions, but by connective conjunctions, word order and intonation. They can be closed and open. Closed conjugation connects only two word forms, usually connected by a conjunction that precedes the second form, e.g. : The winter sun shines but does not warm; In the yard the girls played and sang. The open conjugation links an indefinite number of word forms and is usually expressed either by repetitive conjunctions, or only by word order (contact arrangement of forms) and intonation, e.g. : No stone, sword, axe or spear can pierce such roofs; She spoke timidly, peacefully, weakly. Closed and open conjunctions are often used to connect words, e.g. : He is capable of being angry and angry, good and forgiving. 10 1.2 Forms of independent words, connected by connective, mutual dependency or connective relations at the same level of the syntactic division of the sentence, form compounds of words. According to the types of syntactic relationships, three major groups of word combinations can be distinguished: connective, interdependence (interface) and connective compounds. Although all linguists agree that word combinations are syntactic units, they are differently distinguished and interpreted. Often, only connective compounds are considered word combinations. This view was, in part, and still is, quite widely accepted in Russian studies, especially after it was implemented in the first academic grammar of the Russian language (I pavMaruka pycckoro s3bixa 1952—1954). It is based on the hypothesis of the distinction between so-called “verbal” and “verbal” connections (Bumorpamas 1947, 12, 78; 1954, 10 etc.; 1975, 231). According to this hypothesis, a word combination is a semi-lexical, nominative unit, formed by the connective links of “Verbal” – coordination, control and fusion. It is not considered a component of the sentence structure, but only of the sentence "building material- ", similar to the word. Therefore, the word combinations themselves are classified and described according to the lexical and morphological characteristics of the main and dependent members. "Verbal" relations, on the basis of which a word combination is formed, are strictly distinguished from "verbal" relations — predication (defined as the relation of the statement to reality) and relations of secondary sentence parts. In this way, syntax is divided into two parts: word combination syntax, which examines the relationships of words as lexical units with other words, and sentence syntax, which examines the structure of the sentence and its component parts. This view, which has been tried to apply to the Lithuanian language (Balkevičius 1963; Labutis 1976, 42—50), theoretically justified difficult, its o practical realization causes a lot of confusion, repetition contradictions. ir Exclude “verbal” ir “sentence” connections are prevented, in particular, by the fact that the lexical meaning of words, especially of a verb, determines only the ne structure, the pattern of the word combination, but ir certainly of the jo sentence (plg. IlIvenes, 1976, 43 tt. ). Syntactic processes, in particular passive transformation, clearly show that the control relationships between the verb and the dependent word forms, considered "Verbal", sentence structures have a ne lesser role as “verbal” relationships of interdepeno dence, sometimes even greater (plg. elimination of the nominative form in passive or nominalized constructions: father writes a letter, but the letter is written, writing a letter (see section 4.4). but Apytionosa, 1976, 125—126, 134 su lit. ). Verb conjugation with su dependent ZodZies is reflected in ir sentence models. It is impossible to prove that such compounds as I write a letter, I go to the forest are compound names. Some of the most commonly used names are the į names of two different people, or the names of two different things. ir On the other hand, the analysis of the valence of verbs shows that the interdependence relations “sentences” also depends on the lexical meaning of the verb; these are relationships between certain forms of words, expressed by coordination, having formal indicators. ir It is true that these connections can form a sentence, but this is not their 11 distinctive feature either, because a sentence can also be made up of connective compounds (I see a danger; I am cold; I lack money; Hold the thief!), and many interdependence compounds do not form a sentence alone (*I saw; *The child jumped, etc.). Even in those grammar systems that declare the contradiction between joined words and sentence structure, the subordinate verbs are characterized by the same relationships that bind the word forms in the joined words. Therefore, it is quite understandable that the aforementioned hypothesis of dual connections did not have a stronger effect on the study of the syntactic structure of other languages (except Russian). Almost all syntactic theories prevailing in the world linguistics today consider word combinations as units of the sentence syntactic structure. This direction has been followed in recent times in some works of Lithuanian linguistics (Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1976; Sirtautas Šimkus 1996). They are part of the sentence structure and in some cases may correspond to the 1978). sentence structure, but they are not sentences themselves. Combinations of words or hierarchically organized groups of words (as well as individual word forms) become sentences only when they are formed according to certain patterns, associated with the speech situation and acquire the sentence-- specific intonation. Therefore, the description of word combinations does not yet reveal the whole structure of a continuous sentence. To this end, it is necessary to determine the models according to which the forms of the words and their combinations form the nucleus of the sentence, and the rules for the extension of these models. 1.3 The model includes the word forms that are necessary for the structure of the sentence as a grammatical unit. The sentence model can consist of one word form (Snow), two (Mother came), three (Uncle shot the fox), sometimes more (Grandpa asked the orphan for bread). Binary or multi-member models are formed on the basis of interdependence and/or connective relationships. The relationships of mutual dependence (alone or together with conjunctives) are usually seen in the models of personal sentences, only conjunctives — impersonal sentences (The neighbor is successful; He chose people, etc.). Linguists who follow the hypothesis of the distinction between “verbal” and “verbal” connections, which has already been mentioned, exclude many necessary members linked by connective connections from the sentence model (cf. IllsejxxoBa 1966; Benomankosa 1977; 1981; Pycckas rpamMmatuka 1980), but such a limitation is neither necessary nor sufficiently justified from a theoretical point of view (cf. Kpxmxxrosa 1967, 76; Helbig, Schenkel 1973, 34; Mockanbckas 1974, 27; Pacnomos 1976; 3omorosa 1982, 83 etc.; JlomreB 1979, etc.). 178 The members of the sentence model are usually designated either by the grammatical characteristics of the word forms (valence theory-based directions) or by the terms of the sentence parts (relational grammar, so-called universal grammar, some directions of functional grammar). This brings us to the often discussed but still very relevant problem of sentence parts. 1.4.1. The traditional conception of sentence parts, taken from K. F. Becker’s (1827) system, has long and rightly been criticized (see already Steinthal 1855; at present Glinz 1962; Eapxynapos 1966; Helbig 1982, 45—54; 3oxoroBa 1979 and others). Its main flaw is the contradictory mixture 12 of grammatical and semantic criteria b) In verb constructions with participants (feel condemned, said he had eaten, hoped he would get well, thought he knew, acted invisible, etc.) we also distinguish two components: the verb and the associated verb adjective or suffix. The fact that the participant here occupies the position of a separate sentence part is evident from its substitution with the subordinate of the connective sentence, cf.: érezte, hogy van ítélve, mondta, hogy evett, várta(si), hogy meggyógyul, etc. These verbs are usually not used without participants or subordinate elements of the connecting sentence, but this does not indicate the syntactic monolithicity of the construction, but simply a strong connection (see 1.1.1.), connecting the verb with the participant similarly as with the complement vowel, e.g. žinau grįžęs ir žinau kelią, but not *žinau. (More on the syntactic structure of these constructions in 1978, 7, etc.). c) Constructions of adjectives in the genitive form with the communicative form (pleasant to write, hard to work, good to drive, boring to rest...) were syntactically examined by V. Sirtautas (1978, 37—41); one can only agree with the firmly proven conclusion of the author, that they are also divided into adjectives and verbs. In addition, it should be noted that the differences between the two are not so obvious as they might seem, and therefore, the differences between the two are not as obvious as they might seem (see below). d) Some scholars consider the verb being in constructions with nouns and adjectives to be the verb itself (Glinz 1965; Erben 1964; Grebe 1959; Flimig 1970; Poxuosckas 1979 and others). This view may be motivated by the nature of the syntactic relationships: the verb be in Lithuanian, as in many other languages, forms with nouns the same form constructions as the independent verbs, which are all regarded as adverbs, e.g. jis vaikščiojo linksmas and jis buvo linksmas. However, in the sentence, the verb to blow, passing through the conjunction, functions as a syntactically empty morpheme, giving the noun-expressed sign only temporal and modal meanings (cf. Lyons 1968, 322—323; Babby 1975, 76 et seq., 89). In most sentences it has a null form, and in some types of sentences (e.g., the impersonals mentioned in 1.4.5 c) the null form of the present tense is predominant or even the only one. This is because, in many languages, the verbs are not connected by a conjunction, but rather by the forms of noun-origin words or morphemes. The view of the conjunction as the main part of the sentence is contradicted by the structure of those sentences that have not had a conjunction and are noun or nominal by nature (aut. 1979, 184 with lit.). Thus, the verb being, which is used as a conjunction in personal or impersonal sentences (e.g.: buvo gera, bus malonu), is best considered not as an independent adverb, but as a part of the adverb, as is done so far in Lithuanian grammar and in most syntax studies, including the model based on syntactic connections of L. Tesniere (1959, 47, 72). Similarly, we should look at the verbs to make, to become, to turn, which differ from the “pure connection” to be only in the meaning of changing the state. Other verbs, so far classified in Lithuanian grammar as "non-conjunctives", are much more independent and when they are conjunctives often have connected word forms and constructions, e.g.: atrodė negražiai, liko miške, jautėsi blogai, vadinosi keistai, feikėsi, kad nemato. Combinations of those verbs in noun pronoun su ar (e. g. : looked ugly, left alone, felt19 tęsi wściekły, nazywał się drzewo|drzewem, przebrał się za pijanego) can also be syntactically broken down into a phrase and the associated phrase mark, similarly to the constructions of other verbs (e.g.: żył samotny, powstał wesoły, chodził wściekły). Considering the conjunction to be a constructive noun compound adverb, it is still necessary to bear in mind that the components of this adverb su have each their own syntactic connections in other word forms su (plg. Bypxarosa 1975, 62—63; Living 1976, 60—63). For example, in the sentence Senis buvo stiprus verb was associated with the noun senis in a mutual relationship of dependence, and the adjective stiprus has two syntactic relationships: both with buvo and senis. Similar connections we see in the corresponding passive construction Senojo buvota stipraus, tik formą buvota su seniu. ne o (plg. but 3.3). The verb to be goes only in a ne conjunction denoting time and modality, but is used in meaning ir ‘exist’ (for the tų ratio of values, see Benveniste 1960; Kahn 1966; Babby 1975, 79—80). The existential verb to be in Lithuanian can be considered the same conjunct as je the verbs to exist, live, grow, appear, disappear, etc. ir ir Existential meaning is organically related to the time su coordinates of the location ir (plg. CejmuBeperosBa 1977, 11 etc.), which are often expressed in the sentence by adverbs, noun-like prepositional constructions, e.g. : ar The guard is at school; The tree was by the road: The meeting is tomorrow. In such sentences, the verb biti plays a similar role as the other state verbs in the sentences The guard lives in the school; The tree grew by the road; The meeting will take place tomorrow; so here, too, it's best to consider it a pronoun. jį Of course, such a syntactic division of the colloquial type sentences does not force them to be divided accordingly from a logical and semantic point of view (for the close connection between the place and the sign meanings see. Lyons 1977, 473). 1.4.6. There is further subdivision within the sentence parts. ir Ji particularly relevant to the part of the sentence called complement, ir which is distinguished by a wide variety of conjunctives. First of all, there is the question of circumstances. Define circumstances as a separate part of the sentence according to syntactic criteria and clearly distinguish from the complement so far no one has succeeded, although considerable efforts have been made. The traditional notion of circumstances, typical of school grammar, is based on ir meaning and therefore belongs to a completely different semantic level of analysis. In the context — of syntactic relations, circumstances should be seen as a subset of į complements. į Here the following ways of assigning circumstances seem possible: a) Keep contextually merged plug-ins ir separate from other managed — plug-ins. However, this method is questionable because of the very formal, “superficial” distinction between ir the (plg. 1.1.1.), conditioned by the morphological characteristics of the associated forms. The circumstances šį distinguished by the criteria would be į very different from those commonly distinguished now; For example, circumstances should be considered to be communicating in compounds need to go, started to ir drive, I want to live, etc., but circumstances should be separated from the final forms in compounds arrived at night, weighed three kilograms. Such a change in the scope of the term would be of little benefit, because the forms connected by fusion can be called simply attached additions. 20 b) Consider circumstances not necessary for the syntactic structure of the sentence (t: y. į the sentence core) complements. Šį approach can be based on the theory of valence, distinguishing the necessary and optional members (actants) from vad. free members (circumstants or situants). Only the members conditioned by the valence of the verbs are regarded as complements in the In the works of the Leningrad typological school (e.g., Xpakosckui 1974; 1981); in Lithuanian linguistics this principle is realized E. Geniušienės (plg. I remember you 1983, 16). The distinction between circumstances and adjectives according to their belonging or non-belonging to the core of the sentence structure is undoubtedly meaningful from a syntactic point of view. However, when applying šį the criteria, the term circumstances should also be used with a completely different meaning than hitherto. For example, in sentences Brother behaves well; We live in the city of word forms well, in the city could not be considered circumstances, because they are necessary for the structure of the sentences conditioned by the valency of the verbs; while the same word forms in ir sentences Brother is studying well; We spent the night in the city already should be considered circumstances. Since the term of circumstances itself is to be retained primarily for the sake of common sense, such a transfer to name jo completely different things would hardly seem acceptable, especially since ar the difference between the necessary and non-necessary members can ir be described by other terms used for this purpose (actant circumstants, necessary and optional free members, etc.). — — ir c) To consider as circumstances the additions having the position characteristic of adverbs. This method is based on the theory of ir primary secondary functions of word forms (Slotty 1932; Kurytowicz 1936), which is applied to ir the analysis of Lithuanian sentences. Comparison V. The (1981, 33) differences in the morphology of the subspecies indicate that it is the only subspecies of the genus. ir Thus, circumstances can be considered such adjectives, which either themselves have the form of adverbs, or can be replaced in the sentence by adverbs without disrupting the sentence structure. Good indicators of circumstantial position would be generalized meaning adjectives then (resp. from then, until then... J» ten (from there, to there...), yes, therefore, so and so on. ir Considering adverbial substitution as a distinctive feature of the circumstance, word forms prepositional constructions that can be replaced by adverbs, ar ir ir (one ar su prepositions), should be distinguished to circumstances, those whose o generalized meaning adverbs cannot be replaced to direct indirect adverbsy. For — example, the following ar prepositional constructions would be added to the circumstances: grįžome vakarienės gėriau krušotį; pulled my hand out of my iš pocket ; iš iš (from where/i§ who); went to his mother (where/- to whom); we sat around the pond (where/around what); we į went out in the fields (where/- to what); read the letter on po the table (where/after what); laughed through tears (how/due to what); built huts according to the plan (how/by what) etc. ir Meanwhile, indirect adjectives should be distinguished in the following sentences: Laughed iš father, sliced off the old iš snow (from what), strugglsu ed in front of (with whom), hid from the storm (from what), drove be finger (without anything- ), smelled of tar (kuo) pan. ir Such a conception of circumstances would be the least distant from the ir traditional one based on a grammatical criterion. Be Therefore, in this case it is possible to use the question test used in school practice, which, as already mentioned, is a simplified version of the substitution test. Only those circumstances that have no adverbial correlates (e.g.: invited lunch; postponed the meeting 21 for tomorrow), would have to be distinguished by other generalized questions. However, it is not always possible to draw a clear boundary between circumstances and indirect complements in this way, and in peripheral cases of use there will be constructions that can be interpreted in two ways. Given the field structure characteristic of classes of grammatical units (see Aamonu 1964, 47—51), this fluctuation of the boundary can be theoretically justified. 1.4.7. In addition, the subordinates are traditionally divided into direct and indirect. Studies in the direction of relational grammar show that such a division is syntactically significant in most cases (Johnson 1979; Johnson, Postal 1980, Perlmutter, Postal 1977; Perlmutter 1980; cf. also Gary, Keenan 1977; Comrie 1981, 60—67). However, it is not easy to define the difference between direct and indirect adjectives by grammatical features. External morphological indicators are far from sufficient, e.g. we returned at night (circumstance), but we are waiting for the night (direct adjective). Apparently, here it is necessary to rely primarily on syntactic processes, among which the most important role is played by passive transformation. When replacing the active construction with the passive, the direct complement in Lithuanian is replaced by the noun of the factor, and the indirect complement, like the circumstances, usually retains the conjunctive connection, the verb form and the syntactic position (cf. father bought a hat for the child and the hat was bought for the child by the father). For the purposes of that criterion, the following should be regarded as direct additives: a) verbs with a strong connective form of the suffix, which in the passive construction change the type of connection and become nominative forms; b) the corresponding forms of adjectives in constructions with a negation (did not buy medicines, do not see the road); c) genitive forms, depending on the verbs want, ask, desire, miss, avoid, seek, look, wait, etc., (cf.: desired food, requested book, achieved goal, expected message). Apparently, the beneficial noun associated with the verb to represent should also be included in this group (see the company represented by the director). However, there are some verbs, to which the associated adjectives in the passive construction (especially in Žemaitija) are in some cases replaced by the nominative forms, but should not be considered direct adjectives, even if another clearly direct adjective is used next to them, e.g.: duodu vaikui obuolį — the child was given an apple; gave bob a spoon — bob a spoon was given, cf. also: I didn't sleep all night — I didn't sleep all night. Problems in this regard are also utilitarian suffixes in such constructions as help a pupil (see teacher-aided pupil), order to tell a soldier (see your ordered soldier) and noble-form suffixes next to adjectives, e.g. ask father for a knife. In addition to the indirect complement, relational grammar also distinguishes the so-called oblige object, which approximately corresponds to most syntactically non-necessary circumstances and complements of the instrument and beneficiary meaning. Although the criterion for the separation of the secondary complement is not explicitly defined, it is essentially semantic — the term refers to relationships with “independent semantic content” (Johnson 1977, 153). Therefore, there is no need to distinguish the secondary complement from the circumstances. Thus, the following subclassification of complements seems possible: in the first stage of the division according to different participation in syntactic processes (especially passive transformation) to allocate direct indirect complement; in the second level of classification according to the syntactic position of adverbs indirect complements to exclude circumstances. 22 — iš 1.4.8. The discussed parts of the sentence are defined by the criterion tą itself, as word combinations ir according to syntactic relationships — t. y. between independent word forms. The units, which are here called sentence parts, can be described in terms of word forms by indicating the corresponding ir syntactic relationships. For example, su the factor is a certain form of the word, holding the position of the denominator associated with the verb in the relationship of interdependence; adjective in conjunction su with verb in the form of conjunct. — su si However, the terms of sentence parts, although compromised by the mixture of syntactic and semantic criteria typical of traditional grammar, are only shorter, but ir in many cases more convenient. ne ir Of course, they need to be refined ir to give them a clear syntactic content. Distinguished according to defined syntactic features, the units of the syntactic structure of the ir sentence could be further referred to as sentence parts both in linguistic works and ir in school practice. 2. SAKINIO SEMANTIC STRUCTURE UNITS 2.0. The semantic structure of a sentence consists of the totality of the relationships of ir jų meanings described by the interconnected word forms. Relationships of word meanings in a sentence ne are o realized directly, through syntactic units specific to each language ir jų communications network. Therefore, there is no direct correspondence ir between the semantic syntactic structure of the sentence. If we try to define semantic relations in terms of syntactic connections, we will inevitably fall į into the same vicious circle as when we classify syntactic ir units by meaning. The most common units of the semantic structure of the sentence are assigned į by the universal logical division of the sentence ir generalized jo components. 2.1. Sakinio (S) the semantic center is represented in current logic as a propositional function (P) connecting a predicate, or attribute (F), one su more ar argument, or thoughtful thing, t. y. P= F(x...). Subject (object) connection su by attribute is called predication. The communicative direction of the sentence (K) ir su categories of modality related to the act of sniffing, forming vad. the modal nį frame of the sentence (M) usually raises the limits of the už propositional function, t. y. S~K(M)P)). Depending on the number of arguments allocated propositional functions su with single-place predicates — properties, having the form F (x), ir propositional functions in polynomial su predicate relations — (R) having the form of F(xy or ...) xRy... By defining one argument through another, multi-place functions can be replaced with single-place ones (Kappu 1969, 62; McCawley, 1981, 395—396), however, does not find such a rearrangement of functions useful for semantic analysis of language, because the initial scheme becomes confused. Arguments variables — (‘empty positions’), the number of which depends on the nature of the predicate; when they are replaced by constants, the propositional function becomes a statement and takes the form ir of a sentence. Lexical arguments in linguistics from L. Tesniere'o They are called actinomycetes. 23 The actants may be not only the names of concrete or abstract things, but also other propositional functions (so-called inclusive predicates). The semantic relationship between the verbalized predicate and the actants is the basis of the semantic structure of the sentence. The study of these relationships is given a great deal of attention in contemporary linguistics. Many linguists describe the semantic relationships between the predicate and the actants with the traditional terms of subjective, objective and adverbial relations, which are also common in Lithuanian linguistics. This direction has recently been strongly represented by academic grammar of the Russian language. It distinguishes the following most important semantic categories, called elementary ones: the predicate (category, elsewhere called simply predicate- ), subject and object. The subject is defined as the possessor of a predicative attribute (Pycckas rpammarmka 1980, 127). An object is a living or inanimate object to which an action or relationship is directly directed; This includes the objects of physical action, thought, perception, approach and distance, the addressee, the object of emotional relationship (ibid., 129). Non-elementary semantic categories are qualifiers of indicative and circumstantial meaning that extend the elementary semantic structure. The elementary semantic structure thus understood corresponds approximately to the syntactic nucleus of the sentence, which is conditioned by the characteristics of the taring, and the non-elementary categories — free members and components dependent on the parts of the sentence. However, the relationship between the object category and the "non-elementary" categories remains unclear. For example, the sign of the direct direction of the action does not fit into instruments, and the components of adverbial meanings conditioned by the meaning of the predicate (for example, We live in the city) do not fit into any category. In many other works, the concepts of subject and object are generally undefined and are not clearly distinguished from the syntactic concepts of factor and complement. The relation of the predicate to the actants is more specifically described in terms of semantic functions (or semantic roles, depth verbs). From the predicate —the verb possesses the positions of the meanings Ch. Fillmore called them depth verbs, which were supposed to denote universal types of semantic relationships; Lately, they are usually called semantic functions or roles. The number and nature of semantic functions vary; In the works of different (sometimes the same) researchers they are distinguished from 5—9 (Fillmore 1968; 1977; Cook 1978; Anderson 1971; Abraham 1978; Starosta 1978; Dik 1980, 1980 a) to 25 (Anpecsau 1974, 125—126). This is partly due to the fact that the very wide range of significance of actants is divided depending on the direction of research and specific tasks. For example, when describing the valence of verb lexems, it is useful to divide semantic functions more in detail than when studying general features of sentence structure. The most important differences arise from the different approaches to the part of the analysis that is represented by semantic functions. Both Ch. Fillmore, as well as many other researchers in this direction, tried to distinguish and describe semantic functions according to the situation of the sentence, the “position of things” in reality outside the language (see Pleines 1978, 367—368). The predicate (primarily the verb) was regarded as the name of an extralinguistic situation, and the semantic functions (roles) — as relations reflected in the speaker’s consciousness. 24 between the participants in that situation. Based on the view of the situation as the denotat or referent of the sentence (T'ax 1969, 78—80; 1973, 358; Mockansckas 1981, 9—10 with lit.) semantic functions have been tried to distinguish and differentiate according to the way and in which respect the attribute expressed by the predicate affects the participants of that situation. If it turned out that two or more sentences with different predicates could be connected in the same situation, they were considered to have the same semantic but different syntactic structure (Anpecsu 1974, 258 etc.). This view forced us to model in terms of semantic functions not so much the meanings of the predicates as the external situations themselves, which in turn are only accessible through the meanings of the sentence units. It was difficult to apply it to the analysis of specific sentences (especially so-called conversions). A closer examination of the semantics of predicates revealed that there is no theoretical basis for considering the external situation as the direct denotat or referent of the sentence, because the predicate, or sign, is a unit of the significant plan, so it cannot go with the unit of nomination — the name of the situation. "Predicates do not name" (Crenamos 1980, 321). Unlike actants, which have both denotative and significant meaning, the predicate realizes only its significant (abstract, conceptual) content in the sentence (ApyrroHoBa 1976, 11). The meaning of the sentence is not the situation itself, but what is said about the situation, what features are distinguished in it by using one or another language means. Therefore, the same situation can be described by sentences with different semantic structures (see Starosta 1978, 512; Lyons 1981, 491, etc.; Bėličova 1982, 26; Hlavsa 1982, 30, etc.). For example, exactly the same external situation can be described by the following sentences: (1) The father sold the horse to the neighbor; (2) A neighbor bought a horse from his father. Actants, denoted by the nouns father and neighbor, have the same significants and denotations in both cases, but their semantic function (i.e. relationship with the predicate) is far from the same: in the first sentence, father denotes the performer of the action (agent), and neighbor — the addressee of the action (beneficiary- ); in the second —the neighbor already has the function of agent, and the parent form of the word indicates the source of action, which may not be said in the sentence. Thus, the semantic structure of both sentences is different; finding her common denominator by including the causation operator is also difficult, because sell * CAUS + buy. The logical semantic structure of the sentence is determined primarily by the choice of the predicate, because the number and nature of the actants depends on the meaning of the words that pass through the predicate. Each language has its own system of ir semantic fields of verbs, specific tendencies to describe certain phenomena as active actions, states of objects experiencing them, ambient processes ar (plg. : Pasnigo ir Berman cnez for acceleration su Forced snow). Meanwhile, semantic functions are known to us only as predicate iš meanings ir "there is no other way to" jų (Potts 1978, 399). Apparently, this is why the units of the semantic structure of the sentence have been searched in the semantic domain of the language by orienting the meanings of the forms of words į that are ir predicate actants in various languages. It is in this way that we are now trying to distinguish the most general semantic functions (roles) that would reflect the relations of the predicate ir actors relevant to the analysis of the sentence structure of many languages (Abraham, 1978; Sixoxros 1978; XparoBexnit 1978; 1981). The most common semantic functions that coincide in most iš of the presented classifications can be considered the following: agent — A (the performer ir of the initiators 25 of the action, including the forces of nature), the patient — P (the recipient of the action or the holder of the state) together with the perceptive — Pcp (the holder of the mental state or the experiencer), the descriptive — Descr (the holder of the property or the name), the beneficial — B (the addressee of the action or state), the result — R, the contentive — Con (the content of the action or state), the instrument — I (the means). The semantic relations of the actants more distant from the predicate (but in some cases conditioned by it) are marked by the functions of the causative (Caus), finitive (F), locative (L, here direction and time references can also be attributed) and mode (M), which can also be considered as separate predicates. Since the semantic functions mentioned here denote the relations of the actants of the predicate in the semantic domain, they cannot be defined by the actants’ reference ir properties: alive/dead, whole/partial, etc. These features are not part of the reference structure of the sentence, but of the actants, and can only indirectly affect semantic functions. Because of this interaction and other reasons, there are borderline, transitional cases between some semantic functions, for example between the causative and contentive functions in sentences such as Himmel blinkt mit Sternen. 2.3. Thus, we have models du of semantic relations: in the first, these relations are described in terms of subject, object and adverbial members, in the second — in terms of semantic functions (respectively, roles, depth verbs). What do these models have in common and can they be combined? If we look at the predicate of the sentence as a semantically indivisible unit, both classifications will seem incompatible: what is called the subject will in some cases be the agent (Child writes), in others — the patient (Child lies), again in other cases the patient will correspond to the object (Child carries an apple). However, predicates are also divided into classes. In addition to the usual logical division of predicates into single and multiple, methods and criteria of semantic classification of predicates are currently being discussed. Authors who study the component structure of predicates try to distinguish more elementary units — meaning components or semantic features (see Bendix 1966; Jackendoff 1972; 1975; Anpecax 1974; Wierzbycka 1972; 1976), which could be taken as a basis for dividing predicates into separate classes. These classes are not equally distributed and have different degrees of generalization. For example, L. Ščerba distinguished predicates of action, state, quality (Illep6a 1974, 90). W. Chafe (1971), J. Pleines (1976), R. Zimekas (1980) distinguish predicates of action, state, process (similarly Grenda 1982, 33, etc.), J. Stepanov considers three types of predicates corresponding to Aristotle’s categories of substance, state, relationship (Crenaxos 1981, 131-132), while V. Bogdanov presents as generally recognized classes of predicates of action, state, property and relationship (Bormamas 1977, 51; an overview of various classifications —CemmBepcroBa 1982, 88, etc.). A consistent classification of predicates according to several differential characteristics has been developed recently by T. Bulygina. This classification distinguishes characteristics from phenomena primarily according to their temporality (see Rosengren 1978, 379—380); The latter are further divided into actions (dynamic phenomena) and states and situations (static phenomena) according to the characteristic of dynamic, and actions according to the characteristic of duration are divided into processes and events (Byjesiraga 1982). Detached from the temporal characteristic, which can be linked to the dichotomy of verb and noun as grammatical classes of words (cf. Benveniste 1950, 21 etc.) and occupies a special place in the predicative structure of the sentence in general, the characteristics and states and situations could be combined into one syncretic type (cf. Vendler 1967, 103) and contrasted with actions. If the predicates denoting the change of state, called processes by L. Chafe, were also classified as states, we would have two major groups of predicates — action and state (in the broadest sense) predicates. Even this most general classification of predicates is sufficient to link the concepts of subject and object with semantic functions (aut. 1982). The semantic functions of the action and state predicates, taken separately, do not cross into the more general categories 26 of subjective, objective and adverbial relations: Semantic relations functions ir (roles) Ą Fa Related to action predicates Related to biesen predicates Semantic relations semantics functions semantics functions Subjective A (There came guests; P (Glass broken) The rain shook the rye) Pep (Everyone hears the noise) B (Parents had land) Desct (The girl was beautiful; Father was a teacher) Objective P (Girl broke glass) | Con (I don't know the way; R (Neighbor dug a ditch) Lack of money) B (I sent a letter to my parents) | Vines turned into coal) I (Turn the violin) Adverbial Caus (People starved) F (I came with an axe) M (We will live differently; Cheese weighed a kilogram) L (in Gyvenau; We į walked the city; In the evening it cooled) Subjective, į objective and adverbial relations can be expressed by semantic functions based on this correlation. (roles) terms. The subject can be defined as ti the action predicate agent, the state ir predicate patient, percipient, beneficial and descriptive. This concept of the subject iš corresponds essentially ir to the definition already mentioned: “the performer of the act or the holder of the status”. Actants, which are directly conditioned by the ir predicate semantics and perform other semantic functions, are considered objects. The term adverbial relationships denotes the functions (roles) of cause, purpose, place, direction, time and nature of action, characteristic of actors more distant from the predicate, which in most cases can be considered separate included predicates (plg. Helbig 1982, 28). Quite problematic is the instrument function, because the applicants of the action means in one sentence are conditioned by the semantics of the predicate (e.g. in verbs to su be strict, to call, to growl, to wave), in others are optional (e.g., movement su actionaZodZiais). Many can also be understood as jų inclusive predicates. 27 Some researchers try to distinguish them from objects and assign them to the same group as the representatives of time, place or cause (see Cook 1978, 299; Dik 1978, 39 etc., 1980, 9; in Lithuanian linguistics — Drukteinis 1982, 16—17 with lit.). However, considering the semantic connection of the instrument with the agent, the often observed dependence on the predicate meaning, the noun expression and the meaning of objectiveness (ApsBar 1976, 6), it seems more appropriate to leave the function of the instrument to the group of objective relations. The concepts of subject, object and adverbial members, correlated with semantic functions (roles) in the aforementioned way, acquire a more defined content, essentially not contrary to normal usage; they correspond to groups of semantic functions associated with predicates of action states as units of a higher degree of su abstraction. It ir is also important to harmonize the currently most widely used models of the semantic structure of the sentence, because their scope of application is not the same. In those cases where it is necessary to describe syntactic processes, the fibers of semantic relations generalized by the concepts of subject or object are more useful; on the other hand, in order to describe these relationships more specifically (e.g., in valence dictionaries), the model of semantic functions is preferable. Other researchers have also drawn attention to the relevance of grouping semantic functions for the description of sentence structure and typology. A. Kibrikas uses the term hyperroles for this purpose, by which he denotes the fibers of semantic functions (roles) characteristic of certain types of language structure, differently realized in the external structure: the Function of ergative languages, the Actor of accusative languages; experiencer (respectively percipient), recipient goal functions combine ir į Addressee hyperrole (Sighs) 1979, 314-315; 1980, 328 ff.). E. Geniušienė (Temromexre 1983, 15) applies the terms of subject and object hyperroles (respectively hyperfunctions) to the classification of conjugative verbs in Baltic languages. However, apart from the action and state predicates, the content of those hyperfunctions could not be clearly defined from a semantic point of view. they were considered semi-syntactic and were characterized also in terms of communicative characteristics (cf. such definitions as “main participant in the situation”; “indirect, closest, most touched participant in the situation” Ku6pux 1979, 314). The groups of subjective, objective and adverbial relations are necessary because in Lithuanian, as in other accusative languages, semantic functions are not directly encoded. Patient in constructions with double predicates is not only expressed differently than in constructions with single predicates (plg. Girl broke a glass ir Glass broke), but they ir participate in different syntactic processes, which would be difficult to describe semantically in terms of functions (roles). For example, in passive transformation, the most important role is played not by the agent, the patient or other functions, but by the change in the subject's relationship with the factor. Languages whose grammatical structure encodes semantic functions directly (Van Valin, Foley 1980, 348—350); Kubpux 1980, pp. 328. Hysax 1982, 363), the concepts of subject and object (as well as the corresponding syntactic factors and suffixes) may be unnecessary. In addition to the aforementioned semantic relations, the component structure of the predicate- ’s meaning and the referential characteristics of the actants are important for the analysis 28 of the sentence; there is also a need for a certain hierarchy, according to which the syntactic functions of the factor and the complement can be assigned to actors having one or another semantic function (Dik 1980, 14—15; 1980 a, 63—64). The model of diathesis developed by A. Cholodovičius, V. Chrakovskis, S. Jakhontov, G. Silnickis and other authors is applied to the typological study of many languages, consistently guiding the relationships of syntactic and semantic units. One of the obstacles in this direction of research is the ambiguity of subject and object terms and undifferentiated usage, especially characteristic of linguistic works in those languages that do not have syntactic equivalents for the concepts of factor and complement. The existence of two-term sequences in Lithuanian (as in many Slavic languages) creates extremely favorable conditions for describing the units of different analytic domains and their interrelationships. Conclusions The units of the syntactic and semantic structure of the sentence are defined separately in each of the analysis domains: syntactic units — according to the syntactic structure of the word forms in the sentence, semantic units — according to semantic functions and more general semantic relations. 2. There are three main types of syntactic relationships: connective, interdependence (interface) and connective relationships. In a connective relationship, a word form is included in the sentence through another word form that is independent of it, in a mutual dependency relationship — through a word form that is mutually related to it. Conjunctive word forms include a sentence through an equal connection to another word form. Syntactic relationships ju are formally realized by harmonization [and į coordination, control and fusion. su 3. The forms of words connected by direct relations form word combinations. Compounds of words (except lexicalized) are nominative units, ne components of the syntactic o structure of the sentence, distinguished in various stages of division. jo According to the nature of the syntactic connections, there are connective, mutually dependent ir connective words. 4. Syntactic units of sentence structure can be described by terms of sentence parts. In this case, the sentence part is also proposed to be defined according to the syntactic relationships of word forms with the center su of the sentence structure — conjunctive. The part of the sentence, typically connected by a copulative su relationship of interdependence, is considered to be a factor connected by a conjunctive complement. — In addition, the subordinate verbs are li divided into direct and į indirect subordinate verbs. ir The parts of the sentence that are connected by a connective link are homogeneous. Part of the sentence connectsu ed with a conjunction ir su factor or complementary two-way connective links, is considered to be a token. Other signs, which do not have a direct relation to the conjunct, are su parts of the sentence, only ne modifiers. According to o the syntactic jų criteria vad. In most cases, the conjunctive adverb can be divided into a subjunctive adverb and a į dependent ir adverb, but jo the noun constructions ar of the conjunction are considered to su be a compound adverb. 5. The semantic structure of a sentence is defined by the semantic relationships of the su predicate with the arguments expressed by the lexems (actants). Semantic functions of actants (agent, ir patient, beneficiary, etc.) determined on the me semantic level, taking į into account the predicate meaning reflecting the speaker's į attitude to the situation. 6. The two most common semantic groups of predicates are: Action ir state predicates (state predicates include predicates ir denoting object classes, properties and processes). Based on such a subcategory of predicates semantic functions (roles) can connect more general fibers į (hyperfunctions- ), corresponding to subjective, objective adverbial relations. Subjective ir relationships correspond to the semantic functions of the predicates of the action, the predicates of the agent state, the patient, the ir percipient, the beneficiary and the descriptor; objective relationships of action predicates patient, result, beneficiary, instrument state predicates — contentive, result functions. Adverbial relationships correspond to functions of ir cause, purpose, place, direction, time and nature of action, which are characteristic of actors more distant from the predicate, which themselves can be considered included predicates. In this way, subjective, objective adverbial ir relations are defined by the semantic functions of the most general groups of ir predicates (roles) terms. 7. The monocentric model of syntactic relationships is correlative to the logical scheme of the sentence core. Although there is no direct correspondence between the syntactic semantic structures of ir many sentences, each sentence part of the word compound can be described by ar the relationships of differentiated syntactic semantic units. ir LITERATŪRA Abraham W. (Ed.) Valence, Semantic Case and Grammatical Relations. — Amsterdam, 1978. Abraham W. Valence and Case: Remarks on their Contribution to the identification of Grammatical Relations. — In: Abraham (ed.) 1978, p. 695—723. Ambrazas V. Lietuvių kalbos vardininko su dalyviu (nominativus cum participio) struktūrair raida. — Kn.: Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai. V., 1978, t. 18, p. 7—68. Ambrazas V. Lietuvių kalbos dalyvių istorinė sintaksė. — V., 1979, Ambrazas V. Dėl sintaksinių ir semantinių terminų santykio. — Kn.: Sintaksės ir semanti= kos klausimai. Šiauliai, 1982, p. 6—7. Anderson J. M. The Grammar of Case: Towards a Localistic Theory. — Cambridge, 1971. Babby L. H. A Transformational Grammar of Russian Adjectives. — The Hague, Paris, 1975. | Balkevičius J. Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos sintaksė. — V., 1963. Balkevičius J. Sakinio pamatas veiksmažodis. — Mūsų kalba, 1983, Nr. 3, p. 3—6. Bechert J. Ergativity and the Constitution of Grammatical Relations. — In: Plank (ed.) 1980. Becker K. F. Organism der Sprache als Einleitung zur deutschen Grammatik. — Frankfurt am Main, 1827. Bėličova H. Sėmanticka struktura vėty a kategorie padu, — Praha, 1982. Bendix E. H. Componential Analysis of General Vocabulary. — Bloomington, 1966. Benveniste E. La phrase nominale. — Bulletin de la Société de linguistigue, 1950, t. 46, p. 19-36. 36 Benveniste E. „Ėtre“ et „avoir“ dans leurs fonctions linguistiques. — Bulletin de la Société de linguistique, 1960, vol. 55. Bloomfield L. Language. — New York, 1933. Chafe W. L. Meaning and the Structure of Language. — Chicago, London, 1971. Chafe W. L. Giveness, Contrastiveness, Def initeness, Subjects, Topics, and Point of View. — In: Li (ed.) 1976, p. 27-55. Chomsky N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. — Cambridge (Mass.), 1965. Chomsky N. Topics in the Theory of Generative Grammar. — In: Sebeok (ed.) 1966. Cole P., Sadock J. M. (Ed.) Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 8. Grammatical Relations. — New York, San Francisco, London, 1977. Comrie B. Causatives and Universal Grammar. — In: Transactions of the Philological Society, 1974, p. 1-32. Comrie B. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. — Oxford, 1981. Cook W. A. A Case Grammar Matrix Model. — In: Abraham (ed.) 1978, p. 295— 309. Danes F. Satzglieder und Satzmuster. — In: Beitrdge zu Problemen der Satzglieder. Leipzig, 1978. Dik S. C. Functional Grammar, — Amsterdam, 1978. Dik S. C. Studies in Functional Grammar. — London, 1980. Dik S. C. Seventeen Sentences: Basic Principles and Application of Functional Grammar. — In: Moravcsik, Wirth (ed.) 1980 (a), p. 45-75. Drukteinis A. Objekto sąvoka ir kai kurie požymiai. — Kalbotyra, 1982, t. 23(1), p. 15-20. Erben J. AbriB der deutschen Grammatik. — Berlin, 1964. Fillmore Ch. J. The Case for Case. — In: Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York, 1968, p. 1-88. Fillmore Ch. J. The Case for Case Reopened. — In: Cole, Sadock (ed.) 1977, p. 59—82. Flimig W. Der Satzbau (die Syntax). — In: Die deutsche Sprache (Kleine Enzyklopidie), Leipzig, 1970, Bd. 2, S. 908—978. Fries C. C. The Structure of English. — New York, 1952. Gary J. O., Keenan E. L. On Collapsing Grammatical Relations in Universal Grammar. — In: Cole, Sadock (ed.) 1977, p. 83-120. Geniušienė E. Dėl pasyvinés intranzityviniy veiksmažodžių formos. — Kalbotyra, 1972, t. 24(1), p. 27—31. Glinz H. Grammatik und Sprache. — In: Moser (Hrsg.) 1962, p. 42—60. Glinz H. Der deutsche Satz. — Diisseldorf, 1965. Goląb Z. Préba klasyfikacji syntaktycznej czasownikėw polskich (na zasadzie konotacji). — Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego, 1967, t. 25, p. 3—43, Grebe P. Der GroBe Duden. Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. — Mannheim. 1959, Greenberg J. H. (Ed.) Universals of Human Language. Vol. 4. Syntax. — Stanford, 1978. Grenda Č. Veiksmažodžio semantika ir žodžių junginio struktūra. — Kn.: Vientisinio sakinio semantika. V., 1982, p. 31—56. Hays D. G. Dependency Theory. A Formalism and some Observations. — Language, 1964, N 4, p. 511-525. Helbig G. Valenz— Satzglieder— Semantische Kasus— Satzmodelle. — Leipzig, 1982. Helbig G., Schenkel W. Wėrterbuch zur Valenz und Distribution deutscher Verben. — Leipzig, 1973. Heringer H. J. Theorie der deutschen Syntax. — Miinchen, 1970. Hjelmslev L. Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. — Indiana, 1953. Hockett C. F. A Course in Modern Linguistics. — New York, 1958. Hudson R. A. Constituency and Dependency. — Linguistics, 1980, vol. 18, p. 179-198. Jablonskis J. Rinktiniai raštai. T. 1 / red. Palionis J. / — V., 1957. Jackendoff R. S. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. — Cambridge (Mass.), 1972. 37 Jackendoff R. S. Morphological and Semantic Regularities in the Lexicon. — Language, 1975, vol. 51, N 3, p. 639—671. Johnson D. E. On Relational Constraints on Grammars. — In: Cole, Sadock. (ed.) 1977, p. 151—178. Johnson D. E. On Keenan's Definition of „Subject of“. — Linguistic Inguiry, 1977 (a), N 8, p. 673—692. Johnson D. E. Toward a Theory of Relationally Based Grammar. — New York, London, 1979. Johnson D. E., Postal P. M. Arc Pair Grammar. — Princeton, 1980. Kahn Ch. H. The Greek Verb „to be“ and the Concept of Being. — Foundations of Language, 1966, vol. 2, N 3. Karcevskij S. Sur la parataxe et la syntaxe en russe. — Cahiers F. de Saussure, 1948, N 7. Katkuviené L. Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos beasmeniai veiksmazodiniai sakiniai su jnagininku. — LTSR MA darbai. Serija A, 1980, t. 1 (70), p. 107-116. Keenan E. L. Towards a Universal Definition of „Subject“. — In: Li (ed.) 1976, p. 303-333. Kurylowicz J. Esquisses linguistiques. — Wroclaw-Krakow, 1960. Kurylowicz J. The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. — Heidelberg, 1964. Labutis V. Žodžių junginių problemos. — V., 1976. Labutis V. Sintaksės aprašymo galimybės ir uždaviniai. — Kalbotyra, 1981, t. 32 (1), p. 54—59. Lamprecht A. Relationale Satzanalyse. — Miinchen, 1983. Lehmann W. P. A Structural Principle of Language and Its Implications. — Language, 1973, vol. 49, p. 47—66. Lehmann W. P. Proto-Indo-European Syntax. — Austin, London, 1974. Li Ch. (Ed.). Subject and Topic. — New York, 1976. Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. — V., 1965, t. 1; 1971, t. 2; 1976, t. 3. Lyons J. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. — Cambridge, 1968. Lyons J. Semantics. — Cambridge, 1977, vol. 1—2. Martinet A. L'Autonomie syntaxigue. — In: Mėthodes de la grammaire. Paris, 1966. Martinet A. Conventions pour une visualisation des rapports syntaxiques. — Linguistique, 1973, vol. 9, f. 1, p. 5-16. McCawley J. D. An Un-Syntax. — In: Moravcsik, Wirth (ed.) 1980, p. 167—1%. MecCawley J. D. Everything that Linguists Have Always Wanted to Know about Logic (but were ashamed to ask). — Chicago, 1981. Meillet A. Introduction a 1’étude comparative des langues indo-européennes. — Paris, 1934. Moravesik E. A. Agreement. — In: Greenberg (ed.), 1978, p. 331-374. Moravesik E. A., Wirth J. R. (Ed.) Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 13. Current Approaches to: Syntax. — New York, London, etc., 1980. Moser H. (Hrsg.) Das Ringen um eine neue deutsche Grammatik. — Darmstadt, 1962. Paulauskienė A. Gramatinés lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžio kategorijos. — V., 1979. Pauliny E. Slovenska gramatika (Opis jazykového systému). — Bratislava, 1981. Perlmutter D. M. Relational Grammar. — In: Moravcsik, Wirth (ed.) 1980, p. 195-229. Perlmutter D. M., Postal P. M. Toward a Universal Characterization of Passivization. — In: Proceedings of the Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. Berkeley, 1977. Plank F. (Ed.) Ergativity. Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. — New York, 1980. Pleines J. Handlung, Kausalitdt, Intention: Probleme der Beschreibung semantischer Relationen. — Tiibingen, 1976. Potts T. C. Case-Grammar as Componential Analysis. — In: Abraham (ed.) 1978, p. 399— 458. Robinson J. J. Dependency Structures and Transformational Rules. — Language, 1970, vol. 46, N 2, p. 259-285. Rosengren I. Die Bezichung zwischen semantischen Kasusrelationen und syntaktischen Satzgliedfunktionen: der freie Dativ. — In: Abraham (Hrsg.). 1978, p. 377-398. 38 Schachter P. Reference-Related and Role-Related Properties of Subjects. — In: Cole, Sadock ed.) 1977, p. 279—306. Schmalstieg W. R. Indo-European Linguistics. A New Synthesis. — University Park and Lon- „don, 1980. Schmitt Jensen J. Les syntaxemes. — In: Mėthodes de la grammaire. Paris, 1966, p. 161 —164. Sebeok T. A. (Ed.) Current Trends in Linguistics. Vol. 3. Linguistic Theory. — The Hague, 1966. Sirtautas V. VeiksmaZodinis tarinys dabartinėje lietuvių literatūrinėje kalboje. Filol. kand. dis. (rankr.) — V., 1968. Sirtautas V. For the active meaning of passive forms. — Linguistics, 1970, t. 21(1), p. 71—74, Sirtautas V. Combining the main parts of a sentence. — V., 1978. Sirtautas V. Parts of a sentence. — K., 1981. Sližienė N. On the question of the valency of verbs. — Lithuanian Linguistics, 1978, 1. 18, p. 107—124. Sližienė N. The role of ir objectification in determining the syntax valence of Lithuanian verbs. — LTSR MA works. Batch A, 1980, t. 1 (70), p. 93—105. Mayor S. The One Per Cent Solution. — In: Abraham (ed.) 1978, p. 459— 575. Steele S. Word Order Variation. A Typological Study. — In: Greenberg (ed.) 1978, p. 585— 624. Steinthal H. Grammar, Logic and Psychology. — Berlin, 1855. Stockwell R. P. Summation and Assessment of Theories. — In: Moravcsik, Wirth (ed.) 1980, p. 353-381, Tchekhoff C. Syntax basics: the de la ergative. — Paris, 1978. 15th arrondissement L. Structural de syntax elements. — Paris, 1959. Trubetzkoy N. Le relationship between le determined, le determining et le defined. — In: Language de mixtures offered a Ch. Bally. Geneva, 1939, p. 75— 82. Valeckians A. The predicate is a separate part of the sentence. — Kn. : Lithuanian Linguistics, 1967, t. 9, p. 97-114. Van Valin R. D., Foley W. A. Role and Reference Grammar. — In: Moravesik, Wirth (ed.) 1980, p. 329-352. Van Valin R. Grammatical Relations in Ergative Languages. — Studies in Language. Amster- «dam, vol. 1981, 5, p. 361—394. Vendler Z. Verbs and Times. — In: Z. Vendler. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca. 1967. Wierzbicka A. Semantic Primitives. — Frankfurt am Main, 1972. Wierzbicka A. Semantic ticking. — Wroclaw-Warsaw-Kraków, 1976. Zimek R. Sémantickd construction of sentences: General Linguistic Problems of Methodology of Syntactic-Semantics of the Russian. — Prague, 1980. Anmonn B. I". BBejienne B CHHTAKCHC COBPEMEHHOTO HEMEIKOI'O S3bIKA. — M., 1955. Anmonn B. I". OcroBbl Teopun rpammatiki. — M. — JI., 1964. Annexcanapos H. M. IlpoOjieMa BTOPOCTENEHHBIX WIEHOB IPEVIOXKEHUS B PYCCKOM SI3BIKE, — Vu. Sam. JITTIM um. A. WU. The best. JI., 1963, r. 236. Anpecan IO. HIM. Jlexcmueckas cemanTHka. — M., Apsar 1974, H. H. COMIOHEHTHEI aHaJiu3 CeMaHTHYECKOR CTPYKTYPBI HYPOCTOTE NPEUIOKEHAS, — ‘Yepuosusr, 1976. Apyrionosa H. HIM. I'm not a big fan u of it. — M., 1976. Bapxynapos JI. C. CTpykType IIpOctOrO IpeNIONKeHHS B AHTTHIHCKOM SI3BIKE. — M., 1966. Beaomankosa B. A. Cospemennslii pycckuii si3pik. CHHTAKCHC, — M., 1977. beaomankosa B. A. Cuntakcuc. — B Toggle the color of the text. : CoBpeMeHHBIi pycckuit s35IK lox pen. | Benomankosoit B. A. M., 1981, c. 363-552. Bupiojiun JI. A. Kouctpichuuu ¢ Ga3oBbIMH, MOJIAJIbHLIMH H Kay3aTHBHBIMH TmiaroJiaMH. — B xH. : CeMaHTHKa H CHHTAKCHC KOHCTDPYKIIHMIL C APPROVED AKTAHTAMH. JI., 1981, c. 71-88. Byasiruna T. B. K MOCTpOeHHIO THITOIOT HE NpeliHKATOB B I'm sick of you. — B Kâf, Hâ. : CeMan- ‘THYECKHE THITHI ITpenukaTos. M., 1982, c. 7-85. 39 Bornanos B. B. CeMaHTHKO-CHHTaKCHYeCKasi OpraHH3al[HA TYpeĮŪUI1OXCHHS- — A, JI., BauAeiika 1977. JI. Tpancrio3HiH1 B JIKTOBCKOM H aHITIHHACKOM SI3bIKaX. — Buwisrioc, 1980. Bapayas H. O. OcHOBEI OMHCATENbHOM THHIBACTAKH. — M., 1977. Bunorpanos B. B. Pycckuii s351K. — M.—JI., 1947. ; Bunorpanos B. B. Bye. — B xH. : I 'paMMaTHura pyccKOro g3bIKa. M., 1954, 1. 2, 4. 1, c. 5—111. Bunorpagos B. B. Vi36p. Tp. We're going to Mo have a little party. — M., 1975. ' - Yes, sir. B. I. K rtpoGjieMe CHHTAKCHYECKOM CEMAaHTHKH (CeMaHTHYECKast HHTepIIpeTaus ‘MIYyOKHBHELIX’ H ‘OBEDXHOCTHbIX’ cCcTpyKTYyp). — B rm. : VIHBapHaHTHbIC CHHTAKCHYeCKHe 3HAUCHHA M CTpYKTYpa npejuroxeHas, M., 1969, c. 77—85. Tax B. I'm. Bsicka3biBanne Hi with Tyanus. — B r.: IpoGiaeMs! CTpyKTYpHON JIHHI'BHCTHKH — 1972. M., 1973, c. 349-372. Ienanse H. O., Taiinaposa O. A. O BesipaxeHuu cyObeKTHO-OGbeKTHbIX OTHOIICHHIA B ubepuiicKo-KaBKa3cKux si3bikax. — B Kâf, Hâ. : Kareropna cyOberTra u 00BeKTa B S3BIKAX pa3JIHUHbIX THnos. JI., 1982, c. 154-188. Tenroniene D. PeduiexcipHBIe riiarojibi B 6aiTHHCKAX S3BIKAX A THIONOTHS PEDIEKCHBOB. — Bunshaioc, 1983. Taaakuii A. B. ®opManbasle I'm sorry, I'm H sorry. — M., 1973. T'paMMaTura I'm not sure. — BumibHioc, 1985. I'm a pyceroro seika. — M., 1952, T. 1; 1954, 1. 2. Tyxman M. W. Toolxnuxs nojpiexa1mero B A36IKAaX Pa3NHYHbIX Thiob. — B KH. : Yes! nameik SECTION 2 B A3BIKAX pa3IIMYKEIX Tanos. JI., 1972, c. 5-27. Eamnzapenxosa T. S1., Tonopos B. H. F3bik mom. — M., 1965. 3oa0tosa I". A. K Bompocy 06 o6sexte cunTakcuyeckux uccinenopanuit. — That's it. AH CCCP. Cep. JiuT-pbi 1 s3., 1979, Ne 1. honoroBa I. A. COMMYHHKATHBHEIE acleKThl It's just a little bit. — M., Kappn 1982. X. OcHopanust You didn't tell my sister. (Ilep. c Poor one. ). — M., 1969. Kacesuu B. B., Xpaxosckuii B. C. O0mse Boripocbhi CeMaHTHKH KOHCTPYKIHH C NpeauKaTI'm not sure. — B Kâf, Hâ. : CeMaHTHKA H CHHTAKCHC KOHCTPDYKIMH C Page 1 of 1 JI., 1981, c. 7-23. Kub6puk A. E. I love you. I love i you. My s3bika. — Vi3s. AH CCCP. Cep. JMT-p5I H 3., 1979, T. 38, Ne 4, c. 309-317. Ku6pux A. E. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. OTHOIICHWS B CEMAHTHYECKH JPraTHBHLIX S3bE xax. — 3s. AH CCCP. Cep. mut-psl H s13., 1980, T. 39, Ne 4, c. 324-335. Kubpuk A. E. ITpobieema CHHTaKCHYeCKHX OTHOIICHHH B YHHBepcaJIbHOH rpaMMaTHKe. — B xu. : Hosoe B 3apybexHoii muarsuctuke. M., sem. 1982, 11, c. 5—36. Kpxuxkosa E. It's a good idea. — Czechoslovak Russian Studies, 1967, N 2. Jlomres T. II. 1998-1999 CTpykType rpemproxexHs B COBPEMEHHOM pYcckoM spike. — M., 1979. Jlonamos IO. A. O rpaMMaTHYeCKHX CPEACTBaX BhIPaXKeHHs CyObeKTA H The B object is a bicycle. — B xu. : Kateropus cyOberTa H OObeKTA B A3bIKaX pa3nuyHbIX THmos. JI., 1982, c. 101-124. Mockamsckas O. H. TTpo6reMs! CHCTEMHOrO OfMcaHus CHHTakcuca. — M., 1974, Mpa3exr P. CunTakcuyeckask JUCTPHOYLMA IJiaroJIiOB u ux kmaccel. — BS, 1964, Ne 3. Myxnn A. M. OyHKUMOHATbHbI aHAIM3 CHHTAKCHYeCKHX 3Theymust. — M.—JL, 1964. Myxua A. M. Crpykrypa npemioxennii u ux monenu. — JI., 1968. Hynmon M. O nomiexamux u Don't take it. — B xg. : Hosoe B 3apyGexHoit I'm sorry. M. 1982, Yeah, well. 11, c. 356—375. IManyuesa E. B. O crocoGax ripejicTaBJieHHsi CHHTAKCHYeCKONH CTDpYKTYDpBI I'm sorry. — BA, 1964, Ne 2. Ilemxroscerunii A. M. Pycckuii CHHTAKCHC B HAYYHOM OcBenfeHAH. — M., 1956. Poxnosckas M. I". I'm sorry, I'm mo sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. IlpejproDETAILS C NDpEJMKMKATHBHLIM I'm smoking. — M., 1979. 40 A stupid little monster. T, 2: Cunrakcuc. — M., Ilonos 1980. A. C. It's a good u thing. B CTPYKTYpPE IIPOCTOro MpeaIOKEeHHA COBpeMeHHOTO pyccKoro jiuTeparypHoro ssbika. — Ilepms, 1974. Pacnonoe H. II. 1998-1999 Uro See cTpyKTypHas cXema npemioxenus. — BS, 1976, Ne 2. Pacnonos H. II. 1998-1999 Ckazyemoe Sister. KOHCTPYKTHBHBIH LEHTp mpeioxenns. — B kn. : TheopernYecKHe NIpoOjeMbI CHHTAKCHCA COBPEMEHHBIX MHIOeBporeiickux A35IKOB. JI., 1975, c. 162-168. Pes3un H. WU. CoBpeMeHHas CTpYKTypHas JIMHrBHCTHKA, — M., 1977. Ceausepcrosa O. H. CemanTuyeckuii aHajiH3 3K3MCTEHIMAILHBIX H IIOCECCHBHbIX COHCTPYKUMi B AHITJIKŪCKOM s3bike. — B Kâf, Hâ. : Kareropun Obits H Oh, it's B right. M., 1977, c. 5 —67. Ceausepcrosa Aa. Ha. Bropoii BapuanT knaccupuKalMOHHON CETKH H IMPORTANT HEKOTOPBIX HDeJIKHKATHLIX THIIOB Nice s3bika. — B KH. : CeMaHTHYeCKHMe THIbI I'm the one. M., 1982, c. 86-157. Cxobanxosa E. C. Cornacosanne H B PYCCKOM s3bike. — M., 1971. Crobanxoea E. C. CoBpemensblit pycckuii si35IK. CHHTAKCHC IIpOCTOTO MHPEUIOKCHHS. — M., 1973. Cmupunnknii A. VM. It's a very small s3sika. —M., 1957. Creb6ann-Kamenckuii M. M. CriopHoe B s351Kx03H5aHnH. —JI., 1974. Crenanos IO. C. K ynupepcansHoit Kriacecndurannx mpemukatos. - M3B. AH CCCP. Cep. JIMT-DbI H 43., 1980, T. 39, Ne 4, c. 311-323. Crenaxos 10. C. Vivena. IMpemukarsr. Ilpempioxenas,. —M., 1981. Cycos H. Il. You're a good guy. You're a good guy. —Tyna, 1973. GOnuruajos C. SI. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. —B KH. 1962, pp. 100-113. A. A. ItpoGiemsl rpammaTmieckoii Teopun. —JI., 1979. Xpaxosckniit B. C. ITaccusubie KOHCTpPYKimH. - B kH. : THnojiorHs IMacCHBHBIX KOHCTDYKmii. You're dead. JI., 1974, c. 5-45. Xpaxosckuii B. C. IlpoGjieMbi knaccupukalmy CHHTAKCHIECKHX akTanToB. - B kH. : [{name361 H 3anoru. JI., 1975, c. 274-280. Xpakoseknii B. C. 3anor u pedrexcus. - B ku. : It's been a long time. J., 1978. Xpakoscknit B. C. [Juuate3a u penaHTHOCTh. —B KH. : 3ajIOroBbIe KOHCTPYKIIHH B pa3HOCTpYKTYpHBIX si3bikax. JI., 1981, c. 5-38. Yepu A. Beenenne B MaTeMaTH4eckyro Joruky. —M., 1960, r. 1. Yubasol A. C. Ilpo6GjieMa 3praTHBHON KOHCTDYKUHH B HOepHHCKO-KABKA3CKHX SI3BIKAN. - B xu. : DprathbhaSi kohctpykiws itpeiokehus b s3bIkaX pa3jimykelix thoob. JI., 1967, c. 10-32. IlaxmaroB A. A. CuaTakcHc pycckoro s3eika. —M.—JI., 1941. Hisexosa H. IO. The Octopus has a "CHHTAKCHC CIOBOCOYETAHUS Ho IPOCTOrO Mpeioxenusi". - B x H. : OCHOBBI MOCTPOECHHS ONKHCATEJIbHOK I'PAaMMATHKH COBPEMEHHOIO PYCCKOro maTepatypHoro si3eika. JI., 1966, c. 167-205. Hmimenes JI. H. Cunatakcmueckas WJIEHHMOCTb BBICKA3bIBAHAS B COBDEMEHHOM DPYCCKOM sa3L1Ke. —M., 1976. Hlyoux C. A. Mepapxus 4JeHOB IIPEUTOXKEHAS B. HHIOEBPOICHCKHX s3bikax. - B ku. : Kareropus yosekTa H OObeKTA B s3bIKaX pa3JIHUHbIX THOOB. JIL, 1982, c. 125-134. It sticks to her. B. The liquid part of the cube. —M.—JI., 1974. $Slxonros C. E. Kiaccsl rnaronos u rraziexHOe odopmirenne aktanTos. - B kH. : [Tpo6aemsl TeopuxH rpaMMaTHu4ecKoro Three times. JI., 1978. B. AMEPA3AC EAHWHHLUDBI CUHTAKCHYECKOH H CEMAHTHUECKOHM CTPYKTYPbI NPEAJIOKEHHSA B JIMTOBCKOM SI3bIKE Pe3iome EnmHHuribi CHHTAKCHYECKON H CeMAHTHUeCKON CTDYKTYDEI IIPEIIOKEHHS ONDpeNeJISIOTCS OTIEJIbHO Ha KaXJIOM YpOBHe aHaJIH3a: SĮIMHHIbI CHHTAKCHYECKON CTPYKTYpPhl —HA OCHOBAHHH CHHTAKCHYECKHX CBA3el CJIOBOĖDODpM B IIpEJŲIOXKEHHK, SIIKHKILI CEMAHTHYUECKONH CTDYKTYDbI —Ha OCHOBAHAM ceMaHTHYecKuX OyKKOKHMHŪ (pojiei) H mx Gojiee OOnIKHX IpYMI —CEMAHTHYECKHX OTHONIEHHŪ. B cuHrTaKcHh4uecKOH CTPYKTYpe HpeJUIOXEHHSA pa3jiuuarOTCS TPH OCHOBHBIX THIIA CHHTaKCHYeCKMX CBSi3ei: OOJYIHHEHHE, B3AHMO3AaBHCHMOCTb H COuKHeHHe. CIOBOdfOopMA C IIOJIHHHHTEJIbLHON CBA3bIO BKIIIOYAETCA B IIPEUIOKEHHE IIDH IIOCDeJICTBE He3aBHCHMONH OT Hee Kpyroit CJIOBOĖOOpMEI, CJIOBOĖJOpMA CO CBS3bIO B3aHMO3aBHCHMOCTH —IIDH IOCPEACTBE B3AaHMOCBA3aHHOH C Heil CJIOBOdopMEI. C10BOOPMEI ¢ COHHHHTEJIEHON CBA3bIO BKJIFOMAIOTCS B IIDpeJŲIOXEHHE TPH IOCpejcTBE ojiuHaKOBON CB33H C Npyroit cCJIOBOĖdopMOoH. CorjiacoBaxne (BKJIIro4atonee. KOODIIKMHAIIMIO), YIIpaBJieHHe H IIDHMEIKAHHe IpeliCTABIISIOT COOOH OOpMAJIbLHbIE CIOCOOBI BELIDaxXEHHS CHHTAKCH= YECKHX CBSA3CH. Cnosodopmsl, CB53aHHbIC B IIpeĮŪUIOXKEHHH HEIIOCPEACTBEHHON CHHTAKCHYECKOH CBS3bIO, obpasyroT ciosocoueranus. CroBocoyeTanus (3a MCKIIIOYEHHEM JIEKCHKAJIH3HDOBAHHbIX OGOpoTOB) SBISIOTCS He HOMHHATHBHbIMH €JMHMIIAMM, a KOMITOHEHTAMH CHHTAKCHYECKOH CTPYKTYpBI NIpDeJŪUJIOXECHHSA, BBIIEISEMbIMH Ha pa3HbIX CTYMMEHAX ero 4ieHenusi. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. CrpykTypa TMojJtuHHHTeJIbHbIX HM B3aHMO3aBHCHMOCTHBIX CJIOBOCOYETaHMII OOYCJIOBJIeHA TDaMMATHY4eCKHMH H CEMAHTHYECKHMH OCOOEHHOCTSMH MX KOMITOHEHTOB. 53bIKE MIPAIOT MEPBOCTEHEHHYIO POJIb [IPH IOCTDOCHHH MHOI'HX THIIOB IIpeJŲIOXEHHHĖ, BXOAAT B MX CTPYKTYPHOE SAPO H YEPEAyIOTCS C B3aMMO3aBHCAMOCTHBIMHA CJIOBOCO4eTAHHAMH B CHHTAKCHYECKMX IIpomeccax. DTO HE OMpaBILIBAET ĮIEJIEHHSA CHHTAKCHYECKHX CBsi3edl Ha "TIpHCJIOBHbIe" HU "TIpelpjioxeHuecKHe". Ilpejptoxe€HH1A OTIMYAIOTCHS OT CJIOBOCOgyeraHHH He XapakTepOM CHHTAKCHYECKO# CBSI3H, a OQOPMIICHHEM ITO ONpeJieJIEHHbIM I'm sorry, COOTHECEHHEM C pe4eBOH CHTyalHeil, MOJIAJIbHOCTEIO H HHTOHALMOHHBIM KOHTYPOM. Jit XapakTepUCTHKA CHHTAKCHYECKHX eĮJIMHHI IPH OIMCAHHH CTPYKTYDHI APPLICATIONS MOTYT ObITh HCIONB30BAHBI SECTIONS WIEHOB IIPEJIOKEHHS, ONpe/Ie/ICHHbIE HA OCHOBAHHH CHHTAKCHYECKHX CBsi3€il CJIOBOYOPM C CHHTAKCHYECKMM LEHTPOM INTERVENTION — CKa3YyeMbIM. UjteH NpEeUIOXKEHHUS, B THIOBBIX Cly4asiX CBS3aHHLIH CO CKa3yeMbIM CBS3bIO B3aMMO3aBHCHMOCTH, orpejiejisieTCA KaK MOAJexalliee, CBA3AHHBLIH ITOMYMHHUTEIBHON CBS3bI0 — KaK JOMOJIHEHHE. (TumoBbIMM CYHTAIOTCS CJIy4aH, B KOTOPBIX CIOBOGOPMA BBICTYIIAET B XapaKTEPHOM [UIs MaHHOMN IIO3HIHH FpaMMaTH4ecKoit popme.) ITo pasHOMY y4acTHIO B CHHTAKCHYECKHX IIPOLIECCaX JONOJIHEHHSI B CBOIO O4epellb IIOJIpa3/(eJISIOTCH Ha IIpAMbIe (IpeoOpa3yIolIHe CHHTAKCHYECKYIO CBS3b B ItaccHBHOH (TpaHCĒOOpMAnLHH) HM HEOpSIMble; PA3HOBHIHOCTHIO HEIPSMBIX JIONOJIHEHHŪĒĒ MOXKHO CYATATh OOCTOSTENBCTBA, BBIAENAEMbIC Ha OCHOBAHHH XaPaKTEPHOM [UIs HapeYHil CHHTAKCHYECKOMN MO3HLMA (Ha Hee YKa3bIBAET BO3MOXHOCTb CYOCTHTYLHH OpenHeM C OGOGINEHHbLIM 3HAYCHHEM). Friend's mpemutoxkenus, o6namaronuii IBOMHON CHHTAKCHYECKO# CBA3bIO (CO CKa3yeMbIM H ITOJIJIEXKAIIKM HIM JIOTIOJHEHHEM), XapaKTepu3yeTcsi Sister. I'm not sure. [Ipyrue enpeJejieHus, He HMeIOLIKe NpAMOK CBSI3H CO CKa3yeMbIM, SBJISIOTCS HE WIEHAMH I'm a HX MogubHKaTopaMH. ; Envaviel CEMAHTHYUCeCKON CTDpYKTYDBI Page 1 of 1 ONDpeEJeJNISIOTCA HA OCHOBAHHH OTHOIt's just a question of time. K BbIDa:KCHHBEIM JIEKCEMAMH apryMeHTaM (akTAHTAM). CeMaHTHuecKHe OyYHKIMH akKTAaHTOB (areHc, mauuenc, GeHe(HUMEHT, pe3yJIbTAaT H. Jp.) YcTAHABJIHBAIOTCH HA CHTHH()HKATHBHOM YpOBHe C Y4€TOM 3HAYCHHS Ntpe/iMKAaTA, OTpaxaIONeTO OLEHKY CHTYAIKH C TOYKH 3peHHSZ TOBOPSIETO. 42 Pazmmyarorcs cienyromue Hanbonee KpyriubIe CEMAHTHYeCKHe THIIbI IpageuKaTOB: PageHKATbI JCHCTBRSA H TIPEIUKATHI COCTOSHHSA (K IIOCJIEJIHHM OTHOCATCS Takke IrpejiuKATEI, OOO03Ha4AIONIKHE BKJIIOYCHHE B ONDpeJIeJIeHHbIH KJjiacc, IpH3HAKH H TIpoliecCcbi). Takas cybkaTeropusanus Ttpe/iuKaTOB ITO3BOJISIET CI pYINHpOBATb CeMAHTHYeCKHE WESTERN (pojiu) aKTAHTOB B Gojiee OOInIME IryuKH (TuneppoJIH), COOTBETCTBYIOLIHE CYOBEKTHBIM, OGbEKTHLIM H AĮBEDOHAJILHbIM OTHOINEHHAM. Cy6sekTHbie AUTHONICHHS OObeJHMHSAIOT OYBKIMMIO areHCa pH IrpejinKaTAX JIeČiCTBHS H OYBKIMK naHMnuenca, NepriuimuenTa, OeHedHIMeHTa Ho JIeCKpHITTHBA MPH KtpejiukaTaX COCTOSHHUS, OOBJEKTTHBIC AUTHONNICeH- — HS yKKIMH NanuueHca, pe3yjIbTaTAa, GeHedarimeHTa, HHCTpyMEHTA IPH TYPE/iMuKATAX MelicTBHA H (QYHKIHM COUNTRY, pe3YyjibTaTa IPH IKIrpeliuKaTAX COCcTOSHHS. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. OTHONICHHA OOBLEJMKHAIOT (WESTERN IPHYHHBI, HeJIK, MECTA, HANpaBJIEHHS, BpeMeHH M CIOCcOGa ACHCTBHSA, XapaKTEDpHEIe is OOJIee OTIaJIEHHbIX OT ItpejuKa aKTAHTOB, KOTODpbIE CAMH MOTYT paccMaTpHBaTbCS B KauecTBe BKIIFOYECHHBIX IrpejituKATOB. TakuM 06pa3oM, CyObEKTHBIE, OObEKTHbIe H AIJ[BEpOHAJILHbLIC OTHONIEHHSA ONDpeJIeJIAIOTCSA TEACHER THIIOB SECTIONS H CEMAHTHUCCKHX (dyHKuHKŪ (posneii). MoxorgeHr putueckKas MOJIEJIb CHHTAKCHYUeCKHX CBA3eli B IIpHHIKTIC COOTBETICTBYET JIOIT M4UECKOH HM CeMAHTH4ecKOH CTpyKTYpe mpemioxenmsi. OJHAKO RĪIMHHIbI CHHTAKCHYECKOH CTpyKTYDpbI HE MOTYT ObITb IIDSMO COOTHeCEHbI C KATETODHAMH I'm sorry. IlpejiHKAT MOXET BbIDaXKKATbCH HC TOJIbKO CKa3yeMbIM, HO H JIDYTHMAH UJIEHAMH IIDEJŲIOXEHHS, CYOBEKT — ĮONOJIHEHHEM, OOBEKT — nojŪUiexaniHM. Pas3jnuns MexxJty CeMaHTH4UecKON Ho CHHTAKCHYECKOH CTpyKTYpoON TYPE AJI0KECHU HU OGYCJIOBJIEHLI pa3HbIMH B KaX/OM S3bIKE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE TPaMMATHYECKOTO HM JIEKCHYECKOTO CTpPOsi, a thank you (Y3HOHHBIM XapaKTepOM KOAMPOBAHHS CEMAHTHYECCKHX H KOMMYHHKATHBHOOparMaTHYeckux four-legged. Kaxaplii KOMIOOHEHT IIpe/UIOKEHUS XapaKTEepU3yeTcs OIepeyJIEHHLIM HaOOpOM CHHTaKCHYECKHX, CEMAHTHYECKMX H KOMMYHMKATHBHO-IIPArMATHYECKHX TPU3HAKOB, BO3MOXHbIe KOMOHHALMM KOTODBIX It's not a good idea. ITOCJIEJOBATEJILHBIH Y4eT 3THX CJIOXHBIX OTHOLICHHIl MEX/ly eIMHULAMHA PA3HBIX YPOBHEH ITO3BOJISET YTOUYHATE NET CAPITAL MHOTHX JHCKYCCHOHHBIX I love you. V. AMBRAZAS THE UNITS OF SYNTACTIC AND SEMANTIC SENTENCE STRUCTURE IN LITHUANIAN Summary The article deals with the definition and relations the main of units sentence structure of distinguished each level analysis. on of A differentiation of the syntactic concepts surface of subject, object and adverbial from the corresponding semantic concepts proposed. is The units the syntactic of structure are defined the basis the syntactic relations subordination, on interdependency and coordination. of of The syntactic centre of a sentence (the apex all syntactic of relations) the grammatical is predicate. The word form the relation interdependency in with the predicate of defined the grammatical is as (surface) subject, the word form subordinated the predicate to termed grammatical is a (surface) object. The direct object distinguished is from indirect participation syntactic processes by such in passivization. as Adverbial modifiers are regarded as a subcategory of indirect objects characterized by distribution typical of adverbs. The units the of semantic structure are defined the basis on semantic relations of between the predicate and verbalized arguments (actants). These relations are distinguished the level on signification and of conditioned the meaning predicate reflecting by the evaluation of cognitive situation the speaker. of a by Predicates are subcategorized into two main groups: predicates action and predicates state of of (including the indications of qualities, classes and processes). This subcategorization of predicates permits the roles actants of (‘deep cases’) to be related to the concepts of semantic subject, object and adverbial. The subject relation covers the agent the predicate action and of the patient, recipient, of benefactive and descriptive the predicates state. of of The object relation 43 covers the roles of patient, result, benefactive, instrument of the predicate of action and content, result of the predicates of state. The adverbial relation covers the indications of cause, purpose, direction, time, and manner characteristic of participants which may be interpreted as incorporated (secondary) predicates. The notions of semantic subject, object and adverbial defined in terms of role groups and type of predicate are not universal but they are relevant to the description of sentence components and syntactic processes in Lithuanian and other languages of the accusative sentence type. Each component of a sentence can be characterized as the point of intersection of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic relations forming a specific network of possible combinations in the sentence structure of each language. The approach suggested helps to solve a number of questions concerning the interpretation of ambiguous constructions.