Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių valentingumas ir sintaksinė klasifikacija

XXV (1986) NIJOLĖ SLIŽIENĖ THE VALENTINES OF THE VERB SUBSTANTIVE AND THE SYNTACTICAL CLASSIFICATION OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE 1. Syntactic classification of verbs The traditional classification of verbs into personal and impersonal (according to whether or not a noun can be added to the personified forms) and into transitive and intransitive (according to whether or not they require an ending) is based on the valency characteristics of the verbs. However, a more detailed classification of verbs based on their syntactic characteristics is also possible, taking into account the whole complex of required forms of the verb!. Lately, a lot has been said and written not only about the valency of verbs, but also about the valency of other parts of speech (noun, adjective)*?, but there is no unanimous opinion on many cardinal questions, e.g., what is to be considered valency, where lies its essence, to which level or levels of language it belongs, as well as what are the practical ways of determining valency. Without going into the history of the study of valencyg® and without pretending to be a detailed examination of it, we will try to explain how valency is understood in this article, so that it will be clear what will be used as a basis for syntactically classifying verbs*. 1 The first such attempt in Lithuanian language science has been carried out by E. Geniušienė (1971; T'entomexe 1970). 2 Valentinism was extensively discussed at the XII International Congress of Linguists, held in Vienna in 1977; reports published in a separate publication (Abraham 1978). A few years earlier, G. Helbig had published a series of articles on the issue of valency (Helbig 1971). The German linguist G. Helbig has probably written the most about the valency of the verb; his earlier work on this subject is summarized in a recent study (Helbig 1982). In addition, the following larger and more prominent works are to be mentioned: Bondzio 1969; 1971; 1976; 1977; 1978; Emons 1974; Pasch 1977; Sommerfeldt 1973; 1977; Sommerfeldt —Schreiber 1974; Wotjak 1976; 1978; Anpecsia 1974, 119-156; Cremanosa 1973. It is closely related to Ch. J. Fillmore- 's works (1968; 1969 a; 1969 b; 1972; ®mmimop 1981). 3 The history of the study of Valentinism from the very beginnings of its concept in medieval scholastics to the beginning of the 1970s has been extensively covered by R. Briuer (1974); A fairly extensive overview of the research is also given in Helbig—Schenkel 1975, 12 et al. 4 Compared to previously published works of the author (Sližienė 1978; 1980), in this article some things closely related to valency are interpreted somewhat differently. In particular, it concerns the attitude to the situation of the verb marking. The author refused Ch. J. Fillmore and many other linguists believe that the situation marked by the verb corresponds completely to the real situation (see Starosta 1978, 508, etc. for a critique of this view), and believe that the verb with its valent consonants only provides a certain semantic assessment of the real situation, which may or may not coincide with the psychic image of that situation in the human consciousness (see 1.1.4 for more details). 45 1.1. SYNTACTICAL AND SEMANTIC VERBS EQUIPMENT 1.1.1. In modern linguistics, the verb is usually distinguished from other parts of speech as the most constructive class of words. It is recognized as a central part of the sentence, because its nature, internal characteristics determine the composition of the sentence and its character: what nouns should accompany the verb, what is their relation to it, what is the semantic characteristic of those nouns (Yeiid 1975, 115; Helbig —Schenkel 1990, 116). 1975, pp. 24. ; Pacnomos 1975, 166).,,... the whole world of human concepts has long been divided into two main spheres. One of them, the verb sphere, includes states (position, quality) and events; the other, the noun sphere, encompasses “things” (both physical objects and quantified abstractions). I think that the central one is the verb and the peripheral one is the noun,” writes Chafe (Heid 1975, 114). It is precisely the verb that determines the noun and its character, and not the other way around (ibid., p. 115). The semantic characteristics of the verb largely determine the content of the whole sentence (ibid., p. 190). The ability of a verb to connect with a certain number of words of a certain form is called its syntactic valence, and the accompanying words and their forms are called its valent companions®. For example, the verb skaldo requires two noun verbs — the noun and the adjective: vyrai skaldo malkos, duoda requires three forms — the noun, the adjective and the noun: mokinys duoda mokytojui knygelę, verbui verkia suffices one noun: vaikas verkia, o šąla neturi nė vieno palydovo, jis yra nevalingas. According to the number of available satellites, verbs are divided into monovalent, bivalent, trivalent, quadrvalent; a separate class is made up of nonvalent verbs (all of them impersonal- ). The syntactic valence of a verb is represented by the syntactic valence structure (hereinafter — SinVS) — a certain pattern of its syntactic use. It is marked with the corresponding symbols the verb and its valence consonants, for example, given SinVS is N,—Vf —N,—N§. The SinVS of each verb together models the nucleus of the verb sentence formed with it. 1.1.2. The other side of valency is the semantic valency of the verb. It is indicated by the semantic valence structure of the verb (hereinafter —SemVS). The meaning of the verb is clear only when it goes with its valent companions, through which certain of its semantic characteristics are realized. Thus, the meaning of the verb, its semantic characteristics are revealed from the nucleus of the verb sentence, which means that the SemVS of the verb must coincide with the proposition of the corresponding verb sentence, which is usually defined as the meaning of the sentence (Palmer 1982, 69), the semantic structure of the sentence (ApyrroHosa 1976, 34, 37), the deep structure of the sentence (Fillmore 1968; Cook 1978, 296). Thus, what is positive about the proposition should also apply to the verb SemVS. In the linguistic literature they are called quite differently: actants (Tesniėre 1959; Helbig 1982; Sommerfeldt —Schreiber 1974), determinants (Geniušienė 1971), partners (Mitspieler) (Helbig —Schenkel 1975), additions (Erginzungsbestimmungen) (Erben 1964; 1968), etc. 6 The symbols used in the work to denote the forms of Valentine’s satellites are explained in Chapter 2. 46 A proposition consists of two types of terms: predicates and arguments (Palmer 1982, 69 et seq.; cf. Tekorienė 1982, 135—136), or variables (Crenaxmos 1980, 312). The predicates are relational terms and usually correspond to verbs in the sentence, while the arguments are dependent on the predicates and usually correspond to nouns in the sentence. In this way, the nucleus of the sentence, or the verb with its satellites, is a predicate with a certain set of arguments, which in the sentence are realized in specific lexical units. N. Arutiunova describes the proposition as the semantic structure of the sentence, uniting the denotative and significant meaning, of which the most important is the significant meaning (Apyrroxosa 1976, 37, cf. 10—11, 45). The proposition, as well as the core of the sentence, is characterized by the semantic heterogeneity of its components: the predicate (and the verb corresponding to it in the sentence) is related to the significant level, and the arguments (and the nouns corresponding to them) — to the denotation level. A predicate is a particular attribute assigned to an argument, or a relation between two or more arguments. It has a meaning, but it has no referent, i.e. it does not refer to an object in the real world. Predicative words belong to the category of signs-concepts, their sign function is realized only in relation to the significance (Apyrroxosa 1976, 329, 378). The predicate is the content, the essence, the semantic phenomenon (Crernaxa 1980, 321). Arguments correspond to real objects, their function is identifiable. In this way, the semantic structure of the sentence (as well as the verb SemVS) is heterogeneous and cannot be compared with the meaning of the word. 1.1.3. The sentence is sometimes (in our opinion, unreasonably) regarded as a,,Sudeten Zenkl” — a special form of nominative, the denotat of which is not the object but the whole situation (see Mocrajniberxas 1981, 9—10; Crenanos 1980, 320). It is a denotative direction of the study of sentence semantics, which seeks a direct connection between the sentence and the extralinguistic situation it denotes (see also Apyrionosa 1976, 6—8). The semantic structure of a sentence represents a certain situation, which is reflected in our consciousness in the form of predicate structures", but it is not the denotation of the sentence, but only a certain semantic interpretation of it - the signification. For example, the sentence (1) Men unloaded items from a cart describes a situation involving three speakers: the loader, the items being loaded, and the place from which they are unloaded. The semantic structure of this sentence consists of a predicate and three actanty® — the agent, the patient and the starting point, which fully correspond to the situational roles of the referents, i.e., this semantic structure is a direct reflection of the real situation. However, in the sentence (2) Men unloaded the carriage the same situation is described in a different way. The predicate here has only two actants—- the agent and the patient—and they do not correspond to the situational roles of the referents. Place of unloading “Predicates are both structures of thought and structures of language. In the first case, they reflect the relationships of reality between objects, the structure of those relationships; the predicates are then understood as an intellectual model of the denotate. In the second case, predicates are models of information transmitted by language structures (Cementox 1977, 112). 8 Actants — are arguments su that have a semantic function. Semantiniy functions, or semantiniy verbs, names and a brief description and examples are given below, see 1.1.6. 47 objects, in this sentence is treated as a patient, thus bringing out its relevance, and the loadable objects become completely obsolete and have no correspondence neither in the sentence nor in its semantic structure. When comparing the semantic structures of these two sentences with the corresponding real situation, their different semantic meanings become apparent: in the first case, it was said what was done with the objects, and in the second case — with the carriage. 1.1.4. In the linguistic literature, the semantic interpretation of the situation presented by the verb is discussed by the authors as a linguistic situation (Xpaxosckmit 1974, 9), an abstract situation (Cycos 1973, 22 etc.), a situation as a composite semantic unit (CunsHaunxaū 1973, 373) and others, highlighting its differences from the so-called denotative situation. However, when analyzing the semantics of the sentence (or the semantic structure of the verb) in particular, these situations are often identified and the roles of the referents are transferred from the real situation to this verb-marking situation, and at the same time to the semantic structure of the sentence or to the SemVS of the verb (see, for example, Arpecar 1974, 134 etc.)?. In this case, the semantic structures of all sentences, even of very different structures, which can be associated with the same situation of reality, are considered to be identical and coincide with it both in terms of the number of actors and their nature. For example, J. Apresian describes the semantics of such sentences as Ox 3a1ueaem Gar 2oprouum «> On 3anueaem zopiouee 6 bak as follows: actor —placement act —place —material «> actor —placement act —material —place (Arrpecs 1967, 58). As we see, the semantics of the sentences in both cases are described equally and completely correspond to the situation of things in reality. The author himself says that both sentences (transformations) describe situations of the same class, and the semantic differences of the sentences depend on which element of the situation is considered more important; it can be said before the others, emphasized by a logical accent, thereby changing the syntax and position of the words denoting the same situational things in the sentence??. Similarly, Ch. Fillmore and his followers (J. Pleines, S. Anderson, W. A. Cook, and others) are of the opinion that the semantics of a sentence directly reflects the external situation. All sentences that can be associated with the same situation, although they are composed of different verbs and their syntactic structure differs, are considered to have the same semantic structure, which fully corresponds to the extralinguistic situation. From this it can be assumed that there is also a complete correspondence (1: 1) between the grammatical structure and the extralinguistic situation (Starosta 1978, 508—527*1; cf. Palmer 1982, 86—87). In order to clarify the semantic differences between these sentences, and what are they? N. Arutiunova explains the identification of the categories of language and reality by the fact that reality in semantic schemes does not exist in its “raw” form, but is already passed through the classifying and abstracting human consciousness, reflected and established in language; as a result, the elements of reality are simply imperceptibly “lifted” into the language level (Apyrionosa 1976, 35). 10 Similar results were obtained by I. Susov using predicate analysis, see Cycos 1973, pp. 51. 11 In that article, S. Starosta has presented a detailed and seemingly justified critique of that concept. 48 surely is, no one doubts it? ? requires, as S. Starosta points out, several “deep, deeper and deepest layers”, the positions of the subject and object of the deep structure, in which, depending on a certain aspect of the statement, one or another constituent must be present (Starosta 1978, 518, 523). According to S. Starosta, in such cases the researcher is not interested in linguistic structures, but primarily in the typology of situations and meanings, which cannot be justified from a syntactic point of view. The same external situation can be represented by different verbs with different semantic structures, which indicates that they describe the situation differently; the semantic representation of the sentence includes only certain aspects of the external situation (Starosta 1978, 512-513, 522). 1.1.5. The verb SemVS can be identified by looking at the sentences composed with it. It is only in the sentence that the meaning of the verb becomes clear and how the descriptive situation is interpreted. The predicate actants correspond only to those participants of the situation who are said in the sentence in the corresponding verb-dependent word forms. Do those referents, which cannot be said in the sentence, remain outside the verb SemVS as a non-relevant part of the situation, irrelevant to the meaning of the verb (see sentence (2))? ?, The syntactic representation of the predicate actants in the sentence are the verb's valence satellites. Considering their grammatical form and partly their lexical meaning, it is possible to judge about the verb SemVS, i.e. about how the situational roles of the referents are interpreted semantically. There is a certain relationship between grammatical conjugations, which are the most characteristic forms of the verb's satellites, and semantic functions, or semantic conjugations, although there is no complete correspondence (1: 1) between them!?. Kacnelson has noted that the meanings of the verbs do not arise in the language, affected by the context, but are a fact of the language, its internal structure. Context is not the generator of meanings, but their external “enhancer”, which helps to distinguish one verb function from 12 E. Moravcsik (1978, 255), for example, notes that all linguists (especially S. Anderson) who have studied English verbs meaning filling or emptying have indicated that such alternating constructions as John smeared paint on the wall and John smeared the wall with paint are indeed semantically different. However, the author makes this distinction only in relation to the wall: the second sentence claims that it is entirely encompassed by action, while the first sentence does not have this in mind (cf. Fillmore 1968,48; 1969 a, 127—128). S. Starosta would say that the first sentence is not talking about the wall in general, but about the paint and what is done with it (see Starosta 1978, 512—513). 13 Sometimes the content of the referent is incorporated in a very specific form into the lexical meaning of the verb, for example, the verbs uogauti, grybauti, nuutauti incorporate the collected objects, and miltuoti, inkliuoti, kompuoti — the tool or means of action; These things are indicated by the noun part of the root of the verbs (their derivative base), so they cannot be said separately in the sentence. There is no reason to believe that the SemVS of these verbs should be a patient or an instrument corresponding to the incorporated things of reality, since the meaning of these verbs does not require such actants. 14 Plg, Fink 1978, 180. The author argues that although grammatical verbs have many functions, it has been observed that relational constants such as agent and instrument, direction, goal, and directional location have very regular external representations in many languages. 49 others (Kannenscon 1972, 42). Some are more prone to one semantic function, others to another. The semantics of the noun and adjective depends heavily on the meaning of the verb. For example, if a verb denotes an action, the noun usually represents the subject of the action, which is usually the agent (e.g., the child runs, the grandmother spinns linen), and the adjective represents the object of the action, which is usually the patient (e.g., the hare chews on a carrot) and quite often the content (contentive) of the action (e.g., the soldier executes an order). When a verb denotes a state or process, the nominative usually represents the subject of the state, which is usually the patient (e.g., the child is sick, the pencil is broken), the benefactor (e.g., the brother has a house) or the recipient (e.g., people see), and the adjective represents the object of the state, which is usually the content of the state (e.g., I hear a noise, the team won the game), less often the patient (beside the beneficiary, e.g., they got an apartment, we have a garden). For example, the serving person represents the beneficial in both action and state or process verbs (e.g., the children helped the parents, he is doing well, the house belongs to the brother), but the perceptive person it represents only in state (perception) verbs (e.g., the child wants to sleep). Thus, knowing the meaning of the verb, we can infer the semantic functions of its satellites in the sentence and, taking into account the described real situation, we can determine its SemVS. On the other hand, knowing the meaning of a verb and its SemVS, we can determine its SinVS (see 1.3.1). W. Bondzio, W. Flamigas, J. Apresianas and other researchers, determining the semantic valence of verbs, take the known meaning of the verb as the starting point (for more on this see Sližienė 1978, 111—112). In the words of W. Bondzi, “has valency” means, first of all, that a linguistic expression (e.g., a verb) on the basis of its abstract content has free spaces in the sense of the logic of relations (1969, 234—235). The number of free spaces depends on the predicate — the abstract content of the verb, but the semantic functions of the arguments in this case, when the verb’s meaning is used alone, can be determined only by analyzing the described real situation; In this way, the situational roles of the referents are transferred to the SemVS of the verb and this always corresponds to the composition of the real situation both in terms of the number of actants and their nature. In our opinion, the semantic functions of the arguments and the verb SemVS depend on how the descriptive situation of reality is interpreted semantically and what is the general semantic meaning of the verb, which becomes clear only in the sentence. The verb SemVS is written as a predicate structure, in which the semantic functions of the arguments are indicated, and instead of the predicate (the sign F or the relation R) the corresponding verb or its symbol V is written, for example: give [A, P, B] or V [A, P, B]; thus, the meaning of the verb give is perceived as a triple predi15 Plg. E. Kurytowicziaus division of verbs into grammatical and specific. The noun and the suffix are grammatical syllables, their main function is syntactic. The main function of all the other verbs is semantic (Kymmiosuy 1962). 50 katas, i.e. as a relationship between the agent, the patient and the beneficiary. SemVS shows the number and nature of the verb’s actants in the abstract logical-semantic domain, and at the same time it shows how many valence satellites the verb has in the external syntactic domain and what semantic functions those satellites have. In addition, SemVS allows to see semantic differences between verbs with the same SinVS and semantic similarities between verbs with different SinVS; different SemVS can also show different semantic interpretations of the same things in reality. 1.1.6. The semantic functions of the arguments are described by the following semantic verb namesmail- ®. The agent [A] is the function of the actor, which is assumed by the action verbs. In the sentence, it is realized by the subjective nominative (except in passive constructions, where it is represented by the originator). Two subclasses are distinguished. 1) Agent, [A,] – the function of the initiator and performer of the action, typical of living beings, e.g.: birds fly, a child reads a book, a daughter helps her mother, a goose fights a cock, students solve a problem. 2) Agent, [As] — the function of the performer of the action, characteristic of inanimate objects, natural forces and other phenomena of nature and society, various devices, machines, appliances, which have a potential, a certain energy and therefore can perform or cause, trigger an action, but have no initiative of their own, e.g.: the cyclone is approaching, the machine, the train; the wind blows into the windows, the sun is shining, the organ is beating, the bell woke me up, the fruit bent the branches of the trees, the frost froze the cucumbers, the feet of the famine of rye, diseases afflict people, fascism raged in the country, the lamp is lit, the stream is rumble. Agent, function is heterogeneous. If necessary, it could be divided into at least three subclasses: natural force, cause, and instrument. Instrumental agent, differs from the instrument function in that it is possible only when the action can be perceived as taking place without anyone's initiative; The instrument of the reference level is then considered the only performer of the action — the agents, e.g.: a car hit a person, a bus is going to Šiauliai, planes are flying through the sky. However, the boundary between the instrument and the instrumental agent is rather conditional (see Helbig 1977, 84). 168 The number of semantic verbs in the works of individual researchers varies greatly, ranging from six to seven verbs to several dozen. The first proof of the theory is from Ch. J. Fillmore has changed their numbers and partly their names in his works on several occasions (see Apyrtoxosa 1973), cf. Fillmore 1968; 1969a; 1969b; 1981. Similarly to Fillmore, only a few semantic verbs are distinguished by W. L. Chafe (Yeitd 1975, 121—123), G. Helbig (1977), although he distinguishes some verbs in several subclasses, S. Starosta (1978, 471), T. Lomtev (JIoMTeB 1965). G. Wotjak (1976, 368—369), W. Schenkel (1977, 96—98), V. Bogdanov (Borjiaxos 1977, 52—55) and J. Apresian (Anpecsax 1974, 125—126) mention a little more of them. The closer they are to the surface, the more they are exposed to light. When describing verbs in SemVS, it is more convenient to use a larger number of semantic verbs. 51 The term agent is used when the distinction between agent and agent is irrelevant to the semantic characteristics of the verb, e.g.: girl | wind scattered leaves"". ; Patient [P] —a function of the state of an object, characteristic of both living and inanimate objects. There are two differences in the patient. Action verbs assume the state of the physically or mentally affected object, e.g.: the child broke a glass, the shard injured a soldier, the cold turned water into ice, the men unloaded the carriage, the mother poured milk into the pot, the wind lifted a balloon, the old man drank the goat, the parents sold the cow, the workers built a house, the child reads a book (the book is in such a state that he reads it), the dog frightened the sheep, friends warned Joseph, she invited a guest inside, broke through the hands, grabbed the stick. In the sentence, this patient variant is usually realized by an objective final. The verbs of state and process meaning imply the presence of an object in a certain static state or a change in its state, e.g.: bread is on the table, the child lies in the crib, rye does not fit into the pot, the house belongs to the brother, the head hurts | the head, rye becomes white, flowers smell; the glass fell and broke, the rye fell, the parents died, the peas sprouted, the shop emptied, the room filled with smoke, people got into the boat, the parents have a garden, I found a barberry. This variation is usually realized in the sentence by the subjective noun, sometimes by the objective suffix, etc. The patient can correspond to various situational roles, therefore in most cases it shows a certain perspective of the situation being described. The patient is what is seen as being subjected to the action of the verb Zymimu or being in a certain state (static or dynamic) (see Starosta 1978, 472). Percipient[Pcp] —perceptor function, characteristic of living beings, perceiving things of reality, having a certain attitude towards them, psychologically reacting to them, e.g.: the child wants to sleep, Tom knows nothing, I hear a noise, the rabbit is afraid of a leaf, the pupil does not learn the lesson, the crow saw the prey, the children did not listen to the parents, he likes books, John cares about work. The perception of the objects is perceived. In the sentence, it is usually realized by a subjective nominative, less often by an utilitary. Benefactor [B] —the function of the addressee, recipient, possessor, characteristic of living beings, for whose benefit or detriment what happens, is, for example: she gave the girl an apple, the son helps the father, I promised a friend a book, he showed the son a duck, the director reminded the workers of their obligations, contact the director; cows get silage, parents have a house, Annie lost her gloves, the money belongs to you, Peter won a motorcycle, we're running out of time, he's doing well. 17 Helbig (1977, 74, etc.) distinguishes three functions of the agent. Meanwhile, many researchers (Fillmore, Chafe, Schenkel, Apresian) instead of the agent, and the agent, distinguish one broadly understood function of the agent (or the subject). In fact, this would only be possible if the agent was considered to be a very general function of the actor, like any hyperfunction, which would further be subdivided into subclasses (see Texromene 1983, 15, where the hyperfunction of the subject is distinguished by having four subclasses). The fact that the agent and the agent are considered to have the same semantic function is, inter alia, prevented by the fact that in the semantic structure of the verb the agent; combines with a greater number of other semantic verbs than the agent,. For example, only the agent (as the initiator of the action) goes with the instrument. 52 are perceived as beneficial, e.g.: the griffin has teeth, the jacket lacks buttons, smoking is harmful to health. In some cases, the beneficial is assumed by the benefactive verbs of the action meaning, then it is realized in the sentence by the noun. In other cases, it is assumed in the sentence of verbs of state and process meaning and realized by a subjective ir noun or a noun. Causator [C] the — function of the initiator, characteristic of the person whose initiative va another performs an action or who creates the conditions for the appearance of a certain state of the object without performing the action directly, e.g.: the master cut down the forest, the caretaker beat the punishment, Anna bought a new dress, the parents dressed the son, the neighbors are still ripening the wheat, the hostess made dinner, the parents allowed the child to study. Counterparty [CA] the — function of the force acting against the agent, which is opposite to him, characteristic of living beings, as well as of inanimate objects and phenomena ir of natural society, e.g.: the wolf defended himself from the dogs, people defended themselves from the ir cold of hunger, the icebreaker su fought with ir ice the element of nature, farmers su fight pests, peasants revolted against the lords, he opposes me. Comitative [Com] — secondary agent, patient, percipient ar beneficiary function, appearing next to the corresponding primary function in the sentence ir is usually realized by prepositional construction with N,, e.g.: father talks mother, Julius friends su su Vince, he revolted brother sister, su father divided the land Jonui su Antanu (for details see 1.3.3). Result [R] result — function, characteristic of the object into which the object is ar transformed, made into another object (usually the patient), e.g.: water turned ice into ice, į witch | turned stone into stone, jį potter broke combs. į Container [Con] action — state content ar function, characteristic of various objects and phenomena in the sentence is realized in various word ir forms and constructions, e.g.: I hear voices, the sick wants to rest, children are afraid of thunder, everyone is happy about spring, everyone knows about it, people are waiting for a clear day, he needs money, tell me about the trip; everyone already knew what had happened; John said he knew nothing, the children play football, the team won the game, played the ji fox, Andrew is studying chemistry, daughter went to school, son į is studying engineering, he si became president, John was elected president, the tree is called an tą oak, the room filled with acute, I poured milk into the pot, the bank d grew alder trees, snow fell on the fields, the dress reaches the ground, branches touch the wall, the fields yielded a good harvest, the child did not hit his foot. Source [O] the — function ar of the origin of the action state, the function of the original substance (the initial state), which is characteristic of both living and inanimate things, iš e.g.: the children iš have shed uncle’s horse, the cows are milking a lot of milk, they have iš got a loan in the bank, he is shaking iš the clay fence, the iš children are becoming people, give him our best wishes. Motive [M] — motivation function, characteristic of objects, phenomena, which are perceived as the basis ar of the state of action, e.g.: I už paid rubles for a book, du pay him for his work, I paid off a debt. už už 53 The instrumental adverb, which can have one or almost one usual lexical representation, is considered irrelevant for the syntactic classification of verbs. 1.2.7. In some cases, when interpreting a situation semantically, one referent is as if split into two parts and expressed in a sentence in two words: one word expresses him as a whole, and the other part of him (or his clothes, clothing, thoughts, desires, needs, etc.). In some cases, the split referent corresponds to the two actants of the verb SemVS, similarly as in those cases when they correspond to two separate referents, cf. : (24) The child [A,] raised his head [P]. (25) The sailors [A,] raised the sails [P]. In other cases, the semantic interpretation of only one part of the fragmented referent is included in the SemVS of the verb, as it is quite sufficient to saturate the valentia of the verb. For example: (26) Mother [A,] caught child [P] by the arm. (27) The mother [A,] took the child by the arm [P]. In terms of meaning, these two sentences are different: the first one emphasizes the effect on the whole object, while the second one touches the object only as far as its part is affected. The relationship of the verb with the dependent forms is also different: (26) in the sentence, in addition to the nominative, it also has a suffix as a valent conjunction, and (27) — a prepositional construction. The same prepositional construction (26) is a free member with a defining function, although, as we see from (27), it can be controlled by the verb (see: Mother caught the end of the rope); it simply does not have a free position of the verb SinVS. If the ending of the whole object was not said, the prepositional construction would become the valent conjunction of the verb, but the sentence would be incomplete both syntactically and semantically. The prepositional construction, because it includes a noun denoting a part of the whole, requires a semantic addition, i.e., an indication of which part of the whole that part belongs to, and therefore is not semantically independent. This missing information is presented in the sentence by the noun, as we see (27). Only when the verb is returning and the semantic valency of the noun with partitive meaning is saturated by the returning particle (it tells the whole), such a prepositional construction can become a consonant of independent meaning, e.g.: (28) Žeteriškė [A,] nusitvėrė už galvos [P]. The position of the beneficiary in the sentence in such cases is special. The verb does not require it and does not control it, which is why G. Helbig and W. Schenkelis call it the “free dative” (1975, 46—41). However, in reality it is not completely free. The noun depends on the other noun from a semantic point of view, there is a possessive relationship between them, but this dependence is not expressed syntactically. The possessive relation is usually realized by the noun, i.e. the use of the noun is determined by the relation not to the noun but to the verb?*?. Its connection with the verb is confirmed by certain22 J. Jablonskis has pointed out the difference that the speaker can lively feel between the noun of this meaning and the possessive noun (e.g., jam kojos dreba — jo kojos dreba): with the noun, the origin and dependence (property) of someone is brought to the fore, and with the noun — an accidental thing for or being for someone (Jablonskis 1957, 601). In essence, the same difference in meaning is indicated by other authors (A6034ma 1963; Dus36yrac 1967; Ilupsanu 1974). 60 raise cases of possible transformations where the noun is replaced by a subjective denominator, e.g. : (29) My hands got wet «>» I got my hands wet. However, the noun is not directly related to the verb, but to the noun and verb of the partitive meaning together- ?*". Although the verb does not require it and it cannot be considered a valent conjunction of the verb, the noun is necessary in the sentence, because without it the semantic valency of the partitive noun remains unsaturated. For this reason, some scholars even consider it to be a valentine consonant of the verb (see Erben 1968, 120). However, in reality, there is no basis for this; The noun in these cases is probably not the verb SinVS, but an element of the sentence syntactic structure, denoting a person or thing interested in the action, to whom something happens (beneficial). In terms of the valency of verbs, it is considered a free member. What is different are the cases when the beneficiary is controlled by the verb. Tokie veiksmažodžiai reiškia kokį nors fizinį poveikį gyvam daiktui, pvz.: (į)gelti, (į)durti, suduoti, užduoti, (su)drožti, tvoti, smogti, įkąsti ir kt. For example: : (30) I [P] was stung by a bee. (31) The master drew a whip for the horse. The beneficiary means the victimized person or animal, but retains a certain shade of interest (beneficial), which is not characteristic of the beneficial, which in many cases can replace the beneficiary, cf. : (32) A snake [P] bitten me (LKZ). (33) The master drew the horse with a whip. In such cases, the noun takes over the patient function from the controlled prepositional construction, denoting the directly affected part of the whole, and is the necessary companion of the verbs. However, when there is a controlling prepositional construction next to it, the noun does not mean the patient but the beneficial and is a free member as in cases where it is not directly controlled by the verb (see 27), e.g. : (34) A bee stung me in the face [P]. (35) The master stabbed the horse over the hips [P]. The prepositional construction, although it lacks semantic independence, satisfies the verb’s valency, and the predication of the sentence appears complete (see A6o3una 1963, 33). We can see this by replacing the noun of the prepositional construction with a semantically independent word, e.g. : (36) The rain crossed į his face. (37) The rain fell on the windows. Sentences like (36) can be used when it is clear from the context or the speech situation to whom the part of the body touched by the action belongs. In this way, verbs that control both the beneficial and the prepositional construction are used according to two syntactical valence models. 23 For further details on the dual beneficial relationships, see A603Hxa 1963; Suns536yrac 1967; Ilupsax 1974; Anpecanu 1974, 153-154. 61 The free noun is associated in possessive relation with quite a variety of noun verbs and prepositional constructions, e.g. : (38) The machine broke his father's arm. (39) I have tinnitus. (40) The child climbed on her knees. (41) John had a good idea. 1.3. SYNTACTICAL AND SEMANTIC VALENTINES OF VERBS THE INTERACTION AND SOME OF ITS FEATURES 1.3.1. The number of valent satellites of a verb usually corresponds to the number of actants in its SemVS. The quantitative discrepancy of the verbs, as raised by some researchers, stems from the fact that the semantic structure of the verb (or sentence) is identified with the structure of the relations of the referents in a real situation. Then all sentences that can be associated with the same situation of reality, no matter how differently they describe it (not only its semantic interpretation, but also its scope can differ, i.e. in one case a larger, in another — a smaller section of reality can be described- ), must have the same semantic structure. But the meanings of the sentences are different, and these differences have to be sought on another level — syntax — using the concepts of the deep subject and object, in order to determine which element of the semantic structure (and in fact — the real situation) is more prominent than the others. už SemVS, determined not on the basis of situational roles, but on the general semantic meaning of the verb, in most cases itself indicates which element of the situation už is more prominent than others, t. y. highlights a certain perspective of the descriptive situation. The patient stands out here, who, depending on the meaning of the verb, can correspond to quite different situational roles of referents in a real situation, cf. : (42) The parents gave the son a watch. (43) Nature has endowed the child with rare gifts. (44) The room was filled with people. (45) The people drained the well. Only the (42) patient corresponds to the situational role of the patient, intuitively assigned to a certain participant in the situation, and (43) it corresponds to the roles of beneficiary, (44) —place, (45) — starting point. The patient as if takes over the functions of the object of the deep subject, highlighting the referents who perform these situational roles as more ir important than others. At the same time, it shows a certain perspective of the situation of reality described by the verb. Patient’s exponent function is often supported by its syntactic realization, which depends heavily on the meaning of the verbs: in the case of verbs with an actional meaning, patient is usually realized by a suffix, which goes as a direct adjective in the sentence, and in the case of verbs with a state or process meaning, by a noun, which goes as a factor in the sentence, and only occasionally by an objective suffix (in the case of benefactive verbs, see 1.1.5)%. In this way, the patient often has not only semantic,. but also the syntactic nature (at the same time a certain syntactic nature has and the SemVS itself, in which it is), of 62 be S. Starost- (1978, 472), jo a’s definition is more psychological than physical, because the linguistic structure of a sentence cannot be determined and analyzed solely on the basis of external reality, although ją ir 100 mg/dL. The syntactic implementation of other SemVS actants is more free, but many of them also have certain characteristic forms of syntactic expression. For example, the agent is usually realized as a denominator (except for passive constructions), the perceived beneficial as a denominator or a beneficial. The most typical form of realization of the locative is the pronoun, ir but very often it is expressed by various prepositional constructions, whose locative, as directive, meaning is only evident with verbs of a certain meaning. The contentive, as a patient, is usually represented by the final, but very often it is expressed in various other word forms: noun, genitive, pronoun, as well as prepositional constructions, ir depending on what dependent forms are in the verb disposition. ir 1.3.2. In some cases, the SOV of the verbs (or of one verb used differently) is the same, and the perspective of the situation described is helped by different SOV. The main role in raising any element of the situation is played by the representation of the relevant SemVS actor with a subjective denominator or an objective suffix, e.g. : (46) a. Children [Pcp] loves fairy tales [With]. b. For children [Pcp] like fairy tales [With]. (47) a. The facts [P] correspond to the statement [Comp]. b. Facts [P] does not contradict [Comp]. (48) a. Shrubs [Con] covered the shores [P]. b. Krantai [P] covered with bushes [With]. (49) a. Child [P] bump finger [With]. b. The child [P] hit the finger [Con]. Each pair of sentences describes the same real situation, but in a slightly different aspect. (46) a is the denominator of the percipient, and (46) b is the contingent. (47) a The comparative is raised by the final, which in this sentence is considered more important than (47) b. In the semantic structure of these sentences the patient is either not present at all, or it, equally syntactically realized, does not have the Deductive function. Her patient does not have (48) and (49). (48) the exponent function is performed by the denominator, in one case exponent contentiva (a), the patient's — item (b), o (49) — a suffix that gives rise to the contentive (a). 1.3.3. The verb SemVS usually does not have two identical actants. This is agreed by most researchers. In some cases, after a slight change in the semantic relationship with the verb, the noun and the adjective are replaced by the adjective of an indefinite quantity, e.g.: atsikando breva, prisiėdė medžio, pasibražė šakas, and with the negative form of the verb — the adjective of a negative quantity, e.g.: nėra pinigų (e.g. yra pinigai), neturiu pirštinių (e.g. turiu pirštines). 25 This thesis is particularly defended by Ch. In the works of J. Fillmore and S. Starosta. 63 més of conjugative and some other verbs (fight, negotiate, argue, be angry, meet, merge; savyti, kiršinti, supažindinti, maišyti (ką su kuo), sujungti, atskirti, padalinti ir kt.), denoting a situation of reality in which there are two or more referents performing equal roles. Some believe that the SemVS of such verbs must have two actants of the same semantics (see. Anpecax 1974, 27, 137; Schenkel 1977, 105—106). These situations can be interpreted in two different semantic ways, so the verbs have two different SemVS and corresponding SinVS. In one case, referents performing identical roles are treated as one collective actor (agent, patient, percepient, sometimes benefactor). In the sentence, such a collective act is realized in the corresponding plural form of nouns, e.g.: (50) Vyrai [A,] kalbasi. (51) The children [Pcp] got angry. (52) Republics [P] join in the north, (53) Andrew cut the dogs [P]. (54) The mother divided the apple to the children [B]. Instead of the plural verb, as its substitute, two (or more) forms of the same singular verb, having the same syntactic function and passing through uniform sentence parts, can be used, e.g.: Jonas, Petras ir Antanas kalbasi. Otherwise, the referents, who play the same roles in a real situation, are interpreted differently from a semantic point of view, one of them is promoted and the other is pushed to the second place, so to speak, is secondary. Due to the verb SemVS they correspond to two actants of different semantics, which are realized in the sentence in different syntactic forms: (50 a) John [A,] talks to Peter [Com]. (51 a) Julius [Pcp] got angry with his friend [Com]. (52a) In the north, Lithuania [P] borders Latvia [Com]. (53 a) Andrius cut Sargis [P] with Margis [Com]. (54 a) The mother divided the apple for Jonukas [B] with Onute [Com]. Actant represented by a prepositional construction (50 a) next to the agent is treated as a secondary agent, (51 a) next to the percipient — as a secondary percepient, (52 a) and (53 a) — as a secondary patient, (54 a) — as a secondary benefactor. The characteristics of subordination unite all these semantic variants and allow us to consider them as one actant, which is realized in the sentence in all cases equally. In this work it is called comitology. 26 S. Starosta (1978, 469) calls it the Inner Locative — the actant of a very broad and undefined semantics, which S. Starosta considers to be very diverse and different things related to the position of the patient (also very broadly understood by S. Starosta) (1978, 493 etc.). As a very general and undefined actant, it does not have any typical syntactic implementation. 64 Some verbs, e.g. meet, connect, can represent the very real situation. tą li ir interpreted slightly differently, giving more weight to the rapporteur of the committee, — which is then realized by the final, cf. : (55) a. Jonas [P] met su Petru [Com]. b. Jonas [P] met Petra [Com]. 1.3.4. Some conjugations of one other ir non-conjugated verb SemVS are actants du corresponding to one situation referent, one whole referent — treated as a patient, another — jo the part treated as contentious. These verbs denote a spontaneous, accidental process — of action (answers į the question what happened?), e.g. : (56) Child [P] broke his leg [With]. (57) Horses [P] got caught (sighs, breaks) leg [With]. (58) Father [P] hit the head [With]. In these cases, the adjective also has a corrective function: it specifies the affected part of the referring patient. — Sometimes it is optional, plg. : (59) Child [P] got caught, injured, hit. 1.3.5. Verb SinVS is jo SemVS lexical-syntactic realization. The syntactic VS realization of Sem depends only on the ne semantic functions of the actants, but on the possibilities of syntactic use ir of the verb, on what word forms t. y. su (syllables, adverbs, su conjugations, participles, etc.) ir that verb goes in the sentence. Vocabulary SemVS realization in the most general form is determined by the semantic functions of actants; e.g., agent, percipientas, beneficientas, ma kauzatorius are usually associated with a living being, and therefore are realized by specific nouns, Denoting a living thing; contentive is often associated with abstract things, is realized by abstract nouns, secondary elements of compound sentences, etc. However, much here is determined by the lexical meaning of each verb and the su possibilities of its semantic combination with other words. Therefore, for example, we drink water, beer, compote and eat soup; we wash our faces, hit our heads, wash our underwear and wash or knot our hands. The ability of a verb to connect with certain lexical units, or the possibility of its mutual semantic coordination with other words, is usually called its lexical valence (see su Jakaitienė 1980, 32—33). The lexical valence determines the entire lexical word environment ir of the verb, or the lexical distribution, and its valence satellites constitute only a part of it: these are the Words and their forms, which the verb requires as the basis of its meaning and which form the nucleus of the sentence. In the syntactic classification of verbs, lexical valency is relevant only insofar as it relates to the valency satellites of verbs. 1.3.6. Verbs may have the same syntactic but different semantic valence, and vice versa: their semantic valence may be the same, but their syntactic valence may be different. Several groups of verbs are distinguished. 3. 120 65 1) Verbs SinVS equal. There are two possible scenarios: a) SemVS are also the same. Such verbs belong to the same semantic group, because they have the same general significant meaning (their individual lexical meanings, of course, can be different, but they can also be synonymous). Plg. : (60) a. The child [A,] eats an apple [P]. b. Father [A,] reads the newspaper [P]. c. Hostess [A,] unroasted (plg. removed) the table [P]. Nn —Vf—-Ną All these verbs denote the action of the actor—initiator—on the object. b) SemVS are different. The general semantic meaning of the verbs is different and they belong to different semantic groups, cf.: (61) a. The wind [A,] opened the window [P]. b. Peter [B] has a car [P]. N, —Vf—N, c. Students [Pcp] respect teachers [Con]. The verb open means the actor’s influence on the object, have means the person’s state as a possessor, conditioned by his relationship with property, respect means the person’s mental relationship with the object. 2) Verbs SinVS different. a) SemVS equal. Such verbs belong to different syntactic, but to the same semantic class. Plg. : (62) a. Nn —Vf —Ng: Children are afraid of the wolf. b. Np —Vf —Nán: I see the light. Cc. Np —Vf —Ni: We enjoy spring. V [Pep, Con] d. Np —Vf —antN,: The father was angry with the son. All Sie verbs denote the mental relationship of a person to a thing. In cases where the same situation is described, the different CSSs indicate which participants in the situation are highlighted as more important than others, but the meanings of the verbs differ little, see (46) and (47). The verbs like and like to denote the mental relationship of a person with an object, and to conform and not to contradict — the comparison of an object (fenomenon) with another object. The actants of the SemVS in these cases correspond to the situational roles of the referents, and in both sentences of each pair the relationship between the arguments of the predicate is the same. b) SemVS different. Verbs have different meanings and belong to different syntactic and semantic classes. Plg. : (63) a. N, —Vf —nuoNę: John [A,] defended himself from the dog [CA]. b. N, —Vf —Na: The dog [A,] bitten John [P]. c. N, —Vf —N; : John [Pcp] is angry with the dog [Con]. d. N, —Vf: Jonukas [P] screamed. Each verb describes a different situation in reality and their meanings have nothing in common. When two (or more) verbs describe the same situation of reality, in each case it is interpreted differently semantically, different relationships between the arguments of the predicate (sometimes 66 different and their number), different general significant (as well as individual lexical) ir meaning. Plg. : (64) a. N, —Vf —Na —Na: John [A,] gave to a friend [B] [x] [y] book [P]. [z] b. N, = Vf —Ną = i§Ng: Friend [B] received from John [0] [y] [x] book [P]. [z] (65) a. N, = Vf —Nį: I [Pcp] enjoy spring [Con]. [x] [y] b. N, = Vf —Na: Spring [As] makes me [P] happy. [y] [x] (66) a. N, ~ Vf —N, —iz Ng: Someone [A,] stole from John [0] [x] [y] money [P]. [z] b. Np = Vf —N,: Someone [A;] stole John [P]. [x] [y] Such pairs of sentences, which describe the same situation of reality in different ways and which therefore differ from a significant point of view, are called periphrases (Crenagas 1981, 201 et seq.; cf. Mockanbckas 1978, 74—75). Periphrases whose predicates have the same number of arguments are usually called conversines. 1.3.7. Since the valence of verbs depends on their meaning, the same verb, used in different meanings, can have different valences and belong to different syntactic and semantic classes. Therefore, according to their valence, verbs are classified not as lexemes, but as semes*", The same verb can be bivalent in one case, trivalent or monovalent in another, and so on. Between the verbs SinVS and SemVS this relationship is possible. 1) Verb SinVS different. a) SemVS are also different. The verb is divided into different syntactic and semantic classes. When different real situations are described, the individual lexical meaning of the verb differs more or less (it is possible that in some cases we already have different lexems – homonyms?®). Example: (67) a. N, —Vf —Na —Inf: The teacher [C] allowed the children [B] to play [Con]. b. NA —Vf —Na —Inf: Parents [C] allow children [P] to study [Fin]. 27 Thus, the distinction between polysemy and homonymy is not decisive in the classification of verbs by valence. 28 It is assumed that only those meanings that have a certain semantic commonality (i.e. common semantic elements —semy) belong to one lexem (Jakaitienė 1980, 46; Bansesa 1975, 124; Bapuxa 1963, 54). From this point of view, (67) a, b, c would illustrate the meanings of one lexicon that share the moment of personal will, and (67) d would illustrate another lexicon. ai 67 c. N, = Vf — N, — AdvDir: Neighbours [C] lets horses [P] į ganyklq [Dir]. d. N, —Vf —N, —įNą: Men [A,] let their nets [P] into the lake [Ad]. When describita ng the actual situation (or at least part of the iš overlapping real situation), the verb belongs to different semantic classes, because it has a different general significant meaning (different semantic interpretation of the situation is given), but its lexical meaning differs less. Plg. : (68) a. N, — Vf — Ną — inN: Child [A,] threw a stone [P] crow į [Ad]. b. N, — Vf — N; — inN: Child [A,] threw a stone at [I į a crow [Ad]. Cc. N, — Vf — Na — Ni: Child [A,] released a crow [P] stone [I]- (69) a. N, — Vf — Na — and: Month [A,] We pile hay [P] for cows [B]. b. N, — Vf — Na — Ni: Month [A4] feeding cows [P] hay [With]. (70) a. Vfimp —Ng —Nį: The pond [L] grew grass [P]. b. N, —Vf —Ng: The pond [P] is overgrown with grass [Con]. (71) a. Vfimp —Ng —iN,: In the yard [Ad] came guests [P]. b. N, —Vf —Ng: The yard [P] was visited by guests [Con]. (72) a. N, —Vf —i8Ng: Water is dripping from the tap [Ab] [P]. b. N, —Vf: Crane [P] is running. (73) a. N, —Vf —Na —nuo Ng: The mother [A,] moved the dishes [P]from the table [Ab]. b. N, —Vf —Na: Mother [A,] moved the table [P]. b) SemVS the same. VerbThe word is used according to two or more syntactic models of valence, but both its general significance and individual lexical meaning can be essentially the same. Only certain nuances of semantic significance are possible, which are given to the statement by raising one of the actors in the syntactic structure as a nominative or adjective, without changing its semantic function (see 48, 49). Plg. also the following examples: (74) a. N, —Vf —N,: She remembered her childhood. b. N, —Vf —Ng: She remembered her childhood. (75) a. N, — Vf: Hay melted. | V P] ) V [Pcp, Con] b. Vfimp— Well: The hay was melted. (78) a. N, —Vf —N,: She lost her bridegroom. b. N, —Vf —Nį: She lost her bridegroom. V [B, Con] c. N, —Vf —nuoN,: She got rid of the bridegroom. However, the individual lexical meaning of the verb may be different in each case, although the general semantic meaning is the same in all cases. Values. differences depend on the uneven lexical surrounding, or the lexical valency of the verb. Plg.: (77) a. N, —Vf —Na —N; : She is beating the grass with a rake. b. N, -Vf -N; —iN,: The father struck the table with his fist. YV [A,, P, I} Cc. 2000: "F.A.M.E.: The Shadow of a Doubt" (feat. 2) Verb You're ta alone. a) The verb is used in different meanings (possible homonymy) in each case ir belongs to a ir different semantic group, thus the syntactic valence is the same. jo Plg. : (78) a. Fish [A] produces caviar [P]. b. Barrel [P] water [Con] allows. | No — Vf Na (79) a. Motina [A,] raising children [P]. b. Yeast [A;] raises the arrow [P]. c. Children [A,] makes noise [With]. Members Tana d. Ledas [P] raises a man [With]. (80) a. Children [A,] a lot of movement. ja — Vf b. Table [P] moves (standing unevenly). u b) You're ta the one. Although the same ir syntactic, ir semantic valence, the verb can be used with completely different meanings if it describes different real situations. Plg. : (81) a. People [A,] publishes books [P]. b. Fish [A] produces caviar [P] c. Bees [A;] allows clustering [P]. No — Vf — N, d. Children [A,] allows soap bubbles [P]. (82) a. Dantys [P] fall. b. Cold [P] fall. } N, — Vf c. Bovine [P] fall. Only in cases where the lexical valence also coincides (satellites — words of the same classes and even subclasses) can it be assumed that the verb has the same individual lexical meaning, cf.: (83) a. b. Cows [P] fall. into Na —Vf c. Flies [P] fall. (84) a. Children [A,] makes noise [With]. ja Liepių b. Workers [A,] raise a revolt [Con]. » x 2. VEIKSMAZODZIU SYNTAKSINS CLASSES The two largest classes of syntactic verbs are personal — impersonal verbs, which ir differ in the need for a subjective noun: personal verbs need a noun, impersonal verbs do not. Since the semes of verbs are classified according to their valence, impersonal verbs include personal verbs used impersonally (i.e. without a subjective noun). In this way, the same verb, if used in a personal, impersonal sense, can be found in both syntactic ir classes. In ir terms of the number of valent satellites, personal verbs are divided into univalent, bivalent, trivalent, quadrivalent, impersonally univalent and bivalent. Those impersonal verbs, which in the sentence have neither ir — į 69 V [I, P]: knife knife galanda, ears caught every sound, these adjectives emphasize the peculiarity of the object, the guests were entertained by the accordion, a good plough drives straight furrows. V [Pcp, Con]: children like sweets, I hear people's voices, the student pays the lesson, she remembers youth, he appreciates money, she dreamed of father. V [B, P]: the workers received their wages, man exploits man there, summer wheat is a great exploitation of the land, the shepherd killed a goose, I lost my parker, John bought a car, they moved into uncle’s land, the house was run by father, I found a pencil, parents have a house, the house has one entrance, women gained equal rights with men, father wears second shoes, the teacher wears glasses. V [P, Con]: the son got an illness, the pace of construction gained a great significance, I am finishing my school, the child has a runny nose, the Earth is sphere-shaped, the team has gained the advantage, the fields yield, the sand absorbs water, the tire lets in air, the windows let in the cold, the area reaches the Baltic Sea, the horse has not broken a leg, the father has broken an arm. V [P, Comp]: the son grew up father, the raven grew up putty, the corn grew up grass, John grew up jacket, the copy corresponds to the original, the oats surpassed the barley. V [P, Com]: Peter met his uncle, his father joined the blacksmiths that day. V [Con, P]: father fell asleep, I was sick, Mort was weak, the ship was struck by a storm, a man was struck by a disaster, young workers joined the collective, weeds covered the garden, pimples rash on the face, clouds covered the moon, paintings decorated the walls. V [Con, Pcp]: I was caught by fear, the sisters were caught by jealousy (panic, laziness). When the substantive is realized by a nominative, the subject of the sentence is often the adjective. The noun reveals the content of the verb and is closely related to it in its lexical meaning. V [C, P]: the master cut down the forest, the caretaker beat the executioner, the parents married the daughters, the children cut down the dogs, the poor master is still raising the cattle (closed in the barn), the neighbor is still ripening the grain, you have dried the crown on your head, the master has taken off his shoes, we have already hatched the chickens, the children have cooled the house (without wrapping the door), you will heat the rooms (after opening the windows). The semantic interpretation of the N, —Vf —N model and the possibilities of semantic inter-coordination of the denominator and the adjective are shown in Table 1®, Table 2® and Table 3®. The most commonly used is the optional back-end. In most cases, the final can be replaced by the indefinite number of the pronoun, which has the same semantic and syntactic function, only its objective meaning is somewhat modified: it means not the whole object, but only an indefinite part of it, not the totality of objects, but only an indefinite number of them. I found bread | bread, the poet wrote a poem | poems, I saw eagles | eagles. However, not every hindquarter can be replaced by a nobleman. It depends on the meaning of both the verb and the noun: they must match the meaning of an indefinite quantity. One other verb with the same meaning is used according to another syntactic model of valence, where instead of the final is the origin, cf.: jaunimas ei- = 80 The quantitative final will be discussed with other forms and constructions of the same meaning su (see section 4.4). 3.2.8). 76 Table 1 Na Np Patient Contentive Comparative Percipient Comitative Agent + + Instrument | Ra Percipient | p Beneficiary | + Patientas | + + + + The children play hide-and-- seek, the son learns Russian language, the father looks after the house. Compounds with a noun differ in a barely noticeable shade of the objective meaning. | For verbs denoting sensations, feelings, perception, knowledge, speech, as well as verbs find, catch, catch up, meet, leave and some others, the position of the participle can be occupied by the participle with the participle or by one participle, e.g.: I feel the wind blowing, everyone understands her lying, I found my sister walking, I met my father leaving; heard thundering, saw lightning, as well as a side point of a connective sentence, e.g. : I feel the wind blowing; Everyone knew she was lying. A special position is occupied by such sentences as: Kitten... legs broke (Jabl); Or maybe the child... broke the neck (Simon); Purvino sūnus... kaklą nuiro (e.g.), in whose semantic structure there are two actants, corresponding to one referent in a situation of reality (as a whole and as a part of it; cf. 1.3.4.). The verbs that form them are usually considered intransitive and used without a suffix. These sentences are only a certain transformation of the corresponding sentences with possessive noun (see 1.2.7), the usual meaning of these verbs does not suggest such a SemVS. The verbs here are only used transitively and are stylistically marked. However, there are verbs that are used freely both as intransitive and as transitive, e.g.: nikstelėjo koja —nikstelėjau koją, sušlapo rankos —sušlapiau rankas. 3.2.2. N,-Vf-N, Verbs that require a noun and a genitive are dual. Some ju go with the noun only when they are with prefixes at-, per-, pri-, giving them the plural meaning of the action (e.g., ate mushrooms, ate clover, picked berries), or pa-, pra-, za-, sometimes at-, giving the plural meaning of the action (e.g., broke branches, poured porridge, ate meat, broke bread); all of them require an indefinite amount of nobleman- ®!. Other verbs control the noun without these prefixes, these are the true noun verbs, e.g.: fear, want, long, regret, avoid, seek, etc. The adjective is more often an optional conjunct than a final verb. 77 Both the noun and the adjective realize various semantic functions. It is the most common function of a function. V [Aį, P]: the women chose frogs, the children sweated wood, the girls filled wreaths, squeezing and straw grabs, the men took the daggers, the old man clung to the railing, the child holds the mother's skirt, John leaned against the fence, the remains of the wall, the old man leaned against the stick, he touched my hand. V [A,, P]: cars pressed plums on the road, the wind broke branches, the rain made puddles. V [A4, Con]: children play (hide and seek), people took up work, he learns (mathematics), the little ones listen (to) a fairy tale, the family ate (balls), the cow overfed (clover), pigs ate pigeons, bad people bend from afar, he walks away from everyone, the lion guards against snakes, father refused to work. V [As, Con]: Flood has caused damage. V [A,, Fin]: mother is looking for a needle, the goat is looking for herself, the cat is looking for mice, the youth is looking for education, the horse is looking for oats, the mother is looking for order, the men were looking for snacks, we are looking for a way out, the woman was asking for help. V [A;, CA]: I barely defended myself from the dogs. V [Pcp, Con]: we expect (we are waiting for) a clear day, the parents missed the child, Peter missed his hometown, he was sorry for the kitten, the child wants sleep, the family is bored of this meal, Anna mourned (for her father), she avoided quarrels, he renounced his views, the children listen (to her parents), he obeyed my advice, we follow the laws, the sheep are afraid of the dog, he is afraid of you, the father was terrified by a high percentage, the child is afraid of the dog. V [P, Con]: my hands are afraid of the cold, the mother lost consciousness, the meadow ceased to be green, the river keeps its old course, the young hold on to the nest, the branches touched the glass, the snake stumbled on the root, the clothes were soaked with dust, the eyes filled with sand, the ship came to the water, the smoke was buying, the boat was filled with people, the square had delivered wagons, the meadow grew over with trees, the forest was crammed with rebels, the machine requires maintenance. V [B, Con]: the uncle lacked bread, we lacked money, we barely got enough feed, the old man lost his step-daughter, they renounced their son, the children lost their father.] V [Con, Pcp]: you are waiting for a surprise (luck, unpleasantness), you are in great danger. 31 Except for verbs with the prepositions at-, per-, denoting the plurality of the action, other verbs can also be used with the ending of quantity- -meaning words or with an invariable quantity- -meaning word in its position, controlling the indefinite quantity noun, cf.: pribral kraiteľ bobúľ, rozbil si pár konárov, zjedol trochu mäsa, odlomil kúsok chleba. Therefore, they are not true noble verbs (cf. Grenda 1979, 34). 78 The semantic interpretation of the model N, —Vf —N and the possibilities of semantic inter-coordination of the denominator and the genitive are shown in Table 2. For some verbs, e.g.: počúvať(- s), čakať(s), báť(s), tykoto(s- ), dúfať(s), etc., the participle or the participle construction (participle or adjective with participle) may be used in the position of the contingent and other participles, e.g.: čakáme Table 2 Ng Nn Patient Contentive Finitive Contragent Percipient Agent; + + | + + Agent, + + Recipient + | Patient + | | Beneficent | š | + | | Container | | | | | + Raining, everyone expected rain; in the evenings I listened to the singing of the lark, the cat stalked the mouse iSlendant, I waited for the door to open, I expected my brother to come back, she feared her father soon dying. For these and some other verbs, the position of the originator can also be occupied by the secondary accent of the connective sentence, e.g. : In the evenings, I listened to the singing of the woodpecker; We wait for spring to come; Beware of being bitten by a snake, 3.2.3. N„ —Vf —N, The noun, as a conjunction of verbs, is not common, but it performs quite a variety of semantic functions, the most characteristic of which is the beneficiary function. V [A4, B]: the son helps the parents, Anna serves the guests, he reproaches me, the enemy grumbled at us, the soloist bowed down (to the audience), John agreed with Peter, the daughter comforts the mother, she appeared to the doctor, the dog is getting better (to the host), John flirts with Anna, I sinned (to the old mother), everyone likes her, other wolves responded (to him) (Vien). V [A,, B]: Your advice (to us) helped, that complaint hurt them a lot. V [A,, P]: a horse stabbed a child, a goose pounded him; the dog was bitten by a bee. V [As, P]: smoking is harmful (to health), work is not harmful (to the horse), tea of strong herbs helps (to the head), frost damaged the vegetables, rye pricks (me), it was scratched by a branch. V [A,, CA]: the inhabitants resisted the occupiers, the son resisted his parents, she resists her fate, John does not give up on his friend, he always opposed everyone, I (you) will never again oppose. V [A,, Fin]: people were preparing to sow, the lion was preparing to jump, he was preparing for a long conversation. 79 V [Pcp, B]: the sons obeyed the father, Joseph submitted to (his wife), the mother forgave the son, she sacrificed herself for the family. V [Pcp, Fin]: Laurynas devoted himself to art, he devoted himself to science. V [Pcp, Con]: the residents easily panicked, the parents did not approve of such a step of the son. V [P, B]: the apple went to Maryte, the money is useful (for a person), (for me) a good book happened, the land was left to the son, John was a boy (for Paugas), he represented our class, we (for nobody) will not pay, the scarf suits her, the old hut is suitable for a thatched roof, (for Maryte) a child was born (for LKŽ), the door does not crash (for mouse). V [P, Fin]: clover is good for feed, that branch would be good for you and the flower (Jabl), such a book is useful for self-study, father's earnings went to food. The position of the shepherd can be taken by a shepherd with a companion, for example: such a shepherd is only suitable for feeding geese. V [P, Comp]: human short amZis for flowering and falling is equal to grasses (Donel), facts contradict the statement; Or will the sparrow fall to match the eagle? (Donel). V [P, Con]: wood resists static bending, iron yields to corrosion. V [Con, B]: the homeland is in danger, the trip (to him) paid off, Onytei does not go well (LKZ), he is not successful in his work (the verb sektis is often used without a noun, t. y. impersonally, then the jo marked situation is somewhat different). V [Con, Pcp]: he likes Verutė, the winter has gone by, I got bitter about those speeches, mother cares about the children, something has happened to him, son dreamed of mother, long work (for all) gets tired, he and the innocent bird stumble (LKZ), she remembered Urtė's fate (Simon), Zolis's speech was very much liked by Petru (Žem), I disliked his speech (LC). The semantic interpretation of the model N, —Vf —N and the possibilities of semantic inter-coordination of the denominator and the utilitarist are shown in Table 3. Table 3 Ng this Benelich | taken | ROUT | py | Komen | Comma |p, Agent, + | + | + + Agent, + i | | Recipients | + | + + Patient 7 | + oe + Container + | + In the position of the denominator, a participle or a participle construction can be used, e.g.: ji se vyčerpala čekáním, mně už nečeká jeho příchod; Butkienei now only realized that love began to rage (Vaižg), as well as the side point of the connective sentence, cf. : I no longer expect him to come. 80 Adverbs, adverbial, ir objective ir (location, path, quantity) values. Since other forms, especially prepositional constructions, are used in parallel with ir the same adverbial meanings, the adverbs of these meanings are included as locals in the aggregate models with ir AdvLoc, AdvDir, AdvQuant and will be discussed together with other alternative forms. su (see section 4.4). 3.2.6; 3.2.7; 3.2.8). Innagnieks (one or preposition su with) is the main applicant of the instrument, but it is characterized by other semantic functions. For a large number ir of verbs, the conjunct is an optional companion. V [Ay, I]: the sister with the machine guns, the birds fly with wings, the men flared with swords, the guard called with keys; grinned with a tooth, blinked with an eye (Vaižg); children poured water, John girded a belt, the old man leaned on a stick, Peter played the accordion. ji V [Ay, P]: girls shared an apple (plg. apple), the boys swapped hats, he used his uncle's car. V [A,, Con]: they are engaged in fishing, men played (cards), residents" are engaged in environmental management, children ji follow parents, called themselves a foreign name, he proclaimed himself king, John is studying agronomist, soldier risked (life), we only fed on roots, they trade (grain), parents take care of children (prepares, feeds ir t. t.). V [A;, R]: the devil turned into a dog (plg. į dog). V [A,, CA]: That cat, not ne armed with rats (LKZ). V [Pcp, Con]: Vilius is very proud (horses) (Simon), everyone was jo amazed at the wisdom, he is interested in art, everyone dislikes your action, they do not trust me, I doubt those promises, parents rejoiced (their children), you will be convinced of the correctness of my words, she was disappointed in her friend, all of him (plg. jo) either, we heat (plg. heat) we are still scared, enjoy the berries, he was tempted by easy earnings, we were satisfied with the second place, take care of the troubles of others, parents relied on sons. V [B, Con]: just got rid of the unexpected guests (see guests), Mr. Kelik owns (Zem), we will get by with that money. V [P, Con]: she wears an ji old-fashioned checkered scarf, he wears shoes, her father ir wears fur coats, the child is infected with measles, everyone has taken that flu, he has poisoned himself (fish), the virus gives up (smoke), her face smelled of grace, life here is characterized by great diversity, their care is limited only to the transfer of professional skills, this word goes with a suffix, porridge goes with lump, pigeons eat grain, plants eat minerals. The patient is often considered a place where something in one way or another manifests itself, appears, covers, fills, leaves or goes and at the same time causes a certain state of it (the place itself is not the source of the state), e.g.: the meadows blossomed (with flowers), the lake shone (with fire), ją the sky ar twinkled iš (with stars), the forest was filled ja with birds, ir the garden was poppy-filled, the wall was covered with papers, the eyes were filled with tears, the pit was filled with water, the brigade was filled with young workers, the roof was covered with lichen, the bank was covered with alder trees, the heart was filled with blood, the face was filled with health, the furnace was filled with heat, there were rivers flowing with milk. 81 appropriate adverbial components of certain, usually stylistically Marked, transformations, e.g. : The meadows blossomed with purslane < The meadows blossomed with purslane; The heart flows blood < Blood flows from the heart. The usual meaning of these verbs does not suggest such a SemVS. V [P, R]: the horse became a man again, the fir itself became a fir, the village was divided into villages, the pots were filled with combs, the pain turned into joy. Model N, —Vf —Nj; the semantic interpretation and how the noun and the objective noun match semantically, as shown in Table 4. Table 4 Nį Nn Instrument Patient Container Result Counteragent Agent; + | + | + + + Recipients | | | + | | Beneficiary | | | | | Patients | | | + | + | 3.2.5. N, —Vf —pN (with objective pN) The verbs are accompanied by two prepositional constructions (pN): objective and adverbial. Adverbial pN will be discussed below, together with other adverbial conjunctions (AdvLoc, AdvDir, AdvQuant). Verbs are accompanied by one or another objective pN, each of which has a special meaning and thus differs from adverbial pNs, which with the same adverbial meaning are often used in parallel with other forms, e.g.: shepherd went behind the branch [P] —the shepherd went behind the tree | under the tree | by the tree [Dir]. 3.2.5.1. in pN position —pronoun with prepositions on, without, because, from, from, to, for. Nn —Vf —antN,. V [A,, P]: the dog attacked the snake, everyone attacked me, the father beats (the children). V [Pcp, Con]: I am angry (at you), John sends (at me). N, —Vf —beN,. V [B, Con]: A man can do without food for weeks, I can do without you, we got by without help anyway. N, —Vf —forN,. V [A,, Con]: the men agreed (on the journey), the parents agreed (on the son's marriage). V [Pcp, Con]: mother worried (about her son) (cf. son). N., —Vf —išNę. V [P, Con]: metals consist of crystals, their flat consists of three rooms. V [P, O]: the handle of that stick will not come out, from those swans leaves females (LK Ž), the Communist Party grew out of Marxist circles, the eagle became a man. 82 V [P, Comp]: Jonny stands out from iš all the students. V [B, Con]: they feed on hunting, we live by iš handwork, V [Pep, iš Con]: everyone is amazed at me (DLKŽ) (compare me), he rejoices at your misfortune (DLK Ž) (plg. misfortune), gentlemiš en mocking the poor, all iš jo laughs. N, — Vf — fromN,, V [A,, CA]: the Samogitians defended against the Crusaders, cowardly and (from the hare) fleeing, he hid (from the crowd), I aš barely escaped (from death). V [A4, Con]: he refused to travel (see travel), they insured themselves (against injury). V [P, Con]: the processes of life depend on the heat and light of the sun, they depend on the owner of the factory. V [P, Comp]: day and night were not different. V [Pcp, Con]: he got used to work, eating is not used to (LKZ), I have already weaned from mother's milk (Gud-Guz), the calf has already weaned (from the cow). N. — Vf — prieN,, V [A4, P]: he clings to me, the girl clings to John. V [A4, Con]: she adapts very much to her husband, John adapts to Anna, he gets better (to me), the beast adapts to the environment, the girls also contributed to our song. V [P, Con]: language belongs to social phenomena, a white dress goes with dark hair. V [Pcp, Con]: the dog has become accustomed to the new owner, he has become accustomed to the new place. N, — Vf—užN,. V [A,, P]: I held on to the branch (see branch), no one is holding on to the burning end, do not hold on to the hot iron. V [A4, Con]: daughter married an agronomist, Anna married John. V [P, Con]: the snake stumbled behind a stone. 3.2.5.2. at position pN, a suffix with the prepositions about, into, against, behind. N, —Vf —apieN,. V [A4, Con]: They talked about a new book, he spoke favorably about the movie. V [A4, P]: the woman only prepares for the house (LKZ), the woman prepares for the farm (J), the girls went for breakfast (Žem). V [Pcp, Con]: he thinks about revenge, the girl dreamed (about her future). N, — Vf — iN,. V [A,, Pl: Someone beldZia to the door, not even spanga doesn't get into the fishing rod (LK2). child hangs on mother's skirt. V [A4, I]: The pig is digging into the bull. V [As, P]: thunder struck the house, the thunderbolt slammed into the glass (LKZ), raindrops slammed into the windows. V [A,, B]: the student approached the į teacher. V [A,, M]: he did not respond to our request (to his words), no one responded to my cry, the director took into account the wishes of the workers. V [P, R]: they turned into stones, our children have already grown into men, the pottery has broken down, the rye is going dirses againstN,. V [A,, CA]: the peasants į have risen (DLKŽ). 83 V [P, Con]: the potatoes go to the leaves, the chicken went to the lard, the mother goes to the eggs, he grew to the mind (LKZ), capitalism grew to the highest degree of its development (LKZ). V [P, Comp]: the child has become a grandfather, he has surrendered to his father, literature is becoming more and more like science. į N, — Vf — up (against the lords), Peter has gone up against the mistress, they are going (fighting) against the power. V [A,, B]: I performed well before my friends. V [A4, Con]: They protested against the judge's decision. N, —Vf —uiN,. V [A,, B]: friends guarantee for me, he goes for me (DLKZ). V [A,, Con]: They will vote for their candidate, we will vote for the prosperity of the homeland. V [A,, M]: he worked for the debt, we worked for Friday. V [Pcp, Con]: Everyone answers his job. už 3.2.5.3. at position pN, a noun with the prefix su. N, — Vf — suNį, V [A,, Com]: a cock is fighting with Zqsinas, John is fighting with his brother, the children are fighting with Sunis, the father is getting along with a guest, the boys are teasing the girls, I said goodbye to a friend, the neighbor divorced his wife. V [A4, P]: the family worked with hay, the punishers dealt with the inhabitants, we will deal with the thief alone. V [A;, CA]: the patient was su fighting to die. V [Pcp, Com]: mother met her sons, she doesn't live with her husband, John got into a fight with friends, son befriended a cousin's daughter. V [Pcp, Con]: mother-in- -law got along with her daughter-- in-law, everyone agreed with such a proposal, he accepts the current situation, grandfather has difficulty with those numbers. V [B, Con]: Somehow we will get rid of the feed (DLKZ), I will do with five rubles, he settled the money (DLKZ). V [P, Com]: In the north, Lithuania joins Latvia, in the middle su of the door I met a guest, he got closer to the village youth, we become relatives with Poškai, theory is linked to practice, the sea’s rustling merges with the sound of pine trees. su V [P, Con]: eyes used to darkness. su V [P, Comp]: the oak was leveled su with ash. The prepositional construction with Nj, having an instrument function, is an alternate of the instrumental suffix (see 3.2.4). 3.2.6. N, — Vf — AdvLoc AdvLoc is used in the local verb, prepositional constructions, local adverbs, and sometimes the noun. Their meaning is not specialized, and they freely replace each other. AdvLoc usually denotes the place where something is, occurs, happens, fits or does not fit, etc. Locative values are sometimes accompanied by shades of other values and even overshadow them, e.g.: we registered with the watchman [L-A,], the neighbor is in trouble [L-Con |], they live in surplus [L-Conl], everyone attended the party [L-Con]. 84 AdvLoc position goes various PN: onN,, beyondN,, nearN,, nearN,, toN,, SaliaN,, betweenN,, overN,, overN, aboutN,, ; aroundN,, byN,, byN,, to3(ais)N,; poN,, tiesN; kt ir Most verbs characterized by ši SinVS, refers to the state of an ar object change of o state, some non-directi- — onal movement (e.g.: to run, to fly, to run etc.). ir Model N, — Vf — AdvLoc realizes these SemVS: V [A4, L]: children braid in clan, birds fly (in the air | above the roofs), a goose races about the barley, pigs roam around the | barn, flies run on the table, he walked among people, John | stretched out on the ground, gypsies stayed in the alder near the alder near the village, people stopped on the side of the roads. | | | V [As, L]: gaze fixed on Rumours spread in the town. V [P, L]: John lives in the city | už city by | the river, the network was a boiler (Bale), the hare is lying in the pastures, they spent the night in the village, everything was in fire, mother was sitting in the mill on a bench, a hole burst in the | crop, cows were wading in the water, don't stand in the rain. water stays in the clay, all the grains in the barn will die, chard grows on the borders, borders / In the borders there were tubs, around the pool of water, along the wall there is a bed, a drop is capping his nose, a boy was sleeping po on a bridge, a lamp was hanging over po his head, all were sitting at the table, cards were being played on the table, a friend was už visiting me. | 3.2.7. N, — Vf — AdvDir AdvDir is used in various prepositional constructions (in parallel with the iN construction, sometimes with su the iliative: mišką miškan), adverbs and indefinite nouns. Verbs characterized by į | ir ši SinVS, usually means the movement of an object in one direction, — less often in different directions (e.g. children running through | po the corridor), some ju indicate a certain position of an object in space (e.g., the forest approaches the river)®. Some require jų only the initial endpoint or path ar indication, others exhibit a general directive function Valence is ti satisfied by any directive-value form of ir jų construction or even two, three constructions ar (e. g. : goes along the į lake, iš Klaipėdos į We returned to Vilnius through Kaunas). Starting point means the construction fromN, fromN,, end point onN,, ir to — /ligiN,, prieN,, užN,, iN,, pasN,, poN, kt., as well as adverbs, kelią perN,, ProN,, poN,, apie ir — /aplinkN, etc., ir as well as a noun and adverbs. Su with some verbs (most often with the corresponding prefixes) special pN is used, e.g.: klesł z wysokości, wspiął się na drzewo, wspiął się na konia, przekroczył ogrodzenie, other verbs are used with any į necessary meaning su PN, adverb jnagininku, ar e.g.: he went the room to the door į | | už door | po roof | there [Ad], cars are driving on the | highway through | the field through | the city around the city [Via]. For some verbs, especially those with little meaning related to movement, the directive is very close to ką the objective, su e.g. pN : he leaned against the į wall, the spiders were attached to the trees, the child clung to the mother, he clung to the boss, Similarly, as movement verbs, such verbs are used as ** ir (pa)žvelgti, (pa)žiūrėti, e.g.: I looked at į the sun [through the window | iš art. 85 Cook W. A. A Case Grammar Matrix Model (And Its Application to a Hemingway Text). — In: Abraham (ed.) 1978, p. 295—309, Drukteinis A. Concept of object and some features. —Kalbotyra, 1982, t. 33 (1), p. 15—20. Emons R. Valences of English pronoun verbs. —Tūbingen, 1974 (6) (Linguistic works, 22). Heir J. AbriB of the German grammar. —Berlin, 1964. Erben J. German grammar. —Frankfurt am Main, 1968. Fillmore Ch. J. The Case for Case. —In: Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York, 1968, pp. 1-88. Fillmore Ch. J. Types of Lexical Information. —In: Studies in Syntax and Semantics. Dordrecht —Holland, 1969(a), p. 109—137. Fillmore Ch. J. Toward a Modern Theory of Case. —In: Modern Studies in English. Readings in Transformational Grammar. New Jersey, 1969(b), p. 361 —376. Fillmore Ch. J. Subjects, Speakers and Roles. —In: Semantics of Natural Language. Dordrecht —Holland, 1972, p. 1-24. Fink S. R. Case Grammar and Valence Theory at a Stalemate? The Relevance for Semantic Memory. —In: Abraham (ed.) 1978, p. 177-190. Flimig W. Valence theory and school grammar. —In: Contributions to the Theory of Valence. Halle (Saale), 1971, pp. 105-121. GeniuSiené E. Syntactic classification of Lithuanian verbs. —Kalbotyra, 1971, vol. 23 (1), p. 7—16. Geniušienė E. Conversional conjugative verbs in contemporary Lithuanian language. "Baltistica." Annex II, 1977, pp. 63-69. Grenda Č. Opposition of definiteness/indefiniteness features in verb constructions with noun. —Kalbotyra, 1979, t. 30 (1), p. 32-—38. [Helbig G. (ed.)] Contributions to the theory of valence. —Halle (Saale), 1971. Helbig G. On the semantic characteristics of the arguments of the Prūdikats. —In: Problems of Meaning and Combinability in German. Leipzig, 1977, S. 40-92, Helbig G. On the Status of Valence and the Semantic Case. —German as a Foreign Language, 1979, H. 2, pp. 65-78. Helbig G. Valenz —Semantic case —Set models. —Leipzig, 1982. Helbig G., Schenkel W. Dictionary of Valence and Distribution of German Verbs. —Leipzig, Jablonskis J. Selected Writings. —V., 1957, t. 1. 1975. Jakaitiene E. Lithuanian language lexicology. —V., 1980. Moravesik E. A. Case Marking of Objects. Universals of Human Language. Vol. 4, Syntax. Stanford, California, 1978, p. 251-289. Palmer F. R. Semantics. —M., 1982. Pasch R. On the status of valence. —Linguistic studies. Reihe A /42, Berlin, 1977, pp. 1-150. Schenkel W. On the semantic combinability of German verbs with nouns. — In: The Problems of Meaning and Combinability in German. Leipzig, 1977, S, 93-115. SliZziené N. VeiksmaZodZiy on the question of valency, —Kn. : Journal of Linguistics, 1978, t. 1, p. Sliziené N. The role of subjectification and objectification in determining the syntactic valence of Lithuanian verbs. —Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USSR. A series, 1980, vol. 1(70), pp. 93-105. Sommerfeldt K. E. On the filling of vacant positions in valence warriors. —German as a Foreign Language, 1973, H. 2, pp. 95-101. Sommerfeldt K. E. Meaning analysis and valence theory in the service of confrontation. — Journal of Linguistics, 1977, Vol. 30, H. 3, S. 251-260. 92 Sommer feldt K. E., Schreiber H. Dictionary of German Adjectives. —Leipzig, 1974. Starosta S. The One Per Cent Solution. —In: Abraham 1978, p. 459-575. Tekorienė D. Syntax semantics, its analysis methods and semantic problems of word combinations. — Linguistics, 1982, t. 33 (1), p. 132—139. Structural L. syntax. de — Paris, 1959. Vater H. On the Possibility of Distinguishing between Complements and Adjuncts. —In: Abraham 1978, p. 21—45, Viehweger D. et al. Problems of Semantic Analysis, as: Studia Grammatica XV. —Berlin, 1977. Wotjak G. Comparative verb description and valence analysis. —Journal of Linguistics, 1976, Vol. 29, H. 4, S. 364–374. Wotjak G. Some Considerations on Valence Theory and Case Grammar. —German as a Foreign Language, 1978, H. 3, pp. 177—181. A6o3una H. M. JlaTenbHblli c ABOHHON CHHTAKCHYEeCKON COOTHECEHHOCTLIO B COBDEMEHHOM HeMEINHKOM si35IKE, —Vu. 3:00 a.m., JITTIN. Ji., 1963, T. 255, c. 23-36. Anvonn B. I. CrpykrypHebrit KapKac 3JI€MEHTADHOIO IIDpejiIOXEHHA B COBDEMEHHBIX TrepMAHCKHX s3bikaX. —B KH. : CTpYyKTYDpHO-THIIOJIOTH4eCKOCS OIMMCAHHE COBDEMEHHLIX TEDMAHCKHX s35IKOB. M., 1966, c. 165-197. Anpecsan RO. HIM. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. —Ms 1967, Anpecan IO. HIM. Jlexcnueckras cemanTuka. —M., 1974, Apyrionosa H. JĮ. It's a good idea. I'm glad you like it. —BA, 1973, N 1, c. 117—124. Apyrionosa H. JĮ. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. —M., 1976. Eorjanos B. B. CeMaHTHKO-CHHTaKCHYeCKast opranm3auus npemtoxenust, —JI., 1977. Base FI. M. OcoGeHHocth CTPYKTY DSI IIPEUTOKEHNMS, CBA3AHHbIE C CEMAHTHKOMN H BaJIEHTHOCTBIO riarojia. - B kH. : CTpykTypa HIpeIIOXeHHS Ho KJIAcChl CJIOB B pOMAHO-I'- epMAHCKHX s3sIKax. Kamwams, 1975, c. 119-125. Bapuna B. T. IlpoGjxeMa neHOTaTa H BOIPOCH S3BIKOBOrO 3HadYeHHsS. —VIHOCTpaHHEBIS SI3BIKYM B BhICHIEH more, 1963, Beir. 2, c. 38—54, Tax B. I. BeickassiBanue H. caTyauuas. - B x H. : IIpo6ieMel CTPYKTYPHOM JIHATBACTAKH — 1972. M., 1973, c. 349-372. T'enromene S. III, BaneATHOCTHBIE KJIACCHI JIATOBCKOI'O IJIArojia H CHCTEMA CHHTAKCHYECKHX CTPYKTYp. - B kxH. : CHHTarMaTuka, MapaJgurMaTHKa H AX B3aHMOICHCTBHE Ha YPOBHE CHHTaKCHca. Marep. deaf. Para, 1970, c. 58-60. T'emromene D. III, PedjiekcHBHbIe riaroJIbi B OadTHHCKAX S3BIKAX H THNIOJIOTHA pedirekchBOB. —Bujisauroc, 1983. Kanneancon C. JI. 1999. pp. 3. "H. P. Lovecraft". —JI, 1972. Kypuaosna E. Ouepru mo JiaurBucraKe. —M., 1962. Jlaiion3 JĮ. BeelieHHe B TEOpPETHYECKYIO JIMHTBHCTHKY. —M., 1978. Jlomres T. II. Ommcanue CTPYKTYPHI MIPEUIOKEHAS HA OCHOBE ero (yHKIHOHAIBHOIO Mpelcrasiennsi. — Slavia, 1965, N 34, fasc. 3, c. 422-430. Mockaasckas O. H. Canrakcumdeckas rrapajiurMaTHKA Ho CHHTaKcHYecKas INepUBaLHs. - B xn. : IlpoGOjieMst obmero a repMasnckoro sissikossamms. M., 1978, c. 71-78. Ilupsan 3. M. [laTenbHBIA MaJeX A ero CTHIMCTAYECKOE HCIONb30BaHUE B HEMEIKOM SA3bIxe. - B xu. : Bompockl rpaMMaTHYeCKOr- '0 CTOs IepMaHCKHX s3bikoB. OMck, 1974, c. 74-81. Pacnonos H. Il. Ckasyemoe Kak KOHCTPYKTHBHBIA HEHTp npeanoxesnns. - B ku. : TeopeTHYeCKHe ItpoOJieMEI CHHTAKCHCA COBPEMEHHBIX HHIOeBpONeHcKkux S35IKOB. JI., 1975, c. 162-168. Cementoxk M. II. 1998-1999 VpoBHH HCCIIEIOBAHHASA BAJEHTHOCTH. — B KH. : I'm not sure what to say. YensOmuck, 1977, c. 111-116. 93 Cunsanunuruū I. T'. CeMaHTHuecKHe THIN6bI CHTYAIIRŪĖ Ho CEMAHTHYeCKHE KJIACCHI IJIArONIOB, — B xx. : IIpoGnemsl CTpyKTYpHONH JIAHTBHCTHKH —1972, M., 1973, c. 373—391, Crenanos PO. C. K yxusBepcajisHOH Kiaccadukanmn npemakaros., —H3sB. AH CCCP. Cep. JHT.-psl H 513. 1980, T. 39, N 4, ¢. 311-323. Crenanos IO. C. Umena. Ilpemmkater. [Ipemroxenns, —M., 1981. Crenanosa M. JĮ. Teopusi BaJICHTHOCTH H BaJICHTHEIN aHamu3. —M., 1973. Cycos H. II. Curyanust Kak 03HaYaeMoe IIpelUIOXEHHA Ha PENISIHOHHOM YPOBHE. —B KH. : Bonpocsr armmiickoit x dpannysckoit dmronornn. Tyna, 1972, c. 25-48. Cycos HM. II. 1998-1999 CemanTH4eckasi CTPYKTypa mpemioxenus. —Tyma, 1973. ®unamop T. [lero o manexe OTKpLIBaeTCH BHOBb. - B kxH. : HoBoe B 3apyGexHoHt THHIBHC~ THKe. M., 1981, Bem. 10, c. 496-530. Xpakoscknit B. C. ITaccuBable KOHCTPYKIHH. —B KH. : ThionorHs MacCHBHBIX KOHCTPYKnai. 3sI x 3anora. JI., 1974, c. 5-45. Xpakosckuii B. C. Vicuncjienne nares. - B x H. : Į[uare3bi x 3anora: Tes. xond.,,CrpyxT YPHOTHINOJIOTHYECKHE METOJILI B CHHTAKCHCE Pa3sHOCTPYKTYpPHBIX s3bikos“. JI., 1975, c. 34-51. Yeii V. JI. 35auecnne x crpykKTypa si3bika. —M., 1975. Hymenes JIS. H. CaaTakcH4eckass WICHHMOCTh BbICKA3LIBAHHS B COBPEMEHHOM PYCCKOM $13 bi= xe. —M. 1976. Ome36yrac IO. B. [laTensHbli 3aWHTEPECOBAHHOTO JANA B i PYCCKOM H JIATOBC~ Come on, somebody. - No, I don't. Haykm, 1967, N 3, c., 3—13, H. CJIMXEHE BAJIEHTHOCTb H CHMHTAKCHYECKAS KJIACCHOMKAIMA TJIATOJIOB JIATOBCKOTO SBB3bIKA Pe3iome B crarse m3jiaraeTCs BIJ ABTOpa HA IMIATMOJILHYRIO BAJIEHTHOCTb H PACKPHIBAIOTCH BO3MOXHOCTH €€ IDpHMEHEeHHA B CHHTAKCHYECKONH KJIAaCCHĖHKAIIAH IMIAaroJIOB. PaccMaTpHBalOTCs JBE CTOPOHBI BaJIEHTHOCTH IJIarojia: CeMAHTH4eCcKAaS H CHHTaKCHYeCKAS, Ha OCHOBE KOTODEIX INIAaroJIbI JieJiaTCHA Ha CHHTAKCHYeCKHe KJIACCbI H CHHTAKTHKO-CEMAHTHYECKHE I'DYIIIHL. Ilon cemaHTHYeCKO#f BAJIeHTHOCTbIO IIaroJia ABTODOM ItOHHMAeTCHA ONpejJieJIeHHASi CEMAHTHYECKAs WHTepnpeTanust OOO03Ha46aecMONH IJIaroJIOM CHTYAIIAH, KOTODasi OHKCHpYyeTCHS Kak HeKHit HaG6Op CeMAHTHYeCKHX OyKHKIMĖŪ (aKTAHTOB, HJIH CEMAHTH4eCKHX Iajjexeh). (B crarbe rtpejicTaBJieH CIMCOK CEMaHTHYECKHX INAjIexeHt, KOTODbIMH IOJIb3YeTCSA ABTODp, H HX KPaTKHE XapaKTepHCTHKH.) ABTOp NpHJIEDpXKBACTCS MHEHHS, YTO MEXAY pealIbHOH CHTYyalHell H IpeicTaBiseMoi riaTOJIOM €€ CEeMAHTHYECKOH HHTepIIperTAIlHeH mpaMoro COOTBETCTBHA HeT. OMAHA H Ta Xe CHTYALHS MOXEeT IIOJIY4HTb pa3JIM4uHLIC HHTEpImpeTaAIIHH; Ha IIEpBbIė IUIAH BbUIBHTAIOTCH KAXxX/IbIit pa3 HHELIC pedepe THI, MeHsdeTCH HX CeMAHTHYUeCKAS OLIEHKA H IIEpCIIEKTHBA IrpejiCTABJIEHHS caTyanun. Oman H TOT Xe IJIarojl JaHHYIO CHTYAIIHIO MOXEeT OG03Ha“4ATb MO-pa3HOMY, KAXJILIŪ pa3 Y Hero HHOC oOnee CHTHHĖ)jHKATHBHOC 3HAUCHHe H HHAS CEMAHTHYECKas BAJIEHTHOCTS. 203TOMY TJI2aroJIbI KJIaCCHĖOKOKDpYIOTCA KAK CeMeMBI: B OĮIHOM CIIy9ae TOT XC IriaroJi MOXET OBITh Į(BYXBAJIEHTHLIM, B JIDYTOM —TpeX-HJIH OJHOBAJCHTHBIM H T. It, BeJieJicTBHe TOro Uist CHHTAKCHYeCKON KJIAaCCHOHKAIĮHH HE HMECT DEIIaloINero 3HaAJUCHHA OTCYTCTBHE YETKHX T DaHHIĮ MEXIJNY SBICHHUSMH IOJIHCEMHH H OMOHHMHH. CeMaHrnuecKasfi BAJIEHTHOCTb TIJIaroJioB H3O0OpaxaeTCA B BH/IE CEMAHTH4eCKHX CTPYKTYD, KOTODBIC B OCHOBHOM COOTBETCTBYIOT CeEMAHTH4eCcKOH CTpyKTYpe (Mim IIporio3HIIHH) O0Gpa3oBaHHBIX C JIAHHBIMH TJIATOJIAMH ITIpelijIOxeHnH. CunTakcudeckasi BAJIEHTHOCTb —3TO MOTPeGHOCTH IJarojia B ompeneieHHOM HabGope CJIOBOOOPM —BAJICHTHBIX MAPTHEPOB, OOYC/IOBJICHHAs ero 3HAYeHHEM. - I'm sorry. - I'm sorry. 94 DPOB COOTBETCTBYET 4UKCIIY ACTAHTOB B CEMAHTHYECKOH CTPYKTYPE It's a great deal. It's not like that. BO MHOTHX CJIy4asiX HEKOTOpOe COOTBETCTBHe HaOMIOMaeTcA TAKXE MEeXIIY TpAMMATHYUeCcKOČĖ dOOpMOH8H MapTHEPOB H CeMAHTHYeCKHMH dyKkIMAMH aKTAHTOB. 00pa30BaHHOIO C JAHHBIM IJIaroJIOM. WU cemaHTHYeCKasi, H CHHTAKCHYECKasl CTPYKTypa BaJICHTHOCTH IJlaroja, mo MHEHHIO aBTOpa, JIO/IKHA YCTaHABJIMBATHCS MPH aHajiu3e OOpa3OBAHHbIX C JAHHLIM IJIaroJiOM IIpeINIOXKEHHH, Tak KAK TOJIBKO B IDeJŲIOXEHHH BbLISCHAIOTCA OOmee CHTHHĖOKHKATHBHOCe 3HAYCHHE IJlarojia H €ro CO4ETATEJILHLIE BO3MOXHOCTH. Ecjiu ceMaHTH4YeCKas BaJIEHTHOCTb IJIarojia YcTaHABJIMBACTOA HKMCKJIKO4HTEJIbHO HA OCHOBE ETO JIEKCHYECKOTO 3HAUCHHA, CEMAaHTHYeCKask CTpyKTYpa BaJIEHTHOCTH HEeH3OSXXHO OTOXKIECTBISNETCSH C IIOJIOXEHHEM Bellell B peaJILHOH CHTYAIHH, OOpa3 KOTopoit coJIEDXHTCA B YUeJIOBEUECKOM CO3HAHHH. CHTyaTHBHBIE pOJIH pedepeHTOB MEpPEHOCATCS B CEMaHTHYeCKYIO0 CTDpDYKTYpy BAaJIEHTHOCTH IIarojia, H OHA IOJIHOCTbIO COOTBETCTBYET COcTaBy pealibHOM CHTYAI[HH ITO OTHONIEHHIO K UKCIIY H XapaKTEDpy aKTAHTOB. TOMY BCEM IIPEIOXKEHHAM, KOTODbIE MOXHO COOTHOCHTb C OjIHOH HM TOM Xe peajibHOHK CHTyallueH, IPHIHCHIBACTCA OJHHAKOBAS CeMaHTHYeCKass CTPYKTYpa, HECMOTPS Ha pa3JjIMuKH; A B OOO3HAYCHMHM MMH JAHHOH CHTYAIIHH H B CHHTAKCHYECKOH CTpYKTYpe. 2009-09-16 10:00:00 - 10:00:00 - 10:00:00 - 10:00:00 - 10:00:00 [laHHOE pa3jInuKe YCTAHABIHBACTCS HA IOBEPXHOCTHOM CHHTAKCHIECKOM YPOBHE (T.€. B IpejUIOXEHHH) HO UIs CHHTAKCHYECKOM KJACCHOKHKAIIHH TJIATOJIOB OHO HepeneBaHTHO. 3aBHCHT OT TOTM, SABJIAIOTCS JIM ETO MapTHephl 00sBATEJILHLIMH WH (DaKVYJIbTATHBHLIMH. PaKyIbTaTHBHOCTH IAPTHEPOB SBISETCA IPHMETOH OTĮIEJILHLIX IJIATOJIOB, a HE BCETO CHHTAKCHYeCKOro kiacca. OHa akTyajlbHA IPH HCCICOBAHHH BaJICHTHOCTH OT/EJILHEIX TJIATOJIOB, IPH COCTABJIEHHH BAJICHTHOCTHBIX CJIOBapel, a TaKXe IIpH H3yYeHWH CHHTAKCHYECKOU CTPYKTYpHI IVIarOJbHBLIX IPEIIOKCHHH. B JATOBCKOM si3bIKe ITO OTHOLICHHIO K BAJIEHTHOCTH TJIATOJIbI JEJIATCH HA JHYHbIC H Oe3JIM4YHbIe, HA OIHO-, JBYX-, TPe€X-, YeTHIpEXBaJEHTHbIC H aBaJIeHTHbIe (C HYJIEBOM BaJleHTHOCTHIO). BoJiee MeJIKue Kiaacchl 00pa3yroT riaroisl ¢ GopMansHO OJIMHAKOBONH KOHKPETHON CHHTAKCHYeCKOH CTPYKTYpOii BajeHTHOCTH. HakoHel, HA OCHOBE CEMAHTHYECKOH BAaJICHTHOCTH IJIarojbl IMOApasĮIEJIAIOTCA Ha CHHTAKTHKO-CEMAHTHYECKHE I PYIIIEL, N. SLIZIENE THE VALENCE AND THE SYNTACTIC CLASSIFICATION OF LITHUANIAN VERBS Summary The most detailed syntactic classification of verbs is possible to make on the ground of their valence. This paper concerns itself with the syntactic and semantic valence of Lithuanian verbs and its practical application in their syntactic classification. The semantic valence of verb is considered a certain semantic interpretation of the situation given by the verb, the interpretation being fixed as a complex of semantic functions (or semantic cases). It seems plausible to assume that there is no direct correspondence between the external situation and its semantic interpretation provided by the verb. The same situation can be interpreted by various verbs as well as by the same single verb differently from the semantic point of view, and in every case the significance and the semantic valence (as well as the syntactic valence) of verb is different. Consequently the verbs with respect to their valence are classified as sememes: every sememe provides a different perspective of the same situation which is represented by the semantic valence of verb in terms of different semantic cases (actants- ). The semantic valence of verb is represented as a semantic valence structure, which virtually corresponds to the semantic structure (or proposition) of the sentence containing this verb. 95 The syntactic valence of verb is considered to be a verbal potence to take certain complex of word forms (complements), determined by its meaning. The number of complements corresponds to the guantity of actants in the semantic structure. Complements are the syntactical representatives of actants, Some associative link (but not the correspondence one-to-one) is seen also between the semantic functions and grammatical forms of complements. The syntactic valence of verb is represented as a syntactic valence structure, which in the main fashions the nuclear pattern of the sentence containing this verb. The distinction between obligatory and optional complements seems to be irrelevant to th syntactic classification of verbs. The optionality of complements is pecular to separate verbs, not to whole syntactic class of verbs. With respect to their valence verbs are divided foremost into personal and impersonal verbs, then according to the number of their complements into avalent, monovalent, divalent, trivalent and tetravalent verbs. Furthermore verbs are subclassified after the fashion of their specific syntactic valence structures and, lastly, the syntactic-semantic groups of verbs are divided according to their semantic valence structure.