Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių valentingumas ir sintaksinė klasifikacija

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS SINTAKSĖS TYRINĖJIMAI LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXV (1986) NIJOLĖ SLIŽIENĖ VALENCY AND SYNTACTIC CLASSIFICATION OF LITHUANIAN VERBS 1. THE BASIS OF THE SYNTACTIC CLASSIFICATION OF VERBS—VALENCY Traditional classifications of verbs as personal and impersonal (according to whether a nominative can occur with their finite forms) and as transitive and intransitive (depending on whether they require an accusative or not) are based on their valency properties. A more detailed classification of verbs, based on their syntactic properties, is also possible, taking into account the entire set of forms required by a verb1. Recently, much has been said and written not only about the valency of verbs, but also about that of other parts of speech (nouns and adjectives). However, there is still no consensus on many fundamental questions, such as what should be considered valency, where its essence lies, which level or levels of language it belongs to, and what practical methods can be used to determine valency. Without going into the history of valency research in greater detail3 and without claiming to examine it comprehensively, we will try to explain how valency is understood in this article, so that it is clear what will serve as the basis for the syntactic classification of verbs4. 1 The first such attempt in Lithuanian linguistics was made by E. Geniuśienė (1971; Генюшене 1970). 2 Valency was discussed extensively at the 12th International Congress of Linguists, held in Vienna in 1977; the papers were published in a separate volume (Abraham 1978). Somewhat earlier, G. Helbig edited a collection of articles devoted to questions of valency (Helbig 1971). The German linguist G. Helbig has probably written more than anyone else on verb valency; his earlier works on the subject are summarized in his latest study (Helbig 1982). Other important and notable works include: Bondzio 1969; 1971; 1976; 1977; 1978; Emons 1974; Pasch 1977; Sommerfeldt 1973; 1977; Sommerfeldt – Schreiber 1974; Wotjak 1976; 1978; Апресян 1974, 119–156; Степанова 1973. Ch. J. Fillmore’s works (1968; 1969 a; 1969 b; 1972; Филлмор 1981) are closely related to the study of semantic valency. 3 R. Bräuer (1974) has provided a comprehensive account of the history of valency research, from the earliest beginnings of the concept in medieval scholasticism through to the early 1970s; a fairly extensive overview of the research is also given in Helbig–Schenkel 1975, 12 ff. 4 Compared with the author’s previously published works (Sližienė 1978; 1980), this article interprets some matters closely related to valency somewhat differently. First and foremost, this concerns the view of the situation denoted by a verb. The author has abandoned the view held by Ch. J. Fillmore and many other linguists that the situation denoted by a verb corresponds completely to the situation in reality (for a critique of this view, see Starosta 1978, 508 ff.), and believes that a verb, together with its valency dependents, provides only a certain semantic assessment of a real situation, which may or may not coincide with the mental representation of that situation in human consciousness (for more on this, see 1.1.4). 45 1.1. VERB SYNTACTIC AND SEMANTIC VALENCY 1.1.1. In contemporary linguistics, the verb is generally distinguished from other parts of speech as the most structurally productive word class. It is assigned a central role in the sentence because its nature and internal properties determine the sentence’s composition and character: which nouns must accompany the verb, how they relate to it, and what their semantic characteristics are (Чейф 1975, 115; Helbig – Schenkel 1975, 24 ff.; Распопов 1975, 166). “... since time immemorial, the entire world of human concepts has been divided into two principal spheres. One of them, the sphere of the verb, encompasses states (conditions, qualities) and events; the other, the sphere of the noun, encompasses ‘things’ (both physical objects and reified abstractions). I believe that the verb is central among them, while the noun is peripheral,” writes Chafe (Чейф 1975, 114). It is precisely the noun and its character that depend on the verb, not the other way around (ibid., p. 115). The semantic properties of the verb largely determine the content of the sentence as a whole (ibid., p. 190). The property, conditioned by the meaning of the verb, of combining with a certain number of words of a particular form required by it is called its syntactic valency, while the words accompanying it and their forms are its valency dependents5. For example, the verb skaldo ‘split’ requires two noun cases—the nominative and the accusative: vyrai skaldo malkas ‘the men split firewood,’ duoda ‘give’ requires three forms—the nominative, accusative, and dative: mokinys duoda mokytojui sąsiuvinį ‘the pupil gives the teacher a notebook’; the verb verkia ‘cry’ needs only one nominative: vaikas verkia ‘the child cries’, while šąla ‘be cold’ has no dependents at all and is avalent. According to the number of dependents they take, verbs are classified as monovalent, bivalent, trivalent, or tetravalent; avalent verbs form a separate class (all of them are impersonal). A verb’s syntactic valency is represented by its syntactic valency structure (hereafter SinVS)—a particular model of its syntactic use. In it, the verb and its valency dependents are marked by corresponding symbols; for example, the SinVS of duoti ‘give’ is Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – N₆. The SinVS of each verb also models the core of the verbal sentence formed with it. 1.1.2. The other aspect of valency is the verb’s semantic valency. It is represented by the verb’s semantic valency structure (hereafter SemVS). A verb’s meaning becomes clear only when it occurs with its valency dependents, which realize certain semantic features of the verb. Thus, a verb’s meaning and semantic properties emerge from the core of the verbal sentence, which means that the verb’s SemVS must correspond to the proposition of the corresponding verbal sentence. A proposition is generally defined as the meaning of a sentence (Palmer 1982, 69), the sentence’s sense or semantic structure (Арутюнова 1976, 34, 37), or its deep structure (Fillmore 1968; Cook 1978, 296). Thus, what is asserted about a proposition should also apply to the verb’s SemVS. 5 In the linguistic literature, they are called by a variety of terms: actants (Tesnière 1959; Helbig 1982; Sommerfeldt – Schreiber 1974), determinants (Geniušienė 1971), partners (Mitspieler) (Helbig – Schenkel 1975), complements (Ergänzungsbestimmungen) (Erben 1964; 1968), and so on. 6 The symbols used in this work to denote the forms of valency dependents are explained in Chapter 2. 46 Propoziciją sudaro dviejų tipų terminai: predikatai ir argumentai (Palmer 1982, 69 tt.; plg. Tekorienė 1982, 135–136), arba kintamieji (Степанов 1980, 312). Predikatai yra reliaciniai terminai ir sakinyje dažniausiai atitinka veiksmažodžius, o argumentai yra priklausomi nuo predikatų ir sakinyje paprastai atitinka daiktavardžius. Tuo būdu sakinio branduolys, arba veiksmažodis su savo palydovais, yra predikatas su tam tikru argumentų rinkiniu, kurie sakinyje yra realizuoti konkrečiais leksiniais vienetais. N. Arutiunova describes a proposition as a sentence’s semantic structure, which combines denotative and significative meaning, the latter being the more important (Арутюнова 1976, 37, cf. 10–11, 45). A proposition, as well as the core of a sentence, is characterized by the semantic heterogeneity of its components: the predicate (and the verb corresponding to it in the sentence) is associated with the significative level, while the arguments (and the nouns corresponding to them) are associated with the denotative level. A predicate is a property attributed to an argument, or a relation between two or more arguments. It has meaning but no referent, that is, it does not refer to an object in the real world. Predicative words belong to the category of sign-concepts; their sign function is realized only with respect to the signified (Арутюнова 1976, 329, 378). A predicate is content, essence, a semantic phenomenon (Степанов 1980, 321). Arguments correspond to objects in reality; their function is identificatory. Thus, the semantic structure of a sentence (and, accordingly, the verb’s SemVS) is heterogeneous and cannot be equated with the meaning of a word. 1.1.3. A sentence is sometimes (in our view, unjustifiably) regarded as a “complex sign”—a special form of nomination whose denotatum is not an object but an entire situation (on this, see Москальская 1981, 9–10; Степанов 1980, 320). This is a denotative approach to the study of sentence semantics, which seeks a direct connection between the sentence and the extralinguistic situation it denotes (see also Арутюнова 1976, 6–8). A sentence’s semantic structure represents a certain situation, which is reflected in our consciousness in the form of predicate structures7; however, this is not the sentence’s denotatum but merely a certain semantic interpretation of it—a signified. For example, sentence (1), Vyrai iškrovė daiktus iš vežimo ‘The men unloaded the goods from the cart,’ describes a situation involving three referents: the person doing the loading, the goods being loaded, and the place from which they are unloaded. The semantic structure of this sentence consists of a predicate and three actants8—the agent, patient, and source—which correspond exactly to the situational roles of the referents; hence, this semantic structure is a direct representation of the real-world situation. But in sentence (2), Vyrai iškrovė vežimą ‘The men unloaded the cart,’ the same situation is expressed differently. Here the predicate has only two actants—the agent and the patient—and they do not correspond to the situational roles of the referents. The place from which the goods are unloaded 7 Predicates are structures both of thought and of language. In the first case, they reflect relations among things in reality and the structure of those relations; predicates are then understood as an intellectual model of the denotatum. In the second case, predicates are models of information conveyed through linguistic structures (Семенюк 1977, 112). 8 Actants are arguments with an assigned semantic function. The names of semantic functions, or semantic cases, together with brief descriptions and examples, are given below; see 1.1.6. 47 objects, treated as the patient in this sentence, thereby gains prominence, while the objects being loaded become entirely irrelevant and have no counterpart either in the sentence or in its semantic structure. Comparing the semantic structures of these two sentences with the corresponding real-world situation brings out their different significative meanings: in the first case, what was done with the objects is stated, whereas in the second, what was done with the cart. 1.1.4. In linguistic literature, the semantic interpretation of a situation presented by the verb is discussed by authors as a linguistic situation (Храковский 1974, 9), an abstract situation (Сусов 1973, 22 ff.), a situation as a composite semantic unit (Сильницкий 1973, 373), and so on; its differences from the so-called denotative situation are emphasized. However, in the specific analysis of sentence semantics (or the semantic structure of a verb), these situations are often identified with one another, and the roles of referents from the real-world situation are transferred to the situation denoted by the verb and, consequently, to the semantic structure of the sentence or to the verb’s SemVS (see, e.g., Апресян 1974, 134 ff.)9. Thus, the semantic structures of all sentences, even those with very different structures, that can be associated with the same real-world situation are considered identical and coinciding with it both in the number and in the nature of their actants. For example, J. Apresian characterizes the semantics of sentences such as Он заливает бак горючим ↔ Он заливает горючее в бак as follows: agent – filling action – container – substance ↔ agent – filling action – substance – container (Апресян 1967, 58). As we can see, the semantics of the sentences is described in the same way in both cases and fully corresponds to the state of affairs in reality. The author himself also says that both sentences (transforms) describe situations of the same class, and that the semantic differences between the sentences depend on which element of the situation is considered more important; it may be mentioned before the others and emphasized by logical stress, which accordingly changes the syntactic positions in the sentence of words denoting the same entities in the situation10. Similarly, Ch. J. Fillmore and proponents of his theory (J. Pleines, S. Anderson, W. A. Cook, and others) hold that sentence semantics directly reflects the external situation. They consider all sentences that can be associated with the same situation, even if they contain different verbs and have different syntactic structures, to have the same semantic structure, which fully corresponds to the extralinguistic situation. From this, one may infer that there is also a complete correspondence (1: 1) between grammatical structure and extralinguistic situation (Starosta 1978, 508–52711; cf. Palmer 1982, 86–87). To explain the semantic differences between those sentences, and that they 9 N. Arutiunova explains the identification of categories of language and reality by arguing that reality in semantic schemata does not exist in its “raw” form, but has already passed through the classifying and abstracting human consciousness and been reflected and transformed in language; as a result, elements of reality are simply, imperceptibly “raised” to the level of language (Арутюнова 1976, 35). 10 Similar results were obtained in I. Susov’s studies using predicate analysis; see Сусов 1973, 51 ff. 11 In this article, S. Starosta has presented a detailed and, it seems, well-founded critique of this conception. 48 there certainly is, no one doubts that12, it becomes necessary, as S. Starosta notes, to posit several “deep, deeper, and deepest levels,” with subject and object positions in deep structure, in which one or another constituent must occur depending on a particular aspect of the utterance (Starosta 1978, 518, 523). In S. Starosta’s view, in such cases the researcher is concerned not with linguistic structures but primarily with a typology of situations and meanings, which cannot be justified from a syntactic point of view. Different verbs with different semantic case structures may correspond to the same external situation, indicating that they describe that situation differently; the semantic representation of a sentence encompasses only certain aspects of the external situation (Starosta 1978, 512–513, 522). 1.1.5. The verb’s SemVS can be determined by examining the sentences formed with it. Only in a sentence does the meaning of the verb become clear, as does the way the described real-world situation is interpreted. Only those participants in the situation that are expressed in the sentence by appropriate word forms dependent on the verb correspond to the predicate’s actants. Those referents that cannot be expressed in the sentence remain outside the boundaries of the verb’s SemVS, as an irrelevant part of the situation, irrelevant to the verb’s meaning (see sentence (2))13. The syntactic representations of predicate actants in the sentence are the verb’s valency dependents. Their grammatical form, and partly their lexical meaning, can be used to infer the verb’s SemVS, that is, how the situational roles of referents are interpreted semantically. There is a certain relationship between grammatical cases, which are the most typical forms of verb dependents, and semantic functions, or semantic cases, although there is no complete correspondence (1: 1) between them14. S. Kacnelson has noted that case meanings do not emerge in speech under the influence of context, but are a fact of language and its internal structure. Context is not a generator of meanings, but their external “highlighting” device, helping to distinguish one case function from 12 E. Moravcsik (1978, 255), pvz., pažymi, kad visi lingvistai (ypač S. Andersonas), tyrinėję anglų k. veiksmažodžius, reiškiančius pripildymą arba ištuštinimą, yra nurodę, kad tokios alternacinės konstrukcijos, kaip John smeared paint on the wall „Džonas tepė dažus ant sienos“ ir John smeared the wall with paint „Džonas tepė sieną dažais“ tikrai semantiškai skiriasi. Tačiau tas skirtumas autorės nurodomas tik sienos atžvilgiu: antrajame sakinyje esą teigiama, kad ji visa apimta veiksmo, o pirmajame to neturima galvoje (plg. Fillmore 1968, 48; 1969 a, 127–128). S. Starosta sakytų, kad pirmajame sakinyje apskritai kalbama ne apie sieną, o apie dažus ir tai, kas su jais daroma (plg. Starosta 1978, 512–513). 13 Sometimes the content of a referent is incorporated in a very concrete form into the lexical meaning of a verb; for example, the verbs uogauti, grybauti, riešutauti incorporate the objects being gathered, while miltuoti, rašaluoti, šukuoti incorporate the instrument or means of the action; these entities are indicated by the nominal part of the verb stem (its derivational base), and therefore cannot be expressed separately in the sentence. There is no reason to assume that the SemVS of these verbs should include a patient or instrument corresponding to the entities incorporated into them, since the meanings of these verbs do not require such actants. 14 Plg. Fink 1978, 180. Autorius teigia, kad nors gramatiniai linksniai turi daug funkcijų, tačiau pastebėta, kad tokios reliacinės konstantos, kaip agentas ir instrumentas, kryptis (Direction, Goal) ir kryptinga lokacija (Directional Location), daugelyje kalbų turi labai reguliarias išorines reprezentacijas. 49 kitos (Каценельсон 1972, 42). Vieniems linksniams būdingesnės vienos, kitiems – kitos semantinės funkcijos. The semantics of the nominative and accusative depends greatly on the meaning of the verb. For example, if the verb denotes an action, the nominative usually represents the subject of the action, which is most often an agent (e.g., the child runs, grandmother spins flax), while the accusative represents the object of the action, which is most often a patient (e.g., the hare gnaws a carrot) and quite often the content of the action (contentive) (e.g., the soldier carries out an order). When a verb denotes a state or process, the nominative usually represents the subject of the state, which is most often a patient (e.g., the child is ill, the pencil broke), a benefactive (e.g., the brother owns a house), or a percipient (e.g., people see), while the accusative represents the object of the state, which is most often the content of the state (e.g., I hear noise, the team won the match), and less often a patient (alongside a benefactive, e.g., they got an apartment, we have a garden). The meanings of the other cases are more autonomous and less dependent on the meaning of the verb¹⁵. For example, the dative represents a benefactive with verbs denoting action as well as state or process (cf.: the children helped their parents, he is doing well, the house went to the brother), but it represents a percipient only with verbs of state (perception) (e.g., the child feels sleepy). Thus, knowing the meaning of a verb, we can infer the semantic functions of its dependents in a sentence and, taking into account the situation in reality being described, determine its SemVS. Conversely, knowing the meaning of a verb and its SemVS, we can determine its SynVS (cf. 1.3.1). W. Bondzio, W. Flämig, J. Apresian, and other researchers take the known meaning of the verb as their point of departure when determining verbs’ semantic valency (for further discussion, see Sl文žienė 1978, 111–112). In W. Bondzio’s words, “having valency” primarily means that a linguistic expression (e.g., a verb), on the basis of its abstract content, has empty places in the sense of the logic of relations (1969, 234–235). The number of empty places does indeed depend on the predicate—the abstract content of the verb—but the semantic functions of the arguments in this case, when only the meaning of the verb is taken into account, can be determined only by analyzing the situation in reality being described; in this way, the situational roles of referents are transferred to the verb’s SemVS, which, both in the number and in the nature of its actants, always corresponds to the composition of the real-world situation. In our view, the semantic functions of the arguments and the verb’s SemVS depend on how the situation in reality being described is semantically interpreted and on the verb’s general signification, which becomes clear only in a sentence. A verb’s SemVS is written as a predicate structure in which the semantic functions of the arguments are indicated, and the corresponding verb or its symbol V is written in place of the predicate (the property F or relation R), e.g.: give [A, P, B] or V [A, P, B]; that is, the meaning of the verb duoti ‘to give’ is understood as a three-place predi- 15 Cf. E. Kurylowicz’s division of cases into grammatical and concrete. The nominative and accusative are grammatical cases; their principal function is syntactic. The principal function of all the other cases is semantic (Курилович 1962). 50 cate, i.e., as a relation among an agent, a patient, and a benefactive. SemVS indicates the number and nature of a verb’s actants at the abstract logical-semantic level; at the same time, it indicates how many valency dependents the verb has at the external syntactic level and what the semantic functions of those dependents are. In addition, SemVS reveals differences in the semantics of verbs that have identical SynVS, as well as semantic commonalities among verbs with different SynVS; different SemVS may also reflect different semantic interpretations of the same things in reality. 1.1.6. The following semantic case names are used to describe the semantic functions of arguments16. Agent [A] is the function of the performer of an action, which is implied by verbs with an actional meaning. In a sentence, it is realized as a subject nominative (except in passive constructions, where it is represented by the genitive). Two subclasses are distinguished. 1) Agent1 [A1] is the function of the initiator and performer of an action, characteristic of living beings, e.g.: birds fly, the child reads a book, the daughter helps her mother, the gander fought with the rooster, the pupils solve a problem. 2) Agent2 [A2] is the function of the performer of an action, characteristic of inanimate objects, natural forces and other natural and social phenomena, as well as various devices, machines, and instruments that have potential and a certain energy and can therefore perform, cause, or initiate an action, but lack initiative of their own, e.g.: a cyclone is approaching, a machine, a train; the wind blows against the windows, the sun rises, the organ booms, the bell woke me, the fruit bent the branches of the trees, frost damaged the cucumbers, stubble pricks the feet, illnesses torment people, fascism raged in the country, the lamp shines, the stream gurgles. The Agent2 function is heterogeneous. If necessary, it could be divided into at least three subclasses: natural force, cause, and instrument. An instrumental agent2 differs from an instrument function in that it is possible only when an action can be understood as occurring without anyone’s initiative; the instrument at the referential level is then regarded as the sole performer of the action—the agent2, e.g.: the machine ran a person over, the bus is going to Šiauliai, airplanes streak across the sky. Nevertheless, the boundary between an instrument and an instrumental agent2 is rather fluid (cf. Helbig 1977, 84). 16The number of semantic cases varies greatly in the works of different researchers, ranging from six or seven cases to several dozen. Ch. J. Fillmore, the founder of semantic case theory, has changed their number and, in part, their names more than once in his works (for further discussion, see Арутюнова 1973), cf. Fillmore 1968; 1969a; 1969 b; 1981. Like Fillmore, W. L. Chafe (Чейф 1975, 121–123), G. Helbig (1977), although he subdivides some cases into several subclasses, S. Starosta (1978, 471), and T. Lomtev (Ломтев 1965) distinguish only a few semantic cases. G. Wotjak (1976, 368–369), W. Schenkel (1977, 96–98), and V. Bogdanov (Богданов 1977, 52–55) list somewhat more, while J. Apresian gives a list of as many as 25 semantic cases (Апресян 1974, 125–126). The more cases are distinguished, the narrower their semantic scope and the more finely they are differentiated. A larger number of semantic cases is more convenient for describing verbs’ SemVS. 51 The term Agent is used when distinguishing Agent₁ and Agent₂ is irrelevant to the verb’s semantic characterization, e.g.: the girl / wind scattered the leaves17. Patient [P] is a function of the state of an entity, characteristic of both animate and inanimate entities. The Patient has two varieties. Verbs with an actional meaning presuppose the state of an entity being physically or mentally affected, e.g.: the child broke the glass, a splinter wounded the soldier, the cold turned water into ice, the men unloaded the cart, the mother poured milk into the jug, the wind lifted the balloon, the old man drank away the rooster, the parents sold the cow, the workers are building a house, the child is reading a book (the book is in a state in which it is being read), the dog frightened the sheep, the friends warned Juozas, she invited the guest inside, he struck him across the hands, grabbed at the stick. In the sentence, this variety of Patient is most often realized by the object accusative. Verbs with a state or process meaning presuppose an entity’s being in a certain static state or a change in its state, e.g.: the bread is on the table, the child lies in the crib, the rye does not fit in the granary, the house belongs to the brother, the head aches / the head, the rye is turning white, the flowers smell fragrant; the glass fell and broke, the rye is rotting, the parents died, the peas sprouted, the cottage became empty, the room filled with smoke, people got into the boat, the parents have a garden, I found a porcini mushroom. In the sentence, this variety is most often realized by the subject nominative, and sometimes by the object accusative and other forms. The Patient can correspond to various situational roles and therefore, in many cases, indicates a particular perspective on the situation being described. The Patient is that which is viewed as being affected by the action denoted by the verb, or as being in a certain state (static or dynamic) (cf. Starosta 1978, 472). Percipient [Pcp] is a function of a perceiver, characteristic of animate beings that perceive things in reality, have a certain disposition toward them, and react to them psychologically, e.g.: the child wants to sleep, Tomas knows nothing, I hear a noise, the hare is afraid even of a leaf, the pupil does not know the lesson, the falcon spotted its prey, the children do not obey their parents, he likes books, Jonui is concerned about work. The Percipient is presupposed by perception verbs. In the sentence, it is most often realized by the subject nominative, less often by the dative. Beneficiary [B] is a function of an addressee, recipient, or possessor, characteristic of animate beings for whose benefit or detriment something happens, comes to be, or exists, e.g.: she gave the little girl an apple, the son helps his father, I promised my friend a book, he showed his son a stork, the administration reminded the workers of their obligations, contact the director; the cows get silage, the parents have a house, Anė lost her gloves, the money belongs to you, Petras won a motorcycle, we lack time, everything goes well for him. Sometimes inanimate entities, too 17 Helbigas (1977, 74 tt.) skiria net tris agente funkcijas. Tuo tarpu daugelis tyrinėtojų (Fillmore’as, Chafe’as, Schenkelis, Apresianas) vietoj agento₁ ir agento₂ skiria vieną plačiai suprantamo agento (arba subjekto) funkciją. Iš tikrųjų taip daryti galima būtų tik tuo atveju, jeigu agentu būtų laikoma labai bendra veiksmo funkcija, kaip ir kokia hiperfunkcija, kuri toliau būtų skaidoma į poklasius (plg. Генюшене 1983, 15, kur skiriama subjekto hiperfunkcija, turinti keturis poklasius). Agentą₁ ir agentą₂ laikyti viena semantine funkcija, be kita ko, neleidžia ir ta aplinkybė, kad veiksmažodžio semantinėje struktūroje agentas₁ derinasi prie didesnio skaičiaus kitų semantinių linksnių negu agentas₂. Pvz., su instrumentu eina tik agentas₁ (kaip veiksmo iniciatorius). 52 are construed as Beneficiaries, e.g.: he put teeth on the rake, the jacket is missing a button, smoking is harmful to health. In some cases, the Beneficiary is presupposed by benefactive verbs with an action meaning, and is then realized in the sentence by the dative. In other cases, it is presupposed by verbs with a state or process meaning and realized in the sentence by the subject nominative or the dative. Causer [C] is an initiator function, characteristic of a person at whose initiative someone else performs an action, or who creates the conditions for a certain state of an entity to arise without directly performing the action themselves, e.g.: the master had the forest cut down, the overseer had the serf whipped, Ona had a new dress made for herself, the parents arranged for their son to marry, the neighbors are still ripening the wheat, the hostess served an early dinner, the parents allowed the child to study. Counter-Agent [CA] is the function of a force acting against an Agent, opposing it; it is characteristic of animate beings as well as inanimate entities and natural and social phenomena, e.g.: the wolf defended itself against the dogs, people defended themselves against hunger and cold, the icebreaker struggled with the ice and the forces of nature, farmers fight pests, peasants rose up against the lords, he opposes me. Comitative [Com] is the function of a secondary Agent, Patient, Percipient, or Beneficiary, appearing alongside the corresponding primary function and most often realized in the sentence by a prepositional construction with Nₙ, e.g.: the father consulted with the mother, Julius is friends with Vincas, he set his brother against his sister, the father divided the land between Jonui and Antanas (see 1.3.3 for more details). Result [R] is the function of a result, characteristic of an entity into which another entity (most often a Patient) changes or is transformed or made, e.g.: water turned into ice / turned to ice, the witch turned him into stone, the jug shattered into pieces. Content [Con] is the function of the content of an action or state, characteristic of various entities and phenomena and realized in the sentence through a wide variety of word forms and constructions, e.g.: I hear voices, the patient wants to rest, the children fear thunder, everyone is delighted with spring, everyone knows about it, people are waiting for clear weather, he needs money, tell me about the trip; everyone already knew what had happened; Jonas said he knew nothing, the children are playing football, the team won the match, she played a fox, Andrius is studying chemistry, the daughter went off to marry, the son is studying to be an engineer, he became chairman, we elected Joną chairman, that tree is called an oak, the room filled up with smoke, I filled the jug with milk, the bank became overgrown with alders, snow covered the fields, the dress reaches the ground, the branches touch the wall, the fields yielded a good harvest, the child sprained a leg. Source [O] is the function of the origin of an action or state, or of the initial material (initial state), characteristic of both animate and inanimate entities, e.g.: the children persuaded their uncle to give them a horse, they milked a lot of milk from the cow, they got a loan from the bank, he builds a fence out of clay, people grow from children, pass on our greetings to him. Motive [M] is the function of motivation, characteristic of entities and phenomena understood as the basis for an action or state, e.g.: I paid two rubles for the book, repay him for his work, I worked off the debt. 53 Instrument [I] – the function of a means used by Agent₁, characteristic of inanimate objects, e.g.: the child pricked himself with a needle, people rang the bells, shine a light for me, rub yourselves (with) a towel, the child rides a bicycle, lay the knife on the stone, the mother wiped her hands on the apron, someone fired a shot from a rifle, in childhood I rode on a stick, the girls waved their scarves. Words with an instrumental meaning can almost always be replaced by a phrase with the verb use, cf.: the child pricked himself using a needle, lay the knife using a stone, I rode using a stick, and so on. The most characteristic form of realization of the instrument in a sentence is the instrumental case, alone or with the preposition with. Sometimes the instrument is also expressed by the nominative, e.g.: A stone thrown by someone broke the window (cf. Agent₂). Sometimes living beings, too, can be understood as means used by Agent₁, e.g.: in the old days they used to plough (with) oxen, someone galloped with a horse / on horseback. Comparative [Comp] – the function of the basis of comparison, which occurs alongside the Patient of a state and is characteristic of an object with which something is compared, aligned, and so on, e.g.: the copy matches the original, the son grew to match (outgrew) his father, the facts match the statement or contradict the statement, the daughter resembled her mother, the children take their father as their model, he differs from the other children, the hail flattened the barley to the ground. Retributive [Rt] – the function of compensation, characteristic most often of money paid for something, e.g.: I bought a book for two roubles, they sold the cottage for a thousand roubles, ten eggs are given for one rouble. Finitive [Fin] – the function of a goal, characteristic of objects and phenomena pursued through the action denoted by a verb, e.g.: the horse is after oats, the cat stalks a mouse, I am looking for a knife, the teams compete for first place, the farmers are preparing for sowing. Quantitative [Q] – a quantitative function, characteristic of various units of measurement and of other phenomena by which the duration of an action, its spatial extent, the weight, capacity, price, etc. of objects are measured, e.g.: the lecture lasted two hours, I spent two days, he stayed outside for a day / the whole day, the forest extends for several kilometres, the bread weighed a kilogram, the book costs three roubles, the bucket holds ten litres, the child stayed in the village throughout the holidays. Locative [L] – a function characteristic of objects understood as the place where something happens or exists, or into which something does or does not fit, and so on, e.g.: Vytautas ruled in Samogitia, there is a rumbling in the room, my head is throbbing, the horses are standing by the gate, the book is lying on the table, we keep the firewood under a roof, the hall can hold 400 spectators. In a sentence, the locative is realized by the locative case and by various prepositional constructions with locative meaning, which have this meaning with verbs denoting states and processes. Directive [Dir] – the function of the direction and path of an action, entailed by verbs of motion. Three subclasses are distinguished. 1) Starting point [Ab] – a function characteristic of an object understood as the starting point at which an action begins and from which the agent or the affected object moves away, e.g.: Jonas left the house, grandmother got up from the chair, father 54 lifted the box down from the shelf, the men poured potatoes out of the sacks, the nurse untied the bandage from the head. 2) Endpoint [Ad] – a function characteristic of an entity perceived as an endpoint toward or up to which an actor or an affected entity moves, and upon reaching which the action ceases, e.g.: the teacher went into the classroom, the children climbed onto the mountain, we sat down by the river, something got caught behind the collar, the potatoes were poured into sacks, we will place the wardrobe by the wall. 3) Path [Via] – a function characteristic of an entity that is itself, or whose surroundings are perceived as, a path along which an actor or an affected entity moves, e.g.: the cat ran across the road, the child climbed over the fence, someone went up the stairs, the children run around the corridor / through the corridor, water is seeping through the ceiling, someone stuck their head out the window, the train passed through the station, the person walked around the house. Some verbs presuppose only a starting point or an endpoint, or only the path function, e.g.: put on the table, escaped from prison, got out of the cart, climbed onto the mountain, soaked into the ground, leaned against a stone, follows behind the cart, wades through the water. In such cases, the corresponding starting-point, endpoint, or path positions are marked in the SemVS. Other verbs presuppose a general directive function, which may appear as any of the aforementioned subclasses, e.g.: went out of the house / into the city / through the door; sometimes it is realized in a sentence not by one form, but by two or even three, each of which realizes a different directive subclass, e.g.: Steam rolled into the cottage from the kitchen through the sooty little door (Vencl.). In all these cases, one general directive position is marked in the verb’s SemVS. 1.2. OBLIGATORY AND OPTIONAL VERB DEPENDENTS. FREE CONSTITUENTS 1.2.1. Some verb dependents are obligatory and cannot be omitted without the sentence ceasing to be grammatical under normal, ordinary language conditions (“in a state of syntactic repose,” when there is no additional influence from the situation or context; see Адмони 1966, 167); others are optional. Whether dependents are obligatory is determined only in the sentence, using an elimination transformation: by omitting one constituent and then another, one determines which are obligatory and which optional (cf. Helbig – Schenkel 1975, 31 ff.; Helbig 1982, 24 ff.). Obligatory dependents express the part of the situation that the verb’s meaning foregrounds as most important and salient. One of the foregrounded referents is usually treated as a patient or agent, percipient, beneficient, or contentive (the only exception being impersonal verbs) and is realized as a subject nominative, cf.: (3) Snow [P] is melting. (4) The classroom [P] emptied out. (5) The boat [P] was crowded with people [Con]. (6) Jonas [A₁] went into the cottage [Dir]. The hawk [Pcp] saw its prey [Con]. The parents [B] have a garden [P]. 55 (9) To her [Pcp] childhood came to mind [Con]. There are no more than three obligatory dependents, but most often there are one or two. Under special, specific linguistic conditions, obligatory dependents may be omitted; sometimes, for example in dialogue, omitting them is even necessary to avoid communicative redundancy. However, taken out of context, a sentence without obligatory dependents is generally ungrammatical. An exception is sentences such as (10)b: (10) a. Hens [A1] lay eggs [P]. b. Hens [A1] lay. Here, only one lexical realization of the patient is possible; it may be absent from the sentence, which nevertheless remains grammatical. The accusative here is not optional, since when speaking of other, non-domestic birds or other animals, this verb necessarily requires the accusative, even though it is used with the same meaning; cf.: (11) Spiders [A1] lay round eggs of whitish or yellowish color [P]. Sentences such as (10)b should apparently be regarded as elliptical (cf. Helbig – Schenkel 1975, 54–55). 1.2.2. Optional dependents may be left unexpressed in a sentence, which nevertheless remains grammatical. Optional dependents describe that part of the situation which is less relevant to the meaning of the verb. Semantically interpreted and having become a constituent of the verb’s SemVS, it is implied in a very general form in its meaning and is apprehended together with it; as a result, sentences without optional dependents broadly mean the same as those with them (cf. Храковский 1974, 9; Helbig 1971, 276; 1977, 65; 1979, 70; Viehweger 1977, 350; Сусов 1973, 42–43)¹⁸. For example, on hearing sentence (12) Father [A₁] sold a house [P], we already know that someone bought the house and that a certain sum of money was paid for it. Optional dependents are expressed in a sentence when the information they provide becomes relevant to the speakers and needs to be specified; in other words, their appearance in a sentence depends on the communicative purposes of the utterance. Cf.: (13) Father sold the house to the collective farm [B]. (14) Father sold the house for five thousand rubles [Rt]. 1.2.3. The same real-world situation can be described in different ways, with different referents foregrounded in each case and semantically interpreted in different ways. Referents foregrounded as the most significant are expressed by obligatory verb dependents; these therefore form the basis of the valency structure and indicate a particular perspective on the situation being described¹⁹. Referents considered less relevant- ¹⁸ D. Viehweger has observed that verbs with more specialized meanings incorporate more arguments (i.e. actants), and conversely: the more general a verb’s meaning, the fewer arguments it can incorporate (Viehweger 1977, 350). ¹⁹ The term perspective is used by both Ch. J. Fillmore and S. Starosta. The former associates it with the subjectivization and objectivization of actants, arguing that only those elements considered to be the subject or direct object and forming the sentence nucleus enter into perspective, and that perspective is simultaneously a structure of deep grammatical relations and semantic cases (i.e. situational roles) (Филлмор 1981, 499, 522, 529–530). S. Starosta regards perspective as the different aspects of representing the same real-world situation, which emerge “when the syntactic-semantic representation of a sentence is superimposed on a sequence of possible external situations” (Starosta 1978, 512). 56 …as secondary elements, expressed by optional adjuncts. Thus, the same entities in reality are expressed in one case by obligatory adjuncts and in another by optional adjuncts. Cf.: (15)a. Petronė [A₁] tied a kerchief [P] (around her neck) [Ad]. b. Petronė [A₁] tied her neck [P] (with a kerchief) [Con]. c. Petronė [A₁] wrapped herself in a kerchief [Con]. The first two sentences foreground the relationship between the agent₁ and the patient, but in one the kerchief is considered the patient, and in the other, the neck. The third sentence foregrounds the relationship between the agent₁ and the content, while the reflexive particle indicates that the action affects the object expressed in the nominative, that is, the agent itself (in the first two sentences, it indicates that a part (the neck) belongs to a whole (Petronė), and that the action is performed in the interests of the referent—the agent). Cf. also: (16) a. Motina [A₁] apdavė vaikui [B] batukus [P]. b. Motina [A₁] shod the child [P] (with shoes) [Con]. 1.2.4. The subject nominative is never optional, and the object accusative is very rarely optional, since they express the most significant entities in a real-world situation. Tautological nominatives and accusatives, e.g.: rain rains, snow snows, dawn dawns, a pain stabs; work a job, suffer a hardship, sleep a sleep, travel a journey, fight a fight, dream a dream, and so on, are redundant and should not be considered optional adjuncts. In these cases, the verb’s meaning is merely unpacked, usually for certain stylistic purposes (this is particularly characteristic of the language of folklore) or in order to foreground some feature of the action (process), e.g.: dream a bad dream, do intellectual work, warm rain is falling. Neither the nominative nor the accusative corresponds to any referent in the situation being described, since the verb’s meaning alone presents a global image of the action or phenomenon (cf. Кацнельсон 1972, 59–60; Сусов 1973, 41–42). A considerable number of verbs are used with or without an object accusative, cf.: (17) Vaikas [A₁] is eating an apple [P]. (18) Vaikas [A₁] is eating now. (19) Vaikas [P] eats well. Galininkas šiais atvejais neretai laikomas fakultatyviu (žr. Лайонс 1978, 382–383; Апресян 1974, 149; Helbig – Schenkel 1975, 54). Tai susiję su tuo, kad veiksmažodžio SemVS sutapatinama su tikrovės situacija ir todėl manoma, kad visuose šiuose sakiniuose veiksmažodžio reikšmė ir SemVS turi būti ta pati. G. Helbigas vis dėlto pripažįsta, kad šiais atvejais sakiniams su galininku ir be jo būdingi gana subtilūs semantiniai nedentotacinio pobūdžio skirtumai (Helbig 1971, 276; Helbig-Schenkel 1975, 54). Bet juk semantiniai skirtumai kaip tik ir rodo skirtingą tikrovės dalykų interpretavimą, o tai paprastai nesiderina su ta pačia veiksmažodžio SemVS ir SinVS. (17) iškeliamas veikėjo – agento₁ santykis su valgomu daiktu – pacientu, (18) aktualizuojamas tik veikėjo – agento₁, užsiėmimas valgymu (predikatinė struktūra F(x), nes veiksmas suvokiamas kaip vienintelio argumento požymis), o (19) valgantis asmuo traktuojamas kaip pacientas, nes veiksmažodžiu pasakoma tam tikra jo būsena; veiksmažodis savo reikšme šiuo atveju artimas būdvardžiui valgus. 1.2.5. Those sentence constituents that are neither obligatory nor optional adjuncts of the verb are free elements, called free modifiers by G. Helbig— 57 ... (freie Angaben), by L. Tesnière, circumstants (circonstants), and by other linguists, adjuncts (Vater 1978), attributes (Храковский 1974), etc. Free elements are not determined by the meaning of the verb and can be added or omitted quite freely in each sentence. Nevertheless, their use with verbs is not entirely free; there are certain restrictions conditioned by their semantic compatibility with one another. Even adverbials of place, time, manner, and cause, as H. Vater (1978, 26–27) points out, cannot be freely combined with every verb. For example, verbs denoting momentary actions cannot take words expressing the duration of an action, just as adverbial words suddenly, abruptly, unexpectedly, and the like, are impossible with verbs denoting the duration of an action or state. Moreover, unlike valency dependents, restrictions on the use of free elements are sometimes also related to the grammatical tense meaning of verbs; for example, one cannot say tomorrow came, yesterday will come, and the like. In a sentence, free elements are similar to facultative dependents, since both may be unexpressed or omitted. However, there is also a certain difference between them. First, the semantic content of facultative dependents is implied in a very general form in the meaning of the verb, so the information conveyed by the sentence as a whole remains the same even when facultative dependents are not expressed. By contrast, the information supplied by free elements disappears as soon as they are removed from the sentence (cf. Храковский 1974, 9). The main difference between free elements and facultative dependents, however, is that the former are not anchored in the verb’s SemVS. In the predicate structure of a sentence, free elements correspond not to predicate arguments but to separate predicates; therefore, at the syntactic level they can be treated as reduced clauses and replaced by subordinate clauses, half-participial constructions, independent sentences, and so on. For example: (20) We will spend our vacation in summer ← We will spend our vacation when it is summer; We will spend our vacation. That will be in summer. (21) The men twisted ropes in the hut ← The men twisted ropes when they were in the hut / while being in the hut; The men twisted ropes. They did this in the hut; The men were in the hut and twisted ropes. (22) It suddenly grew dark ← It grew dark. This happened suddenly. G. Helbig regards the fact that free elements can be treated as reduced clauses as the main criterion for distinguishing them (Helbig 1982, 24 ff.; Helbig – Schenkel 1975, 31 ff.). Admittedly, this criterion is not entirely perfect, and some researchers have pointed out certain shortcomings (Emons 1974, 73–75; Vater 1978, 28–29, 39)20; G. Helbig himself has also noted some issues (1982, 26, 29). Nevertheless, most free elements can be treated as reduced clauses, and this helps distinguish them from facultative dependents. Finally, one must agree with G. Helbig that the boundary between 20 H. Vater takes a particularly pessimistic view of this criterion, concluding that there are no formal and objective criteria for distinguishing facultative dependents from free elements (adjuncts). In his view, all dependent words are valency dependents (complements) of the verb, arranged according to a certain hierarchy, from those required by almost every verb to those required by very few verbs (Vater 1978, 39). 58 valentinių palydovų ir laisvųjų narių neblogai nustatomos ir intuityviai (Helbig 1982, 36). Žinoma, toks jų nustatymas negali būti preciziškas. 1.2.6. The status of the instrumental case in sentence structure is special. The Instrument is an actant of many action verbs, a member of their SemVS; its linguistic realization—the instrumental case—is usually regarded in the sentence as an optional, and less often as an obligatory, complement of the verb. On the other hand, however, in many cases the instrumental case, much like free constituents, can be treated as a reduced sentence and, at the logical level, as a separate predicate, e.g.: (23) Men cut down trees with axes ← Men cut down trees. They did this with axes / They used axes for this (used axes); Men cut down trees using axes. Some researchers doubt altogether whether the semantic valency of verbs can require an Instrument, since it is supposedly the same kind of modal case as time, manner, cause, purpose, and so on (Cook 1978, 299). Similarly, A. Drukteinis (1982, 16—17) discusses the Instrument as denoting not only a tool or means but also a particular manner of carrying out an action; this meaning is not object-related but circumstantial, or else it is simply an independent category comprising the meanings of tool, means, and manner of action. The adverbial character of the Instrument does not prevent it from being regarded as a verbal actant, since purely adverbial cases (location, direction, and so on) can also be actants.21 But most importantly, there are verbs for which the instrumental case is obligatory, e.g.: waves handkerchiefs, dangles legs, chatters teeth, rattles pots, buckled on a belt, let a gander loose with a pebble and so on. In the situation described, such an Instrument most often corresponds to the affected entity. Many verbs of this type are also used with the accusative instead of the instrumental; in that case, the entity undergoing the action is interpreted as a Patient, and the general signification of the verbs differs somewhat, cf.: waves tails, dangles legs, rattles pots, buckled on a belt, threw a pebble at a gander and the like. However, there are not many such verbs. Most often, in the situation described, the Instrument corresponds to a referent—the tool or means with which another entity is acted upon—while the Instrument itself is understood as a kind of intermediary between the animate actor (Agent1) and the affected entity (Patient). The instrumental case representing it is rarely expressed in the sentence, since its semantic content is usually implied in a very concrete form by the meaning of the verb: everyone knows that slicing is usually done with a knife, spinning with a spinning wheel, weaving on a loom, and chopping or hewing with an axe, and so on. Since only the semantic content of optional complements is implied in the meanings of verbs, the instrumental case in these instances should therefore be regarded as an optional complement. Yet it is precisely in these instances that it can be treated as a reduced sentence, which indicates its affinity with free constituents. 21 Many scholars of verbal valency and sentence semantics regard the Instrument as a semantic case required by the verb, e.g., G. Helbig (1977), W. Schenkel (1977), S. Starosta (1978), G. Wotjak (1976), W. L. Chafe (1975), Ch. J. Fillmore (1968; 1969 a; 1969 b), J. Apresjan (Апресян 1974), V. Bogdanov (Богданов 1977), and others. 59 The instrumental case, which has one or almost one conventional lexical representation, is considered in this study irrelevant to the syntactic classification of verbs. 1.2.7. In certain cases, when a situation is interpreted semantically, one referent is as if split up and expressed in the sentence by two words: one word expresses it as a whole, while the other expresses only a part of it (or its clothing, harness, thoughts, wishes, needs, and so on). In some cases, the split referent corresponds to two verbal SemVS actants, just as when they correspond to two separate referents, cf.: (24) The child [A1] raised their head [P]. (25) The sailors [A1] raised the sails [P]. In other cases, only the semantic interpretation of one part of the split referent enters the verbal SemVS, since this is entirely sufficient to satisfy the verb’s valency. E.g.: (26) The mother [A1] grabbed the child [P] by the arm. (27) The mother [A1] grabbed the child by the arm [P]. From the perspective of signification, these two sentences differ: the first emphasizes the effect on the whole entity, while in the second the entity is affected only insofar as one of its parts is affected. The verb’s relations to dependent forms also differ: in sentence (26), besides the nominative, it also has an accusative as a valency complement, whereas in (27) it has a prepositional construction. In (26), the same prepositional construction is a free constituent with a specifying function, although, as (27) shows, it can be governed by the verb (cf.: The mother grabbed the end of the rope); there is simply no free position for it in the verb’s SinVS. If the accusative denoting the whole entity were not expressed, the prepositional construction would become a valency complement of the verb, but the sentence would be incomplete both syntactically and semantically. Because the noun in it denotes a part of a whole, the prepositional construction requires semantic completion—that is, an indication of the whole to which the part belongs—and is therefore not semantically autonomous. In the sentence, this missing information is supplied by the dative, as we see in (27). Only when the verb is reflexive and the reflexive particle satisfies the semantic valency of a noun with a partitive meaning (the particle expresses the whole) can such a prepositional construction become a complement with an independent meaning, e.g.: (28) The woman [A1] grabbed herself by the head [P]. The position of the dative in the sentence is special in such cases. The verb neither requires nor governs it, which is why G. Helbig and W. Schenkel call it a “free dative” (1975, 46–47). In reality, however, it is not entirely free. Semantically, the dative depends on another noun, and there is a possessive relation between them, but this dependency is not explicitly expressed syntactically. A possessive relation is usually realized by the genitive; therefore, the use of the dative here is determined by its relation not to the noun but to the verb²². Its connection with the verb is confirmed by certain- 22J. Jablonskis has noted the difference that a speaker intuitively perceives between the dative with this meaning and the possessive genitive (e.g., his legs are trembling – his legs are trembling): the genitive foregrounds origin and belonging (property), whereas the dative denotes something that happens to someone or is someone’s (Jablonskis 1957, 601). Essentially the same distinction in meaning is also indicated by other authors (Абозина 1963; Эльзбутас 1967; Пирнян 1974). 60 In some cases, transformations are possible in which the dative is replaced by a subject nominative, e.g.: (29) My hands got wet ↔ I got my hands wet. However, the dative is related not directly to the verb, but jointly to the noun with partitive meaning and the verb²³. Although the verb does not require it and it cannot be considered a valency complement of the verb, the dative is necessary in the sentence, because without it the semantic valency of the noun with partitive meaning remains unsaturated. For this reason, some researchers even regard it as a valency complement of the verb (see Erben 1968, 120). In fact, however, there is no basis for this; in these cases the dative is probably not a SinVS of the verb, but an element of the syntactic structure of the sentence denoting a person or thing concerned by the action, to whom or which something happens (a beneficiary). With respect to verb valency, it should be regarded as a free constituent. It is different in cases where the verb governs the dative. Such verbs denote some physical impact on a living being, e.g.: sting, prick, strike, deal a blow, (whip) lash, smack, hit, bite, etc. For example: (30) A bee stung me [P]. (31) The owner struck the horse with a whip [P]. The dative denotes a person or animal that suffers harm, but also retains a certain nuance of involvement (beneficiary), which is not characteristic of the accusative, which can replace the dative in many cases; compare: (32) A mosquito stung me [P] (LKŽ). (33) The owner struck the horse [P] with a whip. In such cases, the dative assumes the patient function from the governed prepositional construction, which denotes a directly affected part of a whole, and is an obligatory complement of the verb. However, when a governed prepositional construction is present alongside it, the dative denotes not the patient but the beneficiary, and is a free constituent, as also in cases where it is not directly governed by the verb (cf. 27), e.g.: (34) A bee stung me in the face [P]. (35) The owner struck the horse across the hindquarters [P]. Although the prepositional construction lacks semantic independence, it satisfies the verb’s valency, and the sentence predication appears complete (cf. Абозина 1963, 33). We can verify this by replacing the noun in the prepositional construction with a semantically independent word; compare: (36) The rain lashed at the face. (37) The rain lashed at the windows. Sentences such as (36) may be used when it is clear from the context or speech situation to whom the body part affected by the action belongs. Thus, verbs that govern both the dative and a prepositional construction are used according to two syntactic valency patterns. 23For more on double dative relations, see Абозина 1963; Эльзбуас 1967; Пирьян 1974; Апресян 1974, 153–154. 61 The free dative has a possessive relation with a fairly diverse range of noun cases and prepositional constructions, e.g.: (38) The machine broke the father's arm. (39) My ears are ringing. (40) The child climbed onto the mother's lap. (41) A good idea occurred to Jonas. 1.3. THE INTERRELATION OF THE SYNTACTIC AND SEMANTIC VALENCY OF VERBS AND SOME OF ITS PECULIARITIES 1.3.1. The number of a verb’s valency complements generally corresponds to the number of actants in its SemVS. The quantitative mismatch between them proposed by some researchers results from identifying the semantic structure of a verb (or sentence) with the structure of referential relations in a real-life situation. In that case, all sentences that can be associated with the same real-life situation, however differently they may describe it (they may differ not only in their semantic interpretation but also in scope, that is, one may describe a larger segment of reality and another a smaller one), must have the same semantic structure. But sentences have different meanings, and these differences must be sought at another level—that of syntax—by invoking the notions of deep subject and object, so that it can be determined which element of the semantic structure (or, in fact, of the real-life situation) is foregrounded over the others. SemVS, established on the basis not of situational roles but of a verb’s general signifying meaning, itself often indicates which element of a situation is foregrounded over the others, that is, it highlights a particular perspective on the situation being described. Among the other semantic actants, the patient is especially distinctive here: depending on the meaning of the verb, it may correspond to quite varied situational roles of referents in a real-life situation; compare: (42) The parents gave their son a watch. (43) Nature endowed the child with rare talents. (44) The room filled with people. (45) People dug out the well. Only in (42) does the patient correspond to the situational patient role intuitively assigned to a particular participant in the situation; in (43) it corresponds to the beneficiary role, in (44) to the location role, and in (45) to the source role. The patient seems to take over the functions of deep subject and object, foregrounding the referents that play these situational roles as more important than the others. At the same time, it reveals a particular perspective on the real-life situation described by the verb. The patient’s foregrounding function is often supported by its syntactic realization, which depends greatly on the meaning of the verb: with verbs of actional meaning, the patient is most often realized in the accusative, where it functions as the direct object in the sentence, whereas with verbs of state or process meaning it is realized in the nominative, where it functions as the subject, and only sometimes as an objective accusative (with benefac- 62 of stative verbs, cf. 1.1.5)24. Thus, the patient often has not only a semantic but also a syntactic character (and the SemVS itself in which it occurs also has a certain syntactic character); moreover, as S. Starosta (1978, 472) notes, its definition is psychological rather than physical, since the linguistic structure of a sentence cannot be determined and analyzed solely on the basis of external reality, even if it corresponds to it. The syntactic realization of other SemVS actants is freer, although many of them, too, have certain characteristic forms of syntactic expression. For example, the agent is usually realized by the nominative (except in passive constructions), while the percipient and beneficiary are realized by the nominative or dative. The characteristic form for realizing a locative is the locative case, but very often it is also expressed by various prepositional constructions, whose locative, like their directive, meaning becomes clear only with verbs of particular meanings. The content, like the patient, is most often represented by the accusative, but very often it is expressed by various other word forms as well: the nominative, genitive, instrumental, and also prepositional constructions, depending on which dependent forms are available in the verb’s disposition. 1.3.2. In some cases, the SemVS of verbs (or of a single verb used in different ways) is the same, while different SinVS help bring into focus the perspective of the situation being described. In foregrounding an element of the situation, a key role is played by representing the corresponding SemVS actant as a subject nominative or an object accusative, cf.: (46) a. Children [Pcp] like fairy tales [Con]. b. Children [Pcp] like fairy tales [Con]. (47) a. Facts [P] correspond to the proposition [Comp]. b. Facts [P] do not contradict the proposition [Comp]. (48) a. Bushes [Con] overgrew the banks [P]. b. Banks [P] became overgrown with bushes [Con]. (49) a. The child [P] pricked a finger [Con]. b. The child [P] pricked a finger [Con]. Each pair of sentences describes the same real-world situation, but from a somewhat different perspective. In (46)a the percipient is foregrounded by the nominative, whereas in (46)b it is the content. In (47)a the comparative is foregrounded by the accusative, and is considered more prominent in this sentence than in (47)b. In the semantic structure of these sentences, the patient is either altogether absent or, though syntactically realized in the same way, does not have a foregrounding function. The patient has no such function in (48) and (49) either. In (48), the nominative performs the foregrounding function: in one case it foregrounds the content (a), and in the other the patient (b); in (49), it is the accusative that foregrounds the content (a). 1.3.3. A verb’s SemVS generally does not contain two identical actants. Most researchers agree on this25. However, the question arises concerning the meaning of reciprocal action— 24 In some cases, when the semantic relation to the verb changes slightly, the nominative and accusative are replaced by the partitive genitive, cf.: took a bite of bread, ate one’s fill of meat, broke off some branches; with negative verb forms, they are replaced by the genitive of negation, e.g.: there is no money (cf. there is money), does not have gloves (cf. has gloves). 25 This thesis is particularly defended in the works of Ch. J. Fillmore and S. Starosta. 63 of reciprocal verbs and some other verbs (muštis, tartis, ginčytis, pyktis, susitikti, susilieti; pjūdyti, kiršinti, supažindinti, maišyti (ką su kuo), sujungti, išskirti, dalinti, etc.), which describe a situation in reality in which there are two or more referents performing identical roles. Some argue that the SemVS of such verbs should contain two actants with identical semantics (see Апрсян 1974, 27, 137; Schenkel 1977, 105–106). The situations mentioned can be interpreted semantically in two ways; as a result, the verbs have two different SemVSs and the corresponding SinVSs. In one case, referents performing identical roles are treated as a single collective actant (agent, patient, percipient, sometimes beneficiary). In the sentence, such a collective actant is realized by the corresponding plural form of a noun, for example: (50) The men [A₁] are talking to each other. (51) The children [Pcp] quarrelled. (52) The republics [P] border one another in the north. (53) Andrius set the dogs [P] against each other. (54) The mother divided the apple among the children [B]. Instead of the plural case form, two (or more) forms of the same singular case, having the same syntactic function and serving as coordinate sentence constituents, may be used as its substitute; cf.: Jonas, Petras and Antanas are talking to each other. In the other case, referents that perform identical roles in a situation in reality are interpreted differently semantically: one is foregrounded, while the other is relegated to the background, as it were, and is secondary. Accordingly, two actants with different semantics correspond to them in the verb’s SemVS, and they are also realized in the sentence by different syntactic forms: (50 a) Jonas [A₁] is talking with Petras [Com]. (51 a) Julius [Pcp] quarrelled with a friend [Com]. (52 a) In the north, Lithuania [P] borders Latvia [Com]. (53 a) Andrius set Sargis [P] against Margis [Com]. (54 a) The mother divided the apple between Jonukas [B] and Onutė [Com]. The actant represented by a prepositional construction is treated as a secondary agent alongside the agent in (50 a), a secondary percipient alongside the percipient in (51 a), a secondary patient in (52 a) and (53 a), and a secondary beneficiary in (54 a). The feature of accompaniment and secondary status unites all these semantic subtypes and allows them to be treated as a single actant, which is realized in the same way in the sentence in every case. In this work, it is called the comitative²⁶. 26 S. Starosta (1978, 469) jį vadina vidiniu lokatyvu (Inner Locative) — labai plačios ir neapibrėžtos semantikos aktantu, kuriuo S. Starostos laikomi labai įvairūs ir skirtingi dalykai, susiję su paciento (taip pat labai plačiai S. Starostos suprantamo) pozicija (1978, 493 tt.). Būdamas labai bendras ir neapibrėžtas, šis aktantas neturi ir kokios nors jam būdingos įprastos sintaksinės realizacijos. 64 Some verbs, e.g., meet, come together, can also interpret the same situation in reality somewhat differently, assigning greater weight to the referent—the comitative, which is then realized in the accusative, cf.: (55) a. Jonas [P] met with Petras [Com]. b. Jonas [P] met Petras [Com]. 1.3.4. The SemVS of some reflexive verbs and a few non-reflexive verbs has two actants corresponding to a single situation referent: one is the entire referent, treated as a patient, and the other is a part of it, treated as a content. These verbs denote an unintentional, spontaneous action—a process (answering the question what happened?), e.g.: (56) Vaikas [P] injured his leg [Con]. (57) Arklys [P] hurt (sprained, broke) its leg [Con]. (58) Tėvas [P] hit his head [Con]. In these cases, the accusative also has a specifying function: it specifies the affected part of the patient referent. Sometimes it is optional, cf.: (59) Vaikas [P] got hurt, injured himself, hit himself. 1.3.5. A verb’s SinVS is the lexical-syntactic realization of its SemVS. The syntactic realization of SemVS depends not only on the semantic functions of the actants but also on the verb’s syntactic usage possibilities, that is, on the word forms (cases, cases with prepositions, infinitives, participles, etc.) with which the verb occurs in a sentence. In the most general terms, the lexical realization of SemVS is determined by the semantic functions of the actants; for example, agent₁, percipient, beneficient, and causer are usually associated with a living being, and are therefore realized by concrete nouns denoting a living thing; content is often associated with abstract entities and realized by abstract nouns, subordinate clauses in complex sentences, and so forth. However, much depends on the lexical meaning of each verb and its possibilities for semantic compatibility with other words. Thus, for example, we drink water, beer, and compote, but eat soup; wash the face, strike the head, wash clothes, but wash or scrub the hands. A verb’s ability to combine with certain lexemes, or its possibilities for mutual semantic compatibility with other words, is generally called its lexical valency (cf. Jakaitienė 1980, 32—33). Lexical valency determines the verb’s entire lexical environment, or lexical distribution, whereas its valency partners constitute only part of it: these are the words and their forms that the verb requires on the basis of its meaning and that form the core of the sentence. In the syntactic classification of verbs, lexical valency is relevant only insofar as it is connected with verbs’ valency partners. 1.3.6. Verbs may have the same syntactic valency but different semantic valency, and conversely: their semantic valency may be the same while their syntactic valency differs. Several verb groups can be distinguished. 3. 120 65 1) The verbs’ SynVSs are identical. Two cases are possible: a) The SemVSs are also identical. Such verbs belong to the same semantic group because they have the same general significative meaning (their individual lexical meanings may, of course, differ, but they may also be synonymous). Cf.: (60) a. The child [A₁] eats an apple [P]. b. The father [A₁] reads a newspaper [P]. c. The hostess [A₁] cleared (cf. removed) the table [P]. Nₙ – Vf–Nₐ All these verbs denote an agent’s—in this case, an initiator’s—influence on an object. b) The SemVSs are different. The verbs’ general significative meanings differ, and they belong to different semantic groups; cf.: (61) a. The wind [A₂] opened the window [P]. b. Petras [B] has a car [P]. c. The pupils [Pcp] respect the teachers [Con]. Nₙ – Vf–Nₐ The verb to open denotes an agent’s influence on an object; to have denotes the state of a person—the possessor—conditioned by their relation to property; to respect denotes a person’s psychological relation to an object. 2) The verbs’ SynVSs are different. a) The SemVSs are identical. Such verbs belong to different syntactic classes, but to the same semantic class. Cf.: (62) a. Nₙ – Vf – Nɡ: Children fear the wolf. b. Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ: I see the light. c. Nₙ – Vf – Nᵢ: We rejoice in spring. d. Nₙ – Vf – antNɡ: The father got angry with his son. V [Pcp, Con] All these verbs denote a person’s psychological attitude toward an object. When the same situation is described, different SinVS show which participants in the situation are foregrounded as more important than others, although the meanings of the verbs differ little; see (46) and (47). The verbs like and please denote a person’s psychological attitude toward an object, whereas correspond to and not contradict denote the comparison of one object (phenomenon) with another. In these cases, the SemVS actants correspond to the situational roles of the referents, and in both sentences of each pair the relation between the predicate’s arguments is the same. b) The SemVS are different. The verbs differ in meaning and belong to different syntactic as well as semantic classes. Cf.: (63) a. Nₙ – Vf – nuoNɡ: Jonas [A₁] defended himself from the dog [CA]. b. Nₙ – Vf – Nᵈ: The dog [A₁] bit Jonas [P]. c. Nₙ – Vf – Nᵢ: Jonas [Pcp] was indignant at the dog [Con]. d. Nₙ – Vf: Jonukas [P] burst into tears. Each verb describes a different real-world situation, and their meanings have nothing in common. When the same real-world situation is described by two (or several) verbs, it is interpreted semantically differently in each case, and the relations between the predi- 66 number of arguments (sometimes their number is also different), and a different general significative meaning (as well as individual lexical meaning). Cf.: (64) a. Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – Nᵈ: Jonas [A₁] gave his friend [B] [x] [y] a book [P]. [z] b. Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – iš Nᵍ: His friend [B] got a book from Jonas [O] [y] [x] [P]. [z] (65) a. Nₙ – Vf – Nᵢ: I [Pcp] am pleased with spring [Con]. [x] [y] b. Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ: Spring [A₂] delights me [P] . [y] [x] (66) a. Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – iš Nᵍ: Someone [A₁] stole money from Jonas [O] [x] [y] [P]. [z] b. Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ: Someone [A₁] robbed Jonas [P]. [x] [y] Pairs of sentences that describe the same real-world situation differently and therefore differ in significative terms are called paraphrases (Степанов 1981, 201 ff.; cf. Москальская 1978, 74–75). Paraphrases whose predicates have the same number of arguments are usually called conversives. 1.3.7. Since the valency of verbs depends on their meaning, the same verb, when used with different meanings, may have different valencies and belong to different syntactic and semantic classes. Therefore, verbs are classified by valency not as lexemes but as sememes²⁷. The same verb may be bivalent in one instance, trivalent or monovalent in another, and so on. The following relationships are possible between a verb’s SinVS and SemVS. 1) The verb’s SinVS are different. a) The SemVS are also different. The verb belongs to different syntactic and semantic classes. When different real-world situations are described, the verb’s individual lexical meaning differs to a greater or lesser extent (it is possible that in some cases we are dealing with different lexemes—homonyms²⁸). Cf.: (67) a. Nₙ – Vf – Nᵈ – Inf: The teacher [C] allowed the children [B] to play [Con]. b. Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – Inf: The parents [C] allow the children [P] to study [Fin]. 27 Thus, when classifying verbs by valency, distinguishing polysemy from homonymy is not decisive. 28 It is assumed that only meanings sharing a certain semantic commonality (i.e., common semantic elements—semes) belong to a single lexeme (Jakaitienė 1980, 46; Валеева 1975, 124; Барина 1963, 54). From this perspective, (67) a, b, c would illustrate meanings of one lexeme, united by the element of a person’s will, whereas (67) d would represent another lexeme. 3* 67 c. Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – AdvDir: The neighbors [C] let the horses [P] into the pasture [Dir]. d. Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – įNₐ: The men [A₁] let down the nets [P] into the lake [Ad]. When the same state of affairs (or at least partly overlapping states of affairs) is described, the verb belongs to different semantic classes because it has a different general significative meaning (a different semantic interpretation of the situation is presented), while its lexical meaning differs to a lesser extent. Cf.: (68) a. Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – įNₐ: The child [A₁] released the stone [P] at the crow [Ad]. b. Nₙ – Vf – Nᵢ – įNₐ: The child [A₁] threw a stone [I] at the crow [Ad]. c. Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – Nᵢ: The child [A₁] struck the crow [P] with a stone [I]. (69) a. Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – Nᵈ: We [A₁] feed hay [P] to the cows [B]. b. Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – Nᵢ: We [A₁] feed the cows [P] hay [Con]. (70) a. Vfᵢₘₚ – Nᵍ – Nᵢ: Weeds [P] drowned in the pond [L]. b. Nₙ – Vf – Nᵍ: The pond [P] was overgrown with weeds [Con]. (71) a. Vfᵢₘₚ – Nᵍ – įNₐ: Guests [P] arrived in the yard [Ad]. b. Nₙ – Vf – Nᵍ: The yard [P] filled with guests [Con]. (72) a. Nₙ – Vf – išNᵍ: Water [P] drips from the tap [Ab]. b. Nₙ – Vf: The tap [P] drips. (73) a. Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – nuo Nᵍ: The mother [A₁] cleared the dishes [P] from the table [Ab]. b. Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ: The mother [A₁] cleared the table [P]. b) SemVS is the same. The verb is used according to two or more syntactic valency patterns, but both its general significative meaning and its individual lexical meaning may essentially remain the same. Only certain nuances of significative meaning are possible, which are imparted to the utterance by foregrounding one accent in the syntactic structure as nominative or accusative, without changing its semantic function (see 48, 49). Thus, the verb’s different SinVS function in these cases as parallel patterns. Cf. also the following examples: (74) a. Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ: She remembered her childhood. b. Nₙ – Vf – Nᵈ: Childhood remembered her. } V [Pcp, Con] (75) a. Nₙ – Vf: The hay got wet in the rain. b. Vfᵢₘₚ – Nₐ: It rained on the hay. } V [P] (76) a. Nₙ – Vf – Nᵍ: Ona gets rid of her fiancé. b. Nₙ – Vf – Nᵢ: Ona got rid of her fiancé. c. Nₙ – Vf – nuoNᵍ: Ona got rid of from her fiancé. } V [B, Con] However, the verb’s individual lexical meaning may also differ in each case, although its general significative meaning is the same in all cases. Differences in meaning depend greatly on the differing lexical environment, or the verb’s lexical valency. Cf.: (77) a. Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – Nᵢ: Ona beat the windrows with a rake. b. Nₙ – Vf – Nᵢ – įNₐ: Father struck the table with his fist. c. Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – įNₐ: Hit the little glass against the little stone. } V [A₁, P, I] 68 2) The verb's SinVS is the same. a) SemVS differ. The verb is used with different meanings (homonymy is also possible), and in each case belongs to a different semantic group, but its syntactic valency is the same. Cf.: (78) a. Fish [A₁] lay eggs [P]. b. A barrel [P] water [Con] lets. Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ (79) a. Mother [A₁] raises children [P]. b. Yeast [A₂] raises bread [P]. c. Children [A₁] make a noise [Con]. d. Ice [P] raises a person [Con]. Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ (80) a. Children [A₁] move a lot. b. The table [P] moves (it is unevenly positioned). Nₙ – Vf b) SemVS are the same. Although both syntactic and semantic valency are identical, the verb may be used with entirely different meanings if it describes different situations in reality. Cf.: (81) a. People [A₁] lend books [P]. b. Fish [A₁] lay eggs [P]. c. Bees [A₁] swarm [P]. d. Children [A₁] blow soap bubbles [P]. Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ (82) a. Teeth [P] fall out. b. The temperature [P] drops. c. Livestock [P] fall. Nₙ – Vf Only in those cases where lexical valency also coincides (the dependents are words of the same classes and even subclasses) can one suppose that the verb has the same individual lexical meaning; cf.: (83) a. Horses [P] fall. b. Cows [P] fall. c. Flies [P] fall. Nₙ – Vf (84) a. Children [A₁] start a quarrel [Con]. b. Workers [A₁] start a revolt [Con]. Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ 2. SYNTACTIC CLASSES OF VERBS The two largest syntactic classes of verbs are personal and impersonal verbs, which differ in their requirement for a subject nominative: personal verbs require a nominative, whereas impersonal verbs do not. Since verb sememes are classified according to valency, personal verbs used impersonally (i.e., without a subject nominative) are also assigned to the class of impersonal verbs. Thus, the same verb, if used with both a personal and an impersonal meaning, may belong to both syntactic classes. According to the number of valency dependents, personal verbs are divided into monovalent, bivalent, trivalent, and tetravalent verbs, while impersonal verbs are divided into monovalent and bivalent verbs. Those impersonal verbs that have no dependent in the sentence at all 69 are avalent (or zerovalent). These subclasses of personal and impersonal verbs are further divided according to specific syntactic valency patterns (i.e., SinVS), which differ in the grammatical forms of their valency dependents. The illustrative material is drawn from the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian (V., 1972; abbreviated DLKŽ), the academic Lithuanian Language Dictionary, vols. I–XII (V., 1956–1981; abbreviated LKŽ), works of fiction, the writings of J. Jablonskis, and spoken standard language. Usually only the verb and its valency dependents are given, so sources are not cited. Only in some cases, for example, when a complete sentence or a word combination that is less common in literary language and not entirely usual is presented, is the source cited (the source abbreviations are those used in the Lithuanian Language Dictionary). The syntactic classification of Lithuanian verbs and the semantic characterization of the syntactic classes presented in this article are probably incomplete, since they are based on only a portion of the verbs; moreover, our dictionaries do not reflect the syntactic usage of verbs very extensively. The aim of the article is to present an overall picture of the syntactic classes of Lithuanian verbs and an approximate syntactic-semantic characterization of them. Syntactic valency patterns of verbs (or SinVS) are denoted by the following symbols: Vf — the finite form of a personal verb, Vfimp — the finite form of an impersonal verb, N — noun, Adj — adjective, Adv — adverb, Inf — infinitive, Part — participle, SD — subordinate (usually dependent) clause in a complex sentence, pN — prepositional construction, AdvLoc — adverbial expressing location, AdvDir — adverbial expressing direction of motion or route, AdvQuant — adverbial expressing quantity, n — nominative, g — genitive, d — dative, a — accusative, i — instrumental, l — locative. Syntactic valency patterns indicate only the principal forms of a verb’s valency dependents. Most often these are noun cases and prepositional constructions; less often, adverbs, adjectives, infinitives, participles, and subordinate clauses (when they are not substitutes for the noun cases or prepositional constructions functioning as dependents). The principal forms of dependents may be replaced by various word combinations, e.g.: I bought a kilogram of apples, ten cheeses, half a watermelon (cf. a book); they distributed the books to ten pupils (cf. to pupils); many people gathered, crowds upon crowds of people (cf. people); I myself (cf. I) do not know this; a genitive of indefinite quantity, e.g.: there appeared some brave people (cf. a brave person), I bought some sugar and sweets (cf. a cabbage); converbs and converb constructions, e.g.: I hear thunder rumbling (cf. thunder, a thunderclap), we are waiting for dawn to break (cf. dawn), thunder was heard rumbling (cf. thunder), I saw my father returning (cf. my father), as well as subordinate clauses in complex sentences, e.g.: I see that the cat is climbing onto the roof; I see: the cat is climbing onto the roof (cf. I see a cat). Syntactic patterns involving these substitutes for valency dependents are not listed separately. Valency dependents are sometimes replaced by free constituents expressing location, manner, or purpose, e.g.: At the coal mine (cf. to the mine) he handed over all his healthy- 70 that (LKŽ); She also wears beautiful clothes on an ordinary day (cf. beautiful clothes) wears; But perhaps God wanted it that way (cf. that) (Simon); Saliutukas did not like kindergarten (cf. kindergarten); This is how it (cf. what) sometimes happens to a person! (Balt); Oh, my mother-in-law sent me, sent me for winter grass and summer snow (cf. to the forest) (Jabl). These substitutes for adjuncts likewise do not constitute separate syntactic valency patterns. Since verbs with obligatory and optional dependents are presented together, optionality is not marked in the syntactic valency models set out here. In illustrative examples, optional dependents are written in parentheses. The syntactic classes of verbs and their subclasses are presented below. The smallest subclass is a group of verbs used according to a particular syntactic valency model (SinVS). The third part of the study presents a syntactic-semantic characterization of monovalent and bivalent personal verbs. 2.1. PERSONAL VERBS 2.1.1. Monovalent verbs Nn – Vf: birds are chirping, wax is melting. 2.1.2. Bivalent verbs Nn – Vf – Na: children pick berries; Nn – Vf – Ng: the father is looking for a scythe; Nn – Vf – Nd: Jonas helps his parents; Nn – Vf – Ni: the residents engage in fishing; Nn – Vf – pN (with an object pN): Nn – Vf – antNg: the dog rushed at me; Nn – Vf – beNg: we will manage without you; Nn – Vf – dėlNg: they agreed (on tomorrow); Nn – Vf – išNg: everyone mocks Jonas; Nn – Vf – fromNg: the man defended himself from the dogs; Nn – Vf – toNg: animals adapt to their environment; Nn – Vf – againstNg: the plough caught on a stone; Nn – Vf – aboutNa: the men talked about the event; Nn – Vf – intoNa: thunder struck the house; Nn – Vf – acrossNa: the mother spanked [the child] across the hands; Nn – Vf – againstNa: the peasants revolted (against the authorities); Nn – Vf – forNa: friends guarantee for me; Nn – Vf – withNi: the rooster fought with the gander; Nn – Vf – AdvLoc: the tubs are standing in the pantry | upstairs | along the fences | here; Nn – Vf – AdvDir: the father went out to the city | from the house | along the path | there; Nn – Vf – AdvQuant: the lecture lasted an hour | about an hour | a long time; 71 Nn – Vf – Adv29: the child behaves nicely; Nn – Vf – Inf: Ona is too lazy to weave; Nn – Vf – Inf / Part / SD: he hopes to recover / that he will recover / that he recovers; Nn – Vf – Part / SD: we are glad (to have returned / that we have returned); Nn – Vf – SD: I thought (that) the sun was rising. 2.1.3. Trivalent verbs Just as the syntactic valency pattern Nn – Vf of monovalent verbs is included in all syntactic patterns of bivalent verbs, so many patterns of bivalent verbs are included in the syntactic patterns of trivalent verbs. A further component, required by the meaning and valency of the verbs, is simply added to them. Nn – Vf – Na – Ng: he teaches children (mathematics); Nn – Vf – Na – Nd: the old woman gave the girl an apple; Nn – Vf – Na – Ni: the mother shod the child (with shoes); Nn – Vf – Na – Ni/ Adj: everyone considers him wise; Nn – Vf – Na – Ni/ Adj: he made me his servant / unhappy; Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – Nᵢ/ Adv: the teacher graded the essay a four / good; Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – Adjₐ: the court found him guilty; Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – pN: Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – antNₐ: at noon he set the dog on the sheep; Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – išNₐ: Andrius took the toy away from his friend; Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – nuoNₐ: the host protected the guest from the dog; Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – užNₐ: the parents married their daughter off to a man; Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – apieNₐ: they questioned me about the stars; Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – įNₐ: the cold turned water into ice; Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – priešNₐ: the mother stood up for me against my father; Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – užNₐ: a friend bet five rubles on me; Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – su Nᵢ: he compared the copy with the original; Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – AdvLoc: we keep apples in boxes / on shelves / there; Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – AdvDir: the men rafted timber down the Nemunas / out of Lithuania / into Prussia / downstream; Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – AdvQuant: the authorities valued the cottage at (two thousand rubles); Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – Inf / SD: the mother urged the guests (to eat / that they eat); Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – Part / SD: he assured us that he would return / that he would return; Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – SD: the friends convinced me that that really was what had happened. Nₙ – Vf – Nᵍ – Nᵍ: the traveler asked (the girl) for directions; Nₙ – Vf – Nᵍ – Nᵈ: I wish you happiness; Nₙ – Vf – Nᵍ – pN: ²⁹ Ši SinVS kelia rimtų abejonių (plg. Pasch 1977, 21; Helbig 1979, 71). Tokie veiksmažodžiai, kaip elgtis, gyvuoti, gyventi „gyvuoti“, laikytis „t. p.“, būtinai reikalingi būdo reikšmės prieveiksmio arba jo pakaitalo, kuris atskleidžia jų turinį ir kartu apibūdina patį veiksmo ar būsenos subjektą. Sakinio predikatinėje struktūroje prieveiksmis kartu su veiksmažodžiu atitinka predikatą, o ne predikato argumentą. 72 Nₙ – Vf – N𝗀 – išN𝗀: he demands (from me) money; Nₙ – Vf – N𝗀 – apie Nₐ: friends asked me about you; Nₙ – Vf – N𝗀 – AdvDir: Jonas poured water into the tub; Nₙ – Vf – N𝗀 – Inf / SD: friends asked me to wait / to wait. Nₙ – Vf – N𝑑 – Nᵢ: father (to everyone) boasted about his son; Nₙ – Vf – N𝑑 – pN: Nₙ – Vf – N𝑑 – apie Nₐ: the manager announced (to us) the meeting; Nₙ – Vf – N𝑑 – už Nₐ: we (for you) guarantee for Petras; Nₙ – Vf – N𝑑 – Inf: you hinder me (from working); Nₙ – Vf – N𝑑 – Part / SD: he (to them) admitted having taken / that he had taken the money; Nₙ – Vf – N𝑑 – SD: father confirmed to me that brother was telling the truth. Nₙ – Vf – Nᵢ – pN: Nₙ – Vf – Nᵢ – įNₐ: Jonas struck the table with his fist; Nₙ – Vf – Nᵢ – per Nₐ: Stasys slapped the water with an oar; Nₙ – Vf – Nᵢ – su Nᵢ: the sister exchanged clothes with her brother; Nₙ – Vf – Nᵢ – AdvDir: she ran her finger across the table; Nₙ – Vf – Nᵢ – AdvQuant: he wore out a fur coat in two years. Nₙ – Vf – apieNₐ – išN𝗀: he learned about the event (from friends); Nₙ – Vf – antN𝗀 – AdvDir: the brothers rode off (on horseback) (to war); Nₙ – Vf – suNᵢ – Adv: the lords treated the serfs cruelly. Nₙ – Vf – AdvLoc – AdvQuant: he stayed here for about a year. 2.1.4. Four-valency verbs There are very few four-valency verbs, and they are rarely used with all four complements. Most often, one or two complements are optional and remain unexpressed. The syntactic valency patterns of these verbs include some syntactic patterns of three-valency verbs; in addition, they require a particular prepositional construction or an adverbial constituent. Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – N𝑑 – pN: Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – N𝑑 – perNₐ: I will hand the book over to you (via Anelė); Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – N𝑑 – užNₐ: the parents sold the house (to the collective farm) (for two thousand rubles); Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – N𝑑 – nuoN𝗀: pass along my greetings to him. Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – Nᵢ – AdvDir: Šimtas ferried us across the river (in a boat). Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – išN𝗀 – užNₐ: he bought a badge (from a friend) (for five kopecks); Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – antN𝗀 – AdvDir: the child floated toy soldiers (on a wood chip) (downstream). Nₙ – Vf – Nₐ – AdvLoc – AdvQuant: they kept Petras in prison for two years. Nₙ – Vf – N𝑑 – Nᵢ – užNₐ: he repaid me (for the work) (in money). Nₙ – Vf – Nᵢ – suNᵢ – užNₐ: I settled accounts with him (for the work) (in cash). 73 2.2. IMPERSONAL VERBS 2.2.1. Avalent verbs Vfimp: it is raining, snowing, dawning, thundering, lightning, fogging, freezing. 2.2.2. Monovalent verbs Vfimp – Ng: problems have accumulated; Vfimp – Nd: the patient got better; Vfimp – Na: I got soaked; Vfimp – AdvLoc: in the soil | underfoot | it is boggy here; Vfimp – AdvDir: it drips from the roof. 2.2.3. Bivalent verbs Vfimp – Ng – Nd: the soil needs fertilizer; Vfimp – Ng – Na: snow was brought into the yard; Vfimp – Ng – AdvLoc: there is not enough air in the room; Vfimp – Ng – AdvDir: students gathered at the school. Vfimp – Nd – nuoNg: I will get it from my father; Vfimp – Nd – suNi: he is getting along well with the boy; Vfimp – Nd – Inf: the passengers had to wait. Vfimp – Na – Ni: the child broke out in a rash (pimples); Vfimp – Na – AdvDir: I am being lifted into the air; Vfimp – Na – Inf: Monika felt like going for a walk. Vfimp – Ni – AdvLoc: it smells (of flowers) here; Vfimp – Ni – AdvDir: a cool breeze blew from the lake. 3. SYNTACTIC-SEMANTIC CHARACTERIZATION OF MONOVALENT AND BIVALENT PERSONAL VERBS 3.1. MONOVALENT VERBS Nn– Vf – their only syntactic valency pattern. The following SemVS are realized by it: V [P]: wax melts, clouds disperse, crops yield well, the seam came undone, potatoes sprout, grain becomes more expensive, children grow, the patient gets better, the dog sits, beauty fades, the horse stumbled, the pig became spoiled, the person became impoverished, the daughter is a flirt, the knife disappeared, the temperature rises, winter comes, images recur, dreams come true, shoes wear out, nuts do not crack open, flies have gnawed themselves, the dog bites, the child can now walk (i.e. knows how to walk), the faucet is running, the pot is scorching, the jar spilled (was poured out). V [A₁]: a person, an animal breathes; the bull bellowed; birds chirp; a person, a horse looks around; a person, a rooster, a nightingale sings; girls giggle, the child lies, the father 74 now reads (i.e. is engaged in reading), we have an afternoon snack, bulls butt one another, the women quarreled, children go berry-picking. V [A₂]: the clock buzzes, the threshing machine roars, the forest resounds, the storm rages, the wind whistles, the cold bites, fascism ran rampant. V [Pcp]: people pride themselves (literally, “put on airs of greatness”), imagine “the same”; I changed my mind; the child became naughty, went astray; Juozapota went mad, you are mistaken, the cat grew bold, the horse went wild, the children quarreled. 3.2. BIVALENT VERBS One complement of bivalent personal verbs is the nominative of nouns or words that stand for them; it is always obligatory. The second complement may be various noun cases, prepositional constructions, adverbs, the infinitive of a verb, participles and participial constructions, or subordinate clauses of complex sentences; this complement may be obligatory or optional. The largest and semantically most diverse subclass consists of verbs used with the accusative (transitive verbs). 3.2.1. Nn – Vf – Na The accusative, like the nominative, is most often an obligatory complement of verbs. A fairly diverse range of verb SemVS actants is realized in both the nominative and the accusative. V [A₁, P]: children shell peas, horses eat clover, hunters shot a wild boar, Jonas put on a jacket, the bird folded its wings, the children tested the strength of the ice, the spider spins a web, he created a new method, the children teased the dog, the pupil reads a book, the herdsman drank a shot, the daughter used to sew clothes for the whole family, they robbed the landlord, someone looted the warehouse, parents raise children, you deceived me, pigs eat up the piglets, the dog chases the cat, the lads rode the horses to exhaustion, people wade through mud, I walked through the whole forest, the hens fouled the hut, the horse ran up to the manor, birds alighted on the fences, the children surrounded their grandfather, the father unsaddled the horse, the pupils visited the teacher, you picked on our Juozas (Krėv), the children left home, the cat ran across the road, we passed the houses, the man ate through all his money, the shepherd filled a little bag with potatoes. V [A₂, P]: light dazzles a person, the sun gilds the birch groves, rain refreshes the earth, eyes bring a face to life, shoes pinch the feet, the tree stunned the young man, a song dispels cares, the automated line doubled labor productivity, acids ate into the wound, flowers spread a pleasant fragrance, the revolution began a new era, dangers frighten a person, the misfortune stunned him, work enriches a person, you are holding me up (wasting time), the wind aired out the hut, the sun heated the room, the rumor reached Jonas, cold nips the face, lightning struck a person down, the wind blew the face away, the sun passed through the mist. V [A₁, Con]: men play (football), people sang (the anthem), Sigutė plays (a fox) (that is, the role of a fox), Ona does all the household chores, he talks nonsense, I carried out your order, the son kept his word, we ate (dinner), the stork flew a circle. V [A₂, Con]: the aircraft made a circle, a loop; machines perform fieldwork, the radio announced the weather forecast, the bell announced a break, the barometer indicates a change in the weather. 75 V [I, P]: the knife sharpens the knife, ears caught every sound, these adjectives emphasize the object's property, the accordion entertained the guests, a good plough makes straight furrows. V [Pcp, Con]: children like sweets, I hear people's voices, the pupil knows the lesson, she remembers her youth, he values money, she dreamed of her father. V [B, P]: the workers received their wages, a person there exploits another person, spring wheat greatly exhausts the soil, the shepherd lost a gosling, I lost my fountain pen, Jonas acquired a car, they accumulated their uncle's land, the father owned the houses, I found a pencil, the parents have a house, the house has one entrance, women acquired equal rights with men, the father [sheep] second shoes, the teacher wears glasses. V [P, Con]: the son contracted an illness, the pace of construction acquired great significance, I am reaching the end of my life, the child has a cold, the Earth has the shape of a sphere, the team gained an advantage, the fields yield a crop, sand absorbs water, the tyre lets air through, the windows are cold and let [it] through, that area reaches the Baltic Sea, the horse sprained its leg, the father broke his arm. V [P, Comp]: the son grew taller than his father, the rowan sapling grew taller than the guelder rose, the maize outgrew the weeds, Jonas grew out of his jacket, the copy matches the original, oats surpassed barley. V [P, Com]: Petras met his uncle, the father the other day connected the blacksmith. V [Con, P]: sleep overcame the father, illness struck me, weakness overwhelmed Morta, a storm struck the ship, misfortune befell the person, young workers augmented the workforce, weeds overgrew the garden, pimples covered the face, clouds covered the moon, paintings adorned the walls. V [Con, Pcp]: fear seized me, jealousy (panic, lethargy) overcame the sisters. When the contentive is realized in the nominative, the sentence subject is often expressed by the accusative. The nominative reveals the content of the verb, and its lexical meaning is closely connected with it. (This is also characteristic of sentences in other syntactic models that contain a contentive nominative.) V [C, P]: the lord had the forest cut down, the bailiff had the serf flogged, the parents married off their daughters, the children rotted the dogs, the careless owner is making the livestock suffocate (by keeping them shut in the barn), the neighbour was still ripening the crops, you dried the little wreath on your head, the craftsman made the shoes smaller, we have already hatched the chicks, the children aired out the house (while opening and closing the door), you will heat the rooms (having opened the windows). Modelio NThe semantic interpretation of ₐ – Vf – Nₐ and the possibilities for semantic mutual agreement between the nominative and the accusative are shown in Table 130. In this syntactic valency model, the accusative is very rarely optional. The contentive accusative is optional somewhat more often. In many cases, the accusative can be replaced by a genitive of indefinite quantity, which has the same semantic and syntactic function, but whose object meaning is somewhat modified: it denotes not the whole object, but only an indefinite part of it; not the entirety of the objects, but only an indefinite quantity of them. Cf.: I found bread / some bread, the poet composed a poem / poems, I saw storks / some storks. However, not every accusative can be replaced by a genitive. This depends both on the verb and on the meaning of the noun: they must be compatible with the meaning of indefinite quantity. A few verbs are used with the same meaning according to another syntactic valency model, in which the genitive occurs instead of the accusative; cf.: young people go- 30 The accusative of quantitative meaning will be discussed alongside other forms and constructions with the same meaning (see 3.2.8). 76 Table 1 Nₙ | Nₐ | Patient | Content | Comparative | Percipitive | Comitative | Agent | + | + Instrument | + Percipitive | + Beneficiary | + Patient | + | + | + | | + Content | + | | | + Causer | + onto a wheel / of a wheel, the children play hide-and-seek / hide-and-seek, the son is learning Russian / the Russian language, the father is looking at the house / the houses. Genitive constructions differ only by a barely perceptible nuance of purpose. With verbs denoting sensations, feelings, perception, knowledge, and speech, as well as the verbs find, catch, seize, come upon, meet, leave and certain others, the accusative position may be occupied by an accusative with a participle, or by a participle alone, e.g.: I feel the wind blowing, everyone understands her to be lying, you found the nurse standing there, I met my father as he was leaving, I heard thunder rumbling, I saw lightning flashing, as well as by a subordinate clause, e.g.: I feel that the wind is blowing; Everyone understood that she was lying. A special case is represented by sentences such as: The kitten… its legs broke (Jabl); Or perhaps the child … broke his neck (Simon); The dirty son … dislocated his neck (ibid.), whose semantic structure contains two actants that correspond to one referent in the real-world situation (as a whole and its part; cf. 1.3.4.). The verbs forming them are usually considered intransitive and used without an accusative. These sentences are merely certain transforms of the corresponding sentences with a possessive dative (cf. 1.2.7); the ordinary meaning of these verbs does not presuppose such a SemVS. Here the verbs are simply used transitively and are stylistically marked. However, there are verbs that are freely used both intransitively and transitively, cf.: he sprained his ankle – I sprained my ankle, his hands got wet – I wet my hands. 3.2.2. Nₙ – Vₗ – N₉ Verbs requiring a nominative and a genitive are of two kinds. Some take the genitive only when they have the prefixes at-, per-, pri-, which give them the meaning of an action performed in abundance (e.g.: ate one’s fill of mushrooms, overate on clover, gathered a lot of berries), or pa-, pra-, už-, sometimes at-, which give the action a diminutive meaning (e.g.: broke off a few branches, boiled a little porridge, ate a little meat, broke off a piece of bread); all of them require a genitive of indefinite quantity— 77 with an indefinite quantity31. Other verbs govern the genitive without these prefixes; these are the true genitive-governing verbs, e.g.: fear, want, long for, regret, avoid, search for, etc. The genitive is a facultative verb companion more often than the accusative. Various semantic functions are realized by both the nominative and the genitive. The genitive is most characteristically associated with the content function. V [A₁, P]: the women chose brushwood, the children chopped some firewood, the girls wove wreaths, a drowning person clutches at a straw, the men took up scythes, the old man gripped the railing, the child clings to its mother’s skirt, Jonas leaned against the fence, pressed himself against the wall, the old man supported himself with a stick, he touched my hand. V [A₂, P]: the cars spilled plums onto the road, the wind broke off some branches, the rain made puddles. V [A₁, Con]: the children play (hide-and-seek), people took up work, he is learning (mathematics), the little ones listen to a story, the family ate its fill (of corn), the cow overate (on clover), the pigs ate their fill of oraches, keep away from bad people, he kept away from everyone, the lion guards itself against snakes, the father refused the job. V [A₂, Con]: the flood caused damage. V [A₁, Fin]: the mother is looking for a needle, Kazys looked around for herself, the cat lies in wait for a mouse, the young people aspire to learning, the horse reaches for oats, the mother insists on order, the men take care of provisions, we are looking for a way out, the woman called for help. V [A₁, CA]: I barely managed to defend myself against the dogs. V [Pcp, Con]: we expect (are waiting for) fine weather, the parents missed their child, Petras longed for his homeland, he regretted the kitten, the child wants to sleep, the family is weary of this food (cf. food), Ona grieves (for her father), she herself avoided arguments, he renounced his views, the children listen to (their parents), he followed my advice, we abide by the laws, the sheep fear the dog, he is afraid of you (cf. by you), the father was frightened by high interest rates, the child was frightened by the dog. V [P, Con]: my hands fear the cold, the mother lost consciousness, the meadows lost their greenness, the river keeps to its old course, the young animals cling to the nest, the branches touched the glass, the plough caught on a root, the clothes became soaked with dust, the eyes filled with sand, the ship approached the water, they bought tobacco (smoke), the boat filled with people, the square was crowded with carts, the meadow became overgrown with trees, the forest swarmed with insurgents, the machine requires maintenance. V [B, Con]: someone lacked bread, we ran short of (lacked) money, we will hardly have enough fodder, the old man got rid of his stepdaughter (cf. stepdaughter), they renounced the bastards, the children lost their father. V [Con, Pcp]: a surprise (success, trouble) awaits you, great dangers lie in wait for you. 31Except for verbs with the prefixes at-, per-, which denote an abundance of the action, other verbs can also be used with an accusative of quantity or with a non-agreeing word of quantity in its position, governing a partitive genitive, cf.: picked a basketful of berries, broke off a few branches, ate a little meat, tore off a piece of bread. Thus, these are not true genitive verbs (cf. Grenda 1979, 34). 78 The semantic interpretation of model Nn – Vf – Ng and the possibilities for semantic compatibility between the nominative and genitive are shown in Table 2. With some verbs, e.g.: listen, wait for, fear, lie in wait for, expect, etc., a participle or participial construction (a genitive or accusative with a participle) may occur in the position of a content genitive, etc., e.g.: we are waiting Table 2 Nn | Ng: Patient | Content | Finite | Counter-agent | Percipient Agent₁ | + | + | + | + | Agent₂ | + | + | | | Percipient | | + | | | Patient | | + | | | Beneficiary | | + | | | Content | | | | | + when it rains, everyone expected it to cool down; in the evenings she would listen to the nightingale singing, the cat lies in wait for the mouse to come out, I am waiting for the door to be opened, I expected my brother to return, she feared that her father would die soon. With these and some other verbs, the position of the genitive can also be occupied by a subordinate clause, e.g.: In the evenings I would listen to how the nightingale sings; We are waiting for spring to come; Take care that the snake does not bite. 3.2.3. Dn – Vf – Dd The dative, as a verb complement, is not frequent, but it expresses quite varied semantic functions, the most characteristic of which is the beneficiary function. V [A₁, B]: the son helps his parents, Ona serves the guests, he reproaches me, someone across from us puts on makeup, the soloist bowed (to the audience), Jonas agreed with Petras, daughter confides in her mother, she appeared to the doctor, the dog tries to ingratiate itself (with its owner), Jonas courts Ona, I sinned (against the dear old mother), she pleases everyone, (to him) the other wolves responded (Vien). V [A₂, B]: your advice (to us) helped, that complaint greatly harmed them. V [A₁, P]: the horse startled the child, the gander grew thin; a bee stung the dog. V [A₂, P]: smoking harms (health), work does not harm (the horse), yarrow tea helps (the head), frosts damaged the vegetables, the stubble pricks (me), a branch scratched her. V [A₁, CA]: the inhabitants resisted the occupiers, the son resisted his parents, she resisted her fate, Jonas does not yield to his friend, he forever contradicted everyone, I will never contradict you. V [A₁, Fin]: people were preparing for sowing, the slow one prepared for a jump, he prepared for a long conversation. 79 V [Pcp, B]: the sons yielded to their father, Juozas gave in (to his wife), the mother forgave her son, she sacrificed herself for her family. V [Pcp, Fin]: Laurynas devoted himself to art; he dedicated himself (consecrated himself) to science. V [Pcp, Con]: the residents easily gave in to panic, the parents did not approve of their son's step. V [P, B]: the apple went to Marytė, money comes in handy (for a person), a good book happened to come my way, the land remained for the son, Jonas worked as a hired hand (for Paugas), he represented our class, we will be nobody's slaves, the kerchief suits her, a thatched roof suits the old cottage, a baby was born (to the daughter-in-law) (LKŽ), the door does not obstruct (the mouse). V [P, Fin]: clover is suitable for fodder, that chain would suit you even as a ring (Jabl), such a textbook is useful for self-study, the father's earnings went on food. A dative position may be occupied by a dative with an infinitive, e.g.: such a shepherd is fit only for herding geese. V [P, Comp]: žmogiškas trumpintelis amžis žydinčioms ir krintančioms prilygsta žolelėms (Donel), faktai prieštarauja teiginiui; O ar gal ereliui žvirblis glūps prisilygint? (Donel). V [P, Con]: wood resists static bending, iron succumbs to corrosion. V [Con, B]: the homeland is in danger, the trip paid off (for him), Onutė is not doing well with rue (LKŽ), work is not going well for him (the verb sektis ‘to go well’ is often used without a nominative as well, i.e. impersonally; in that case, the situation it denotes is somewhat different). V [Con, Pcp]: he likes Verutė, the old men grew tired of winter, I grew tired of those conversations, the children are a concern to their mother, something appeared to him, his mother appeared in a dream to the son, long work becomes tiresome for everyone, even an innocent little bird gets in his way (LKŽ), Urte’s fate came to mind for her (Simon), Žolis’s speech was much to Petras’s liking (Žem), his speech disgusted me (LKŽ). The semantic interpretation of the model Nₙ – Vf – Nᵈ and the possibilities for semantic mutual alignment of the nominative and dative are presented in Table 3. Table 3 Nₙ | Nᵈ: Beneficiary | Patient | Controlled Agent | Finite | Content | Comparative | Experiencer; Agent₁: + | + | + | +; Agent₂: + | +; Experiencer: + | + | +; Patient: + | + | + | +; Content: + | + A participle or a participial construction may be used in the nominative position, cf.: she grew tired while waiting, I no longer expect her to come; Butkienė has now only just begun to sigh over love (Vaižg), as well as a subordinate clause in a complex sentence, cf.: I no longer expect that he will come. 80 3.2.4. Nₙ – Vf – Nᵢ The instrumental case has both object and adverbial (location, path, quantity) meanings. Since other forms, especially prepositional constructions, are also used in parallel with the same adverbial meanings, instrumentals with these meanings, like locatives, are included in composite models with AdvLoc, AdvDir, AdvQuant and will be discussed together with other alternating forms (see 3.2.6; 3.2.7; 3.2.8). The instrumental (alone or with the preposition su) is the main means of expressing an instrument, but it also has other semantic functions. For a considerable group of verbs, the instrumental is an optional adjunct. V [A₁, I]: sister buzzes at the loom, birds flutter their wings, the men brandished their swords, the guard jingled his keys; she clicked her little tooth, flashed her little eye (Vaižg); the children splash water at one another, Jonas fastened a belt around himself, the old man leaned on a stick, Petras played (the accordion). V [A₁, Pl]: mergaitės pasidalijo obuoliu (plg. obuolį), berniukai susimatine (atsi-mainė, apmainė, pasmainė) kepurėmis, jis pasinaudojo dėdės mašina. V [A₁, Con]: they make their living by fishing, the men played (cards), the residents are engaged in maintaining the environment, the children follow their parents, she assumed a false surname, he proclaimed himself king, Jonas is training to become an agronomist, the soldier risked (his life), we fed ourselves only on roots, they trade (in grain), the parents take care of the children (dress them, feed them, etc.). V [A₁, R]: the devil turned into a dog (cf. into a dog). V [A₁, CA]: If not for the cat, you wouldn’t be able to defend yourself against rats (LKŽ). V [Pcp, Con]: Vilius is very proud (of his horses) (Simon), everyone was amazed by his wisdom, he is interested in art, everyone is frightened by your deed, they do not trust me, I doubt those promises, the parents were delighted (with their children), you will ascertain the truth of my words, she was disappointed in her friend, everyone is disgusted by him (cf. him), we are still afraid of the warmth (cf. the warmth), treat yourself to some berries, he was tempted by easy earnings, we were content with second place, let us care about other people’s troubles, the parents boasted of their sons. V [B, Con]: we barely got rid of the unexpected guests (cf. guests), the gentleman claims the road for himself (Žem), we will manage with that money. V [P, Con]: she wore an old-fashioned checked scarf, he always wears boots, his father covers himself with a fur coat, the child contracted measles, everyone came down with that flu, he was poisoned (by fish), the brew smells (of smoke), her face exuded grace, life here is characterized by great diversity, their care is limited to imparting professional skills alone, this word functions as a complement, the porridge comes out lumpy, pigeons feed on grain, plants feed on mineral substances. The Patient is often considered to be a location where something manifests itself in one way or another, appears, covers or fills it, comes out of it or passes through it, thereby causing a certain state of that location (the location itself is not the source of the state), e.g.: the meadows bloomed (with marsh marigolds), the lakeshore lit up (with bonfires), the sky glitters (with stars), the forest resounded with birds, the garden blazes with poppies, the wall was mottled with papers, the eyes welled up with tears, the pit filled with water, the brigade was reinforced with young workers, the roof became covered with moss, the bank became overgrown with alders, the heart pours forth blood, the face radiated health, the stove gives off heat, there the rivers flow with milk. Sentences of this type are in many cases sentences with an altern- 81 with suitable adverbial components, certain transformations, usually stylistically marked, cf.: Meadows blossomed with marsh marigolds ← Marsh marigolds blossomed in the meadows; The heart gushes with blood ← Blood gushes from the heart. The usual meaning of these verbs does not presuppose such a SemVS. V [P, R]: the horse turned back into a man, the spruce itself became [one], the village divided into separate farmsteads (cf. into separate farmsteads), the pots scattered into shards, sorrow turned into joy. Modelio Nn – Vf – Ni The semantic interpretation and how the nominative and the object instrumental case are semantically compatible with one another are shown in Table 4. Table 4 Nn | Ni Instrument | Patient | Content | Result | Counteragent Agent₁ | + | + | + | + | + Percipient | | | + | | Beneficiary | | | + | | Patient | | | + | + | 3.2.5. Nn – Vf – pN (with object pN) Verbs are accompanied by two types of prepositional constructions (pN): object and adverbial. Adverbial pN will be discussed below, together with other adverbial dependents (AdvLoc, AdvDir, AdvQuant). Verbs occur with one or another object pN, each of which has a special meaning and thus differs from adverbial pN, which are often used in parallel with other forms with the same adverbial meaning, cf.: the shepherd grabbed hold of a branch [P] – the shepherd went beyond the tree / under the tree / to the tree [Dir]. 3.2.5.1. in the pN position – genitive with the prepositions ant, be, dėl, iš, nuo, prie, už. Nn – Vf – antNg. V [A₁, P]: the dog attacked the snake, everyone attacked me, the father scolds (the children). V [Pcp, Con]: I got angry (with you), Jonas sends (to me). Nn – Vf – beNg. V [B, Con]: a person gets by without food for a week, I will manage without you too, somehow we got by without help. Nn – Vf – dėlNg. V [A₁, Con]: the men agreed (on the trip), the parents consulted (about their son's wedding). V [Pcp, Con]: the mother became worried (about her son) (cf. her son, instrumental). Nn – Vf – išNg. V [P, Con]: metals consist of crystals, their apartment consists of three rooms. V [P, O]: a handle will not come out of that stick, girls are born from those swans (LKŽ), the Communist Party grew out of Marxist circles, a man came from an eagle. 82 V [P, Comp]: Jonukas stands out from all the pupils. V [B, Con]: they live off hunting, we make our living from tank work. V [Pcp, Con]: everyone is astonished at me (DLKŽ) (cf. me), he rejoices at your misfortune (DLKŽ) (cf. misfortune), the gentlemen mock the poor, everyone laughs at him. Nn – Vf – from Ng. V [A₁, CA]: the Samogitians defended themselves against the Teutonic Knights, a coward runs away (from a rabbit), he hid (from the crowd), I barely escaped (death). V [A₁, Con]: he gave up on the trip (cf. the trip), they insured themselves (against injury). V [P, Con]: life processes depend on the sun’s warmth and light, they depend on the factory owner. V [P, Comp]: day was indistinguishable from night. V [Pcp, Con]: he gave up work, he cannot get out of the habit of eating (LKŽ), I have already been weaned from mother’s milk (Gud-Guz), the calf has already been weaned (from the cow). Nn – Vf – to Ng. V [A₁, P]: he keeps pestering me, the girl became attached to Jonas. V [A₁, Con]: she is very attentive to her husband, Jonas courts Ona, he ingratiates himself (with me), the animal adapts to its surroundings, the girls also joined in our song. V [P, Con]: language belongs among social phenomena, a white dress goes well with dark hair. V [Pcp, Con]: the dog got used to its new owner, it adapted to its new place. Nn – Vf – behind Ng. V [A₁, P]: I grabbed hold of a branch (cf. a branch), no one grabs the burning end, don’t grab the hot iron. V [A₁, Con]: the daughter married an agronomist, Ona married Jonas. V [P, Con]: the plow caught on a stone. 3.2.5.2. In the pN position—accusative with the prepositions apie, į, prieš, už. Nn – Vf – apieNa. V [A₁, Con]: they talked about a new book, he spoke favorably about the film. V [A₁, P]: the woman is preparing only about the house (LKŽ), she is preparing about the farm (J), the girls were bustling about breakfast (Žem). V [Pcp, Con]: he is thinking about revenge, the girl dreamed (about her future). Nn – Vf – įNa. V [A₁, P]: someone is knocking at the door, not even a small fish bites the hook (LKŽ), the child clings to the mother’s skirt. V [A₁, I]: the pig scratches itself against a stake. V [A₂, P]: lightning struck the house, that plowshare cuts into the glass (LKŽ), raindrops rattled against the windows. V [A₁, B]: the student turned to the teacher. V [A₁, M]: he did not respond to our request (to his words), no one answered my call, the director took the workers’ wishes into account. V [P, R]: they turned into stones (cf. with stones), our children have already grown into men, the pot broke (into shards), the rye is turning into darnel (DLKŽ). 83 V [P, Con]: the potatoes go into the leaves, the hen went out into the fields, Mother is going to visit, he drummed it into his head (LKŽ), capitalism developed into the highest stage of its development (LKŽ). V [P, Comp]: the child took after his grandfather, he took after his father, literature increasingly resembles science. Nₙ – Vf – priešNₙ. V [A₁, CA]: the peasants revolted (against the lords), Petriukas picked a fight with the landlady, they are going (fighting) against the government. V [A₁, B]: I performed well in front of my friends. V [A₁, Con]: they protested against the judge’s decision. Nₙ – Vf – užNₐ. V [A₁, B]: my friends vouch for me, he goes in my place (DLKŽ). V [A₁, Con]: they will vote for their candidate, we will vote for the prosperity of the homeland. V [A₁, M]: he worked off the debt, we worked off Friday. V [Pcp, Con]: everyone is responsible for their own work. 3.2.5.3. in the pN position – the instrumental with the preposition su. Nₙ – Vf – suNᵢ. V [A₁, Com]: the rooster fights with the gander, Jondas quarreled with his brother, the children chase each other with the dogs, the father got drunk with the guest, the boys teased each other with the girls, I said goodbye to my friend, the neighbor parted from his wife. V [A₁, P]: the family worked with the hay, the enforcers dealt with the inhabitants, we’ll manage on our own with the thief. V [A₁, CA]: the patient fought with death. V [Pcp, Com]: the mother met with her sons, she does not get along with her husband, Jonukas quarreled with his friends, the son was friends with the farmhand’s daughter. V [Pcp, Con]: the mother-in-law got used to her daughter-in-law, everyone agreed to such a proposal, he puts up with the present situation, the grandfather has difficulty making sense of those numbers. V [B, Con]: somehow we’ll get by with the fodder (DLKŽ), I’ll manage with five roubles, he miscalculated the money (DLKŽ). V [P, Com]: in the north, Lithuania meets Latvia; in the doorway, I came across a guest; he grew closer to the village youth; we are related to the Poškas family; theory is linked to practice; the roar of the sea blends with the rustling of the pines. V [P, Con]: the eyes got used to the darkness. V [P, Comp]: the young oak grew level with the ash. The prepositional construction suNᵢ, functioning as an instrument, is an alternant of the instrumental instrumental case (see 3.2.4). 3.2.6. Nₙ – Vf – AdvLoc The AdvLoc position is occupied by the locative case, prepositional constructions, adverbs of place, and sometimes the instrumental case. Their meaning is not specialized, and they freely substitute for one another. AdvLoc generally denotes a place where something is, appears, or takes place, or into which something does or does not fit, and so on. The locative meaning is sometimes accompanied by nuances of other meanings, which may even overshadow it, e.g.: we registered with the person on duty [L-A₁], the neighbor found himself in trouble [L-Con], they live in abundance [L-Con], everyone participated in the celebration [L-Con]. 84 Various pN occur in the AdvLoc position: antN₉, anapusN₉, artiN₉, gretaN₉, prieN₉, šaliaN₉, tarpN₉, užN₉, virš(um)N₉, apieNₐ, aplinkNₐ, pasNₐ, pagalNₐ, prieš(ais)Nₐ; poNᵢ, tiesNᵢ, etc. Most verbs characterized by this SinVS denote the state of an object or a change of state, while some denote non-directional movement (e.g.: to run about, to flit, to run around, to scamper, and so on). The following SemVS are realized by the model Nₙ – Vf – AdvLoc: V [A₁, L]: the children waded through the puddle, birds fly about (in the air | above the pond), the gander roams around the homesteads | along the barley fields, pigs run around beside the barn | in the pen, flies run about on the table, he walked among the people, Jonas stretched out on the ground, the Gypsies used to settle in the alder grove | beside the alder grove | near the village, people stopped along the roadside | on the roadside. V [A₂, L]: the gaze came to rest on the photograph, rumors spread through the town. V [P, L]: Jonas lives in the city | outside the city | by the river, there was a cauldron in the net (Balc), a hare lies hidden in the furrow, they spent the night in the village, everything ended up in the fire, Mother sat at the loom | on the bench, a hole appeared in the sickle, cows waded in the water, don’t stand in the rain, water remains in the clay, all the grain will be back in the granary, willows grow in the low-lying meadows, tubs stood along the boundary | at the boundary, water pools all around, a bed stands beside the wall, a drop hangs under the nose, the farmhand spent the night under the bridge, a lamp hangs above the head, we’ll all return behind the table | in the dining area, cards were dealt on the table, a friend was visiting me. 3.2.7. Nₙ – Vf – AdvDir Various prepositional constructions occur in the AdvDir position (alongside the construction iNₐ, the illative is also sometimes used: into the forest | miškan), as well as adverbs and the instrumental case. Verbs characterized by this SinVS most often denote the movement of an entity in one direction, less often in various directions (e.g., the children run around the corridor | along the corridor); some denote a particular spatial position of an entity (e.g., the forest reaches the river32). Some require only the indication of a starting or endpoint or a path, while others presuppose a general directive function, and their valency is satisfied by any form or construction with directive meaning, or even by two or three constructions (e.g.: he walks along a path to the lakeshore; we returned from Klaipėda to Vilnius via Kaunas). The starting point is expressed by the constructions išN₉ and nuoN₉; the endpoint by antN₉, iki/ligiN₉, prieN₉, užN₉, įNₐ, pasNₐ, poNᵢ, etc., as well as by adverbs; the path by perNₐ, proNₐ, poNₐ, apie/aplinkNₐ, etc., as well as by the instrumental case and adverbs. With some verbs (usually those bearing the corresponding prefixes), special pN are used, e.g.: he climbed down from the attic, climbed into a tree, climbed onto a horse, climbed over a fence; other verbs are used with any pN, adverb, or instrumental expression of the relevant meaning, e.g.: he went into the room | to the door | behind the door | under the roof | there [Ad]; cars drive along highways | across a field | through a town | around a town [Via]. With some verbs, especially those whose meaning has little to do with movement, directive pN are very close to object pN, e.g.: he leaned against the wall, cobwebs were attached to the trees, the child cuddled up to his mother, he edged up to the bosses, 32Verbs such as (pa)žvelgti, (pa)žiūrėti ‘glance/look’ are used similarly to verbs of motion, e.g.: I glanced at the sun | through the window | from nearby. 85 we ran away from the rain, the sparrow escaped from the cat’s claws, the girl fell behind her parents, Jonas joined us, and sometimes the directive bears a pronounced shade of contentive meaning, e.g.: he got entangled in an unpleasant situation, his parents kept getting into debt, we came to a conclusion, Jonas is delving into the essence of the matter, the work drew closer to the folk epic, they got out of trouble. The following SemVS are realized by the model Nₙ – Vf – AdvDir: V [A₁, Ab]: the horseman dismounted from the horse, the calf jumped out of the pen, the prisoner escaped from captivity, he extricated himself from the list. V [A₂, Ab]: the plane lifted off the ground. V [P, Ab]: a stick protrudes from the water, tar will ooze from the buds (Tilv), all the sweetness has come out of the wax (LKŽ), the writer comes from a peasant family. V [A₁, Ad]: the fisherman waded into the water, everyone rushed to the window, he got into the carriage, the rooster flew onto the roof, the chicks crept under the hen, don’t come near (me), he went behind the tree, you caught it right by the nits (LKŽ), I will come over to your place / into the room. V [A₂, Ad]: the ship ran aground, the car drove up to the door / as far as the door, the train was approaching (the station), the sun went behind the clouds. V [P, Ad]: ice formed on the water, the hat comes down over the ears, our meadows extend to the lake, the water soaked into the ground, the scythe struck a stone, all the oats ended up in the sack, a splinter went under the fingernail, the knife stuck below the elbow / into the elbow / beside the elbow, the child ended up under the car / in the car, the bean plant grew up to the sky. V [A₁, Via]: the boy jumped over the fence, she crossed over the footbridge, the hare ran past me, the child crawled through that gap, he went around the cottage, the dog follows the shepherd / behind him, Jonas squeezed through the crowd, the children run around the yard / along the path. V [A₂, Via]: the fire jumped across the ditch, little light gets through the covered windows, a sleigh drove through the yard / past, trolleybuses run (along the streets). V [P, Via]: The fence cannot be passed through the gates, the whip wound around the neck, the sapling grew all around the well (LKŽ). V [Con, Via]: A shiver ran through Usninis’s veins (Tilv), shivers ran through the body (LKŽ), a bitter smile crossed her face (LKŽ). V [A₁, Dir]: cows wade into the water / across the stream / from one bank to the other / from the water onto the bank, dogs came running (following the hare’s tracks / to us / to our place / from the forest), Jonas returned from hunting / home, we descended from the mountain / into the valley, the children ran out of the hut / into the yard / through the door, he walked along the dirt road / farther away / to the lake / past, we are traveling (to the sea / across Lithuania / around Lithuania / from afar). V [A₂, Dir]: the airplane flies (from Vilnius / to Moscow / close to the ground), the train arrives (from Trakai / in Vilnius), the wind would come running (over the tops of the rye / from the fields), the bus was already running (to Gargždai (LKŽ) / past Gargždai / from Gargždai). V [P, Dir]: the road runs through the forest / through the forest / past the forest / into the forest / out of the forest, tears streamed (down the cheeks / along the cheeks / from the eyes / onto the hands), smoke went (out of the chimney / through a crack / into the hut), flour spills (out of the sack / into the sack / through a hole), leaves fall (from the trees / onto the ground), something fell (from the table / onto the table), clouds drift (across the sky / from the west / westward). 86 3.2.8. Nₙ – Vf – AdvQuant In the AdvQuant position occur the accusative, prepositional constructions iki/ligi N₉, apie Nₐ, arti N₉, netoli N₉, etc., quantitative adverbs daug, mažai, ilgai, trumpai, etc., and, less frequently, the instrumental. Sometimes two coordinated pN occur in the AdvQuant position, e.g.: the lecture lasted from three until five o’clock, the forest extended from Užubaliai to the banks of the Šventoji (Vien). Temporal AdvQuant meanings usually depend on verbs with the prefixes iš-, pra-, etc. (e.g.: išbūti, prabūti); spatial meanings depend on verbs denoting a spatial state, and sometimes an action (e.g.: siekti, tęstis, nusitęsti, etc.); weight meanings depend on the verb sverti, price meanings on the verbs kainuoti, atsieiti, etc., and number meanings on the verb skaičiuoti, etc. Verbs denoting a person’s (sometimes an object’s) capacity to do something also take a quantitative complement, e.g.: he can lift an entire centner; I can drink a liter at once. The following SemVS are realized by the model Nₙ – Vf – AdvQuant: V [A₁, Q]: the children ran around all day | until evening | for about an hour, the young specialists worked their assigned time, Jonas worked for about two weeks | close to two weeks | until autumn, the beginning of all spring; the pupil jumped three meters | close to three meters | up to the fence; the child counted up to one hundred. V [A₂, Q]: the storm began throughout the night, the radio remained silent all day | until evening. V [P, Q]: his happiness did not last long, the lecture lasted two hours | about two hours | until two o’clock, that oppression continued for centuries | for a very long time, she was ill for the whole winter | until spring, I stood for nearly an hour, the old man lived for ninety years | until the age of ninety | a very long time; this forest extends for tens | tens of kilometers, the meadow reaches (extends) as far as the Nemunas, the body’s length reaches three meters, the sun rose only a handspan | not much; the wool weighs a kilogram | little | a lot; the elevator lifts (i.e. can lift) five people; the book costs two rubles | inexpensively; the print run reaches five thousand copies. V [Pcp, Q]: the girl daydreamed all night | until dawn. 3.2.9. Nₙ – Vf – Adv Verbs elgtis, gyvuoti, gyventi “to live,” laikytis, and others necessarily require an adverb of manner, which characterizes the action denoted by the verb by revealing its content. The adverb may be replaced by a comparative expression, sometimes by a prepositional construction; cf. you behaved like a man | as a man | according to the law. V [A₁, Con]: the pupil behaved exemplary, and the wolf would not have acted that way either. V [P, Con]: the family is doing well, we are living poorly; How are you living? Cf. the days are getting longer. 3.2.10. Nₙ – Vf – Inf Verbs expressing a certain attitude of a person toward an action or readiness to perform it (e.g., to like, to fear, usually, to agree, to prepare, to resolve, to come to one’s senses, to refuse, to be lazy, to regret, etc.), as well as an excessive or insufficient quantity of an action or its performance at the wrong time (e.g., to overdo, to reduce, to do too early, to delay, etc.), 87 in addition to the nominative, require an infinitive, which reveals their content33. The subject of the infinitival action is always the same as that of the finite form of the verb. V [A₁, Con]: we refuse to cooperate with you, he agreed to help us, the guest prepared to leave. V [Pcp, Con]: Ona is too lazy to suffocate, I am afraid to go there, the father resolved to talk to his son, she did not think to ask, Jonas likes to play the violin, we are used to getting up early. V [C, Con]: he does not give anyone too much (LKŽ), I made it come a little earlier (LKŽ), do not reduce the amount of porridge to be cooked (LKŽ). 3.2.11. Nₙ – Vf – Inf / Part / SD Verbs expressing the prospect of an action being carried out (e.g.: to expect, hope, dream, think, decide, resolve, agree, intend, remember, sometimes fear, etc.) require either an infinitive, or a future active participle, or a subordinate complement clause standing in their place. In each case, these alternatives may replace one another, e.g.: he hopes to recover | that he will recover | that he will recover. The nominative together with a participle forms specific constructions (nominativus cum participio), which are characteristic of a broader range of verbs (on these, see Ambrazas 1978; 1979, 96 ff.). Only two SemVS are realized by this syntactic model: V [Pcp, Con]: we are afraid of being late | that we will be late | that we will be late; I think I can manage | that I will manage | that I will manage; he hopes to get | that he will get | that he will get a better job. V [A₁, Con]: he undertook to do it | that he would do it | that he would do it; let us agree for now not to tell about this incident (Myk-Put) (cf. we will not tell…); [they] agreed on Sunday to have the banns announced (Žem). 3.2.12. Nₙ – Vf – Part / SD This SinVS is characteristic of verbs of phrasal government denoting physical and mental perception and mental activity (e.g.: to see, to perceive, to feel, to sense, to think, to suppose, to know, to understand, to realize, to remember, to forget, to become convinced, to doubt, etc.), communication (e.g.: to say, to mention, to testify, to announce, to assert, to speak, to write, to defend oneself, to justify oneself, etc.), and emotional or feigned states (e.g.: to rejoice, to fear, to be horrified, to worry, to grieve, to regret, to cry, to be ashamed, to pretend, to feign, to act as if, to hide, to suppose, to be, etc.); passive participles also occur with verbs expressing desire or reluctance, effort or avoidance, fear, and requests, 33Phase verbs (e.g.: to begin, to start, to finish, etc.) and some modal verbs (e.g.: can, have to, must, be able, manage, and so on) merely modify the meaning of the action denoted by the infinitive; therefore, the infinitive is not their valency complement, but together with the finite form of the verb it constitutes the verbal center of the sentence (cf. Helbig–Schenkel 1975, 57–58). The infinitive of some verbs is sometimes used substantivally, i.e. instead of nouns, e.g.: food and drink soon appeared (cf. food and drink), they brought the mother in to wash (cf. a basin of water), the hostess set food on the table (cf. food), the uncle gave him something to smoke (cf. a cigarette). In these instances, the infinitive is used in the position of the corresponding case and serves as a substitute for a case form. 88 habit (e.g.: want, like, wait (for), resist, be simple, put up with, fear, etc.)34. Participles are most often used with reflexive verbs (the reflexive particle functions as a grammatical marker indicating the identity of the subject of those verbs and of the participial action; see Ambrazas 1978, 58). With non-reflexive verbs, a subordinate clause is more common in this position; the latter can replace a construction with an active participle only if the subject of the actions in the main and subordinate clauses is the same, e.g.: he realized that he had made | made a mistake. Compare the passive participle: the cat wants to be stroked | for someone to stroke it | to be stroked (the subjects of the actions are different). The semantic characterization of these verbs is likewise not varied. V [Pcp, Con]: he thinks (to himself) that he is dreaming | that he dreams; they saw that they would gain nothing | that they would gain nothing; I realized that I had been mistaken | that I was mistaken; the fox was glad that she would have | that she would have a tasty breakfast; the mother pretended not to have noticed anything | that she had noticed nothing; I hope to be acquitted | that I will be acquitted | that they will acquit me; the horse is afraid of being beaten | that it might be beaten | that it might be beaten on the muzzle. V [A₁, Con]: he says (to himself) that he knows everything | that he knows everything; the merchant signed that he would hand over (cf. that he would hand over) all his possessions (BsRP); Antanas denied having seen (Žem) / that he had seen; the old woman excused herself, saying she would not drink / that she would not drink vodka; then he would not resist being urged (Žem) / that she not press him. 3.2.13. Nₙ – Vf – SD The position of a subordinate clause (SD) is most often occupied by a subordinate clause introduced by a conjunction, and less often by a dependent clause in an asyndetic sentence (e.g.: And I thought—the sun is rising). In general, SD most often occupies the position of case forms and prepositional constructions and has the same semantic function; consequently, it is used as a substitute for these dependents, cf.: I saw the rising of the sun [Con] / how the sun rises [Con]; I thought about the work to come [Con] / how I would work [Con]. Only when SD has a different semantic function can it be regarded as a special verbal dependent and as an element of its SinVS, e.g.: They are investigating what treasures lie on the seabed [Con], cf. they are investigating the seabed [P]; Everyone read what was written there [Con], cf. everyone read the notice [P]; Count how many people are in the hall [Con], cf. count the people [P]. Sometimes SD cannot be replaced by either a noun case form or a prepositional construction, or by an infinitive or participle (the latter two cannot replace SD because the subjects of the actions in the main and subordinate clauses are different), e.g.: I thought that something bad had happened. In these cases SD can be replaced only by an interrogative or negative pronoun, e.g.: What did you think?; I thought nothing, as well as by an accusative and gerundial construction (see Ambrazas 1968; 1974, 265–270), e.g.: I thought something bad had happened. The semantic characterization of this syntactic model is similar to that of the two preceding models, which also contain SD (see 3.2.11; 3.2.12). 34 This article draws on the list of verbs governing these constructions and their grouping provided by V. Ambrazas (1978, 8–9). Participles do not function as valency dependents with the phase verbs stop, finish, cease, which do not denote a separate action but merely give the participial action a phase-related meaning of completion, e.g., it stopped raining (cf. Ambrazas 1978, 12). 89 V [Pcp, Con]: Karšinčius decided that her insides had turned over (Cvir); Grigienė tried with all her might to ensure that her husband would not notice it (Krėv); He did not know which way to go; Justukas figured that the raft could be used in place of a boat (Maš). V [A₁, Con]: Perhaps people were only lying when they said there was some kind of government (Krėv). 3.2.14. Worth mentioning separately are those verbs that are usually regarded in grammars as (pseudo-)copulas. They have a certain lexical meaning, but at the same time also express the existence of a feature denoted by the predicative nominal part; in this respect they are close to the copula *būti* ‘to be’, which has no lexical meaning (and therefore there is no basis for speaking of its valency either). All these verbs govern an instrumental with a content or resultative meaning, but, like the copula *būti*, they are also used with a predicative noun or adjective in the nominative (as well as with forms that stand in its place: prepositional constructions, comparative phrases, etc.). Some of them occur more often with the instrumental, others with the nominative. In many cases, the SinVS and SemVS of these verbs do not correspond to the predicative structure of the sentence (cf. the doubts about the model Nₙ — Vf — Adv presented in footnote 29). Two groups of these verbs can be distinguished: 1) Nₙ — Vf — Nₗ /Nₙ/Adjₙ (dedasi, apsimeta, darosi, pasidarė, tapo, liko, virto), e.g.: he pretends to be a king / the king / angry (cf. ‘not knowing’); 2) Nₙ — Vf — Nₗ / Nₙ / Adjₙ/Adv (jaučiasi, atrodo), e.g.: he feels like a human being / a human being / healthy (cf. ‘being healthy’) / not badly. Nominative nouns and adjectives, or adverbs, may also occur in other SinVSs (of trivalent, impersonal verbs). 4. CONCLUDING REMARKS The ideas and arguments presented in the article, as well as their practical application, can be briefly summarized in the following points: 1. The most detailed syntactic classification of verbs is based on their valency properties. According to valency, verbs are divided into personal and impersonal, and into avalent, monovalent, bivalent, trivalent, and quadrivalent verbs. They are then grouped according to their syntactic valency structure, i.e. according to specific syntactic valency models. Finally, on the basis of their semantic valency, verbs are divided into syntactic-semantic groups. 2. To classify verbs in this way, one must know their syntactic and semantic valency. Syntactic valency is the need, determined by a verb’s meaning, to combine with a specified number of words of a particular form—valency dependents. A verb’s syntactic valency is represented by its syntactic valency structure (SinVS). Semantic valency is a particular semantic interpretation of the real-world situation described by the verb, recorded as a corresponding set of semantic functions (actants, or semantic cases); in other words, it is the verb’s general signification, which it has as a predicate in a sentence. A verb’s semantic valency is represented by its semantic valency structure (SemVS). 3. The number of a verb’s valency dependents corresponds to the number of actants in its SemVS. In many cases, there is also a certain correspondence between the grammatical form of dependents and the semantic functions of actants. 4. Both semantic and syntactic valency of a verb should be determined by analyzing sentences formed with that verb, because only in a sentence do the verb’s general signification and its syntactic combin- 90 possibilities of development. When a verb’s SemVS is determined solely on the basis of its lexical meaning, it corresponds completely, both in the number and in the nature of its actants, to the described real-world situation, since all situational referent roles are transferred directly into it. The general signifying meaning of the verb (and of the sentence as well) is then ignored, and all sentences that can be associated with the same real-world situation are considered semantically identical; from this it may be inferred that there is also complete correspondence between grammatical structure and the extralinguistic situation. 5. Verbs are classified on the basis of their general signifying meaning; in one case a verb may be bivalent, in another trivalent or monovalent, and so on. In some cases, individual verb meanings are associated with different real-world situations; in others, the same real-world situation is interpreted differently by the verb semantically. Individual signifying meanings bring out different perspectives for describing the same situation: all the other referents are brought to the fore and interpreted differently in semantic terms. In such cases, the syntactic valency of the verb also differs. In classifying verbs in this way, the fact that there are no clear boundaries between polysemy and homonymy is not decisive. 6. Verb satellites are obligatory or optional. This distinction between them is established at the external syntactic level, but is irrelevant to the syntactic classification of verbs. A verb is assigned to a particular syntactic class according to the number or form of its satellites, regardless of whether those satellites are obligatory or optional. The optionality of satellites is characteristic of individual verbs, not of their syntactic classes: the same class includes verbs with both obligatory and optional satellites. The optionality of satellites is relevant when studying the valency of individual verbs, compiling verb valency dictionaries, and studying the structure of verbal sentences. LITERATŪRA [Abraham W. (ed.)] Valence, Semantic Case and Grammatical Relations. Papers Prepared for the Working Group “Valence and Semantic Case“. 12th International Congress of Linguists. University of Vienna, Austria, August 29 to September 3, 1977. – Amsterdam, 1978. Ambrazas V. Galininkas su padalyviu senuosiuose lietuvių kalbos paminkluose. – Baltistica, 1968, t. 4(2), p. 195–209. Ambrazas V. Lietuvių kalbos vardininko su dalyviu (nominativus cum participio) struktūra ir raida. – Kn.: Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai, 1978, t. 18, p. 7–67. Ambrazas V. Lietuvių kalbos dalyvių istorinė sintaksė. – V., 1979. Bondzio W. Das Wesen der Valenz und ihre Stellung im Rahmen der Satzstruktur. – Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Ges.-Sprachwiss. Reihe. 1969, Jg. 18, H. 2, S. 233–240. Bondzio W. Valenz, Bedeutung und Satzmodelle. – In: Beiträge zur Valenztheorie. Halle (Saale), 1971, S. 85–103. Bondzio W. Abriß der semantischen Valenztheorie als Grundlage der Syntax. – Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung, 1976, Bd. 29, H. 4, S. 354–363 (T. 1); 1977, Bd. 30, H. 1, S. 261–273 (T. 2); 1978, Bd. 31, H. 1, S. 21–33 (T. 3). Bräuer R. Die Valenztheorie. Ihre Geschichte, ihr aktueller Stand und ihre Möglichkeiten. – Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Ges.-Sprachwiss. Reihe. 1974, Jg. 23, H. 3/4, S. 267–280. 91 Cook W. A. A Case Grammar Matrix Model (And Its Application to a Hemingway Text). – In: Abraham (ed.) 1978, p. 295–309. Drukteinis A. Objekto sąvoka ir kai kurie požymiai. – Kalbotyra, 1982, t. 33 (1), p. 15–20. Emons R. Valenzen englischer Prädikatsverben. – Tübingen, 1974 (6) (Linguistische Arbeiten, 22). Erben J. Abriß der deutschen Grammatik. – Berlin, 1964. Erben J. Deutsche Grammatik. – Frankfurt am Main, 1968. Fillmore Ch. J. The Case for Case. – In: Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York, 1968, p. 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. Flämig W. Valenztheorie und Schulgrammatik. – In: Beiträge zur Valenztheorie. Halle (Saale), 1971, S. 105–121. Geniuṡienė E. Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių sintaksinė klasifikacija. – Kalbotyra, 1971, t. 23 (1), p. 7–16. Geniuṡienė E. Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos konversiniai sangrąžiniai veiksmažodžiai. – Baltistica. II priedas, 1977, p. 63–69. Grenda Č. Apibrėžtumo/neapibrėžtumo požymių opozicija veiksmažodžių konstrukcijose su daiktavardžiu. – Kalbotyra, 1979, t. 30 (1), p. 32–38. [Helbig G. (Hrsg.)] Beiträge zur Valenztheorie. – Halle (Saale), 1971. Helbig G. Zur semantischen Charakteristik der Argumente des Prädikats. – In: Probleme der Bedeutung und Kombinierbarkeit im Deutschen. Leipzig, 1977, S. 40–92. Helbig G. Zum Status der Valenz und der semantischen Kasus. – Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 1979, H. 2, S. 65–78. Helbig G. Valenz – Satzglieder – Semantische Kasus – Satzmodelle. – Leipzig, 1982. Helbig G., Schenkel W. Wörterbuch zur Valenz und Distribution deutscher Verben. – Leipzig, 1975. Jablonskis J. Rinktiniai raštai. – V., 1957, t. 1. Jakaitienė E. Lietuvių kalbos leksikologija. – V., 1980. Moravcsik E. A. Case Marking of Objects. – In: Universals of Human Language. Vol. 4. Syntax. Stanford, California, 1978, p. 251–289. Palmer F. R. Semantics. – M., 1982. Pasch R. Zum Status der Valenz. – Linguistische Studien. Reihe A/42, Berlin, 1977, S. 1–50. Schenkel W. Zur semantischen Kombinierbarkeit deutscher Verben mit Substantiven. – In: Probleme der Bedeutung und Kombinierbarkeit im Deutschen. Leipzig, 1977, S. 93–115. Sližienė N. Veiksmažodžių valentingumo klausimu. – Kn.: Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai, 1978, t. 18, p. 107–123. Sližienė N. Subjektinimo ir objektinimo vaidmuo nustatant lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių sintaksinį valentingumą. – Lietuvos TSR Mokslų Akademijos darbai. A serija, 1980, t. 1(70), p. 93–105. Sommerfeldt K. E. Zur Besetzung der Leerstellen von Valenzträgern. – Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 1973, H. 2, S. 95–101. Sommerfeldt K. E. Bedeutungsanalyse und Valenztheorie im Dienste der Konfrontation. – Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung, 1977, Bd. 30, H. 3, S. 251–260. 92 Sommerfeldt K. E., Schreiber H. Wörterbuch zur Valenz und Distribution deutscher Adjektive. – Leipzig, 1974. Starosta S. The One Per Cent Solution. – In: Abraham 1978, p. 459–575. Tekorienė D. Sintaksinė semantika, jos nagrinėjimo metodai ir žodžių junginių semantikos problemos. – Kalbotyra, 1982, t. 33 (1), p. 132–139. Tesnière L. Éléments de syntaxe structurale. – Paris, 1959. Vater H. On the Possibility of Distinguishing between Complements and Adjuncts. – In: Abraham 1978, p. 21–45. Viehweger D. u. a. Probleme der semantischen Analyse, als: Studia Grammatica XV. – Berlin, 1977. Wotjak G. Kontrastive Verb­beschreibung und Valenzanalyse. – Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung, 1976, Bd. 29, H. 4, S. 364–374. Wotjak G. Einige Überlegungen zur Valenztheorie und Kasusgrammatik. – Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 1978, H. 3, S. 177–181. Абозина Н. М. Дательный с двойной синтаксической соотнесенностью в современном немецком языке. – Уч. зап. ЛГПИ. Л., 1963, т. 255, с. 23–36. Адмони В. Г. Структурный каркас элементарного предложения в современных германских языках. – В кн.: Структурно-типологическое описание современных германских языков. М., 1966, с. 165–197. Апресян Ю. Д. Экспериментальное исследование семантики русского глагола. – М., 1967. Апресян Ю. Д. Лексическая семантика. – М., 1974. Арутюнова Н. Д. Проблемы синтаксиса и семантики в работах Ч. Филлмора. – ВЯ, 1973, N 1, с. 117–124. Арутюнова Н. Д. Предложение и его смысл. – М., 1976. Богданов В. В. Семантико-синтаксическая организация предложения. – Л., 1977. Валнева И. М. Особенности структуры предложения, связанные с семантикой и валентностью глагола. – В кн.: Структура предложения и классы слов в романо-германских языках. Калинин, 1975, с. 119–125. Варина В. Г. Проблема денотата и вопросы языкового значения. – Иностранные языки в высшей школе, 1963, вып. 2, с. 38–54. Гак В. Г. Высказывание и ситуация. – В кн.: Проблемы структурной лингвистики – 1972. М., 1973, с. 349–372. Генюшене Э. Ш. Валентностные классы литовского глагола и система синтаксических структур. – В кн.: Синтагматика, парадигматика и их взаимодействие на уровне синтаксиса. Матер. конф. Рига, 1970, с. 58–60. Генюшене Э. Ш. Рефлексивные глаголы в балтийских языках и типология рефлексивов. – Вильнюс, 1983. Кацнельсон С. Д. Типология языка и речевое мышление. – Л., 1972. Курилович Е. Очерки по лингвистике. – М., 1962. Лайонз Д. Введение в теоретическую лингвистику. – М., 1978. Ломтев Т. П. Описание структуры предложения на основе его функционального представления. – Slavia, 1965, N 34, fasc. 3, с. 422–430. Москальская О. И. Синтаксическая парадигматика и синтаксическая деривация. – В кн.: Проблемы общего и германского языкознания. М., 1978, с. 71–78. Пирья Э. М. Дательный падеж и его стилистическое использование в немецком языке. – В кн.: Вопросы грамматического строя германских языков. Омск, 1974, с. 74–81. Расопов И. П. Сказуемое как конструктивный центр предложения. – В кн.: Теоретические проблемы синтаксиса современных индоевропейских языков. Л., 1975, с. 162–168. Семенюк М. П. Уровни исследования валентности. – В кн.: Лексико-грамматическая сочетаемость в германских языках. Челябинск, 1977, с. 111–116. 93 Сильницкий Г. Г. Семантические типы ситуаций и семантические классы глаголов. — В кн.: Проблемы структурной лингвистики — 1972. М., 1973, с. 373—391. Степанов Ю. С. К универсальной классификации предикатов. — Изв. АН СССР. Сер. лит.-ры и яз. 1980, т. 39, N 4, с. 311—323. Степанов Ю. С. Имена. Предикаты. Предложения. — М., 1981. Степанова М. Д. Теория валентности и валентный анализ. — М., 1973. Сусов И. П. Ситуация как означаемое предложения на реляционном уровне. — В кн.: Вопросы английской и французской филологии. Тула, 1972, с. 25—48. Сусов И. П. Семантическая структура предложения. — Тула, 1973. Филлмор Ч. Дело о падеже открывается вновь. — В кн.: Новое в зарубежной лингвистике. М., 1981, вып. 10, с. 496—530. Храковский В. С. Пассивные конструкции. — В кн.: Типология пассивных конструкций. Диатезы и залоги. Л., 1974, с. 5—45. Храковский В. С. Исчисление диатез. — В кн.: Диатезы и залоги: Тез. конф. „Структурнотипологические методы в синтаксисе разноструктурных языков“. Л., 1975, с. 34—51. Чейф У. Л. Значение и структура языка. — М., 1975. Шмелев Д. Н. Синтаксическая членимость высказывания в современном русском языке. — М. 1976. Эльзбутас Ю. В. Дательный заинтересованного лица в современном русском и литовском языках. — Филол. науки, 1967, N 3, с. 3—13. Н. СЛИЖЕНЕ ВАЛЕНТНОСТЬ И СИНТАКСИЧЕСКАЯ КЛАССИФИКАЦИЯ ГЛАГОЛОВ ЛИТОВСКОГО ЯЗЫКА Резюме В статье излагается взгляд автора на глагольную валентность и раскрываются возможности ее применения в синтаксической классификации глаголов. Рассматриваются две стороны валентности глагола: семантическая и синтаксическая, на основе которых глаголы делятся на синтаксические классы и синтактико-семантические группы. Под семантической валентностью глагола автором понимается определенная семантическая интерпретация обозначаемой глаголом ситуации, которая фиксируется как некий набор семантических функций (актантов, или семантических падежей). (В статье представлен список семантических падежей, которыми пользуется автор, и их краткие характеристики.) Автор придерживается мнения, что между реальной ситуацией и представляемой глаголом ее семантической интерпретацией прямого соответствия нет. Одна и та же ситуация может получить различные интерпретации; на первый план выдвигаются каждый раз иные референты, меняется их семантическая оценка и перспектива представления ситуации. Один и тот же глагол данную ситуацию может обозначать по-разному, каждый раз у него иное общее сигнификативное значение и иная семантическая валентность. Поэтому глаголы классифицируются как семемы: в одном случае тот же глагол может быть двухвалентным, в другом — трех- или одновалентным и т.п. Вследствие того для синтаксической классификации не имеет решающего значения отсутствие четких границ между явлениями полисемии и омонимии. Семантическая валентность глаголов изображается в виде семантических структур, которые в основном соответствуют семантической структуре (или пропозиции) образованных с данными глаголами предложений. Синтаксическая валентность — это потребность глагола в определенном наборе словоформ — валентных партнеров, обусловленная его значением. Число валентных партнере- 94 ров соответствует числу актантов в семантической структуре валентности глагола. Партнеры — это синтаксические репрезентации актантов. Во многих случаях некоторое соответствие наблюдается также между грамматической формой партнеров и семантическими функциями актантов. Синтаксическая валентность глагола изображается в виде синтаксических структур, или синтаксических моделей, которые в свою очередь моделируют синтаксическое ядро предложения, образованного с данным глаголом. И семантическая, и синтаксическая структура валентности глагола, по мнению автора, должна устанавливаться при анализе образованных с данным глаголом предложений, так как только в предложении выясняются общее сигнификативное значение глагола и его сочетательные возможности. Если семантическая валентность глагола устанавливается исключительно на основе его лексического значения, семантическая структура валентности неизбежно отождествляется с положением вещей в реальной ситуации, образ которой содержится в человеческом сознании. Ситуативные роли референтов переносятся в семантическую структуру валентности глагола, и она полностью соответствует составу реальной ситуации по отношению к числу и характеру актантов. Поэтому всем предложениям, которые можно соотносить с одной и той же реальной ситуацией, приписывается одинаковая семантическая структура, несмотря на различия в обозначении ими данной ситуации и в синтаксической структуре. Валентные партнеры глаголов являются обязательными или факультативными. Данное различие устанавливается на поверхностном синтаксическом уровне (т.е. в предложении) но для синтаксической классификации глаголов оно нерелевантно. Отнесение глагола к определенному синтаксическому классу не зависит от того, являются ли его партнеры обязательными или факультативными. Факультативность партнеров является приметой отдельных глаголов, а не всего синтаксического класса. Она актуальна при исследовании валентности отдельных глаголов, при составлении валентностных словарей, а также при изучении синтаксической структуры глагольных предложений. В литовском языке по отношению к валентности глаголы делятся на личные и безличные, на одно-, двух-, трех-, четырехвалентные и авалентные (с нулевой валентностью). Более мелкие классы образуют глаголы с формально одинаковой конкретной синтаксической структурой валентности. Наконец, на основе семантической валентности глаголы подразделяются на синтактико-семантические группы. N. SLĖŽIENĖ 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 quantity 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 the syntactic classification of verbs. The optionality of complements is peculiar 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.