Dėl lietuvių kalbos kauzatyvinių konstrukcijų semantikos

LITHUANIAN LANGUAGES SYNTH INVESTIGATIONS LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS XXV (1986) GERTRŪDA SAVIČIŪTĖ ON LITHUANIAN LANGUAGES CAUSATIVE CONSTRUCTION SEMANTICS $ 1. Long-known problem of asymmetry of content ir form in linguistics (when the form has one value, ne the value is o described in one ne form) is closely related ir su the semantics of causative verbs in Lithuanian. Morphological causative verbs of Lithuanian language, verbs to which suffixes give t. y. causative meaning -(d)inti, -(d)yti ir The vowel change of the Jarba root, categorical in be its meaning, has shades of other meanings. They are most closely related to the meaning of cause, effect, and purpose. Most researchers consider causative verbs to be a su means of expressing ir cause-effect relationships. On the other hand, their meaning is usually described by a periphrase, — coinciding with a compound connective object sentence su "make so that the presump- + tive consequence". The perception of the shade of purpose is evident in some definitions of ir causative verbs. Plg. : “Causative verbs denote . an action performed in order to cause a thing to happen, 4TOGbI (c COBEpIIANOCH) action expressed by the motivating verb: grow “make to grow” grow), (: grow ‘make it burn’ burni)’ (: (Sikaitrexe 1968, 11; plg. but: Paulauskienė 1967, 11; Jakaitienė 1968, 227; Jakaitienė, Laigonaitė, Paulauskienė 1976, 110 ir kt ). The aforementioned perphrase is used ir Dictionary of Modern Lithuanian Language (1972) (hereinafter referred to as — DŽ), when for some reasons the verb cannot be marked with the abbreviation prž., which ma marks causative verbs, but one of several meanings is causative. ar jo For example: 1. iztekti make to escape, get married: Iztekti soką; 1. make to shine: Shine your shoes. "In Lithuanian Grammar" (1971, 25) (hereinafter referred to as — The semantic component of the object is defined by the causative verbs. However, verbs made of suffixes su -inti sound iš verbs, described by emphasizing the cause-effect — relationship: “These verbs denote an action which is the cause of the action expressed by the principal verbs (rare in our — G. S.)’ (LKG 1971, 264). The semantic description of ne causatives is relevant only to Lithuanian linguists. The aforementioned periphrase, su coinciding with the compound connective object sentence, is used by other ir language researchers (Hensnxos 1969, 106; 3omnorosa 1973, 290 ir kt ). A. Filipov, describing the causative verbs of the Russian language with this periphrase, notes that they have only the meaning of promoting the action, but the meaning of the action that is ne the result of the promotion (Oujxunno ir to 1978, 90). V. Nedialkovas ir G. Silnickis 157 considers causation to be synonymous — with the category of cause-effect. Be therefore, they indicate that the causing state is the ultimate goal of the causing situation ir (HensaunkoB, Cujstauxniū 1969, 6—7). In American linguistics, causative verbs are usually transformed into analytical constructions į by the verbs make, cause. su to to Iš abstract structure makes It S "This makes S“ N. Chomsky deduces the It structure makes John afraid "This makes John to be afraid", o iš her — sentence /t frightens John "It frightens "John". The S symbol here represents the subject ir jo status, t. y. John is afraid John is afraid (Xomckumii 1972, 173). Representatives of generative semantics derive all causative statements iš from one deep structure, having the deep causative element Cause. But on the other hand, they suggest that between closed and open causatives ir (t. y. between the perphrases used to ir jų describe causative verbs) there are some ir differences (Party 1971, 7—8; Cruse 1972, 520—528; plg. but ApyrtoHoBa 1976, 167). Interesting is A. Wierzbicka proposed a description of causative constructions: it is divided into several phrases, the modal verb is used together į with the causal-effect conjunctions. — ir For example, a sentence Adam with a knife enlarged hole in the wall is described as follows: (1) The hole in the wall grew, (2) because Adam's (3) body touched the knife, and (4) moved, so (5) that the (6) knife touched (7) the surface of the wall, (8) because Adam (9) wanted to (Wierzbicka 1969, 74). Such a description shows that the will, the — desire of the subject’s — special human being is the jo cause of active action. | The shade of modality of causative constructions is noted by ir other researchers (plg. 3ojxoroBa 1973, 280). However, our analysis has shown that the kauzatyvy description periphraze “to do so that the predicate consequence” + in the use of a modal verb is ar possible only when the causative subject can consciously aim for the result, when said by a noun denoting a conscious being, usually a person. t. y. Describing a sentence The rain crushed the hay, it's unnatural to say The rain made it impossible for the hay to rot. The hay ir rotted because — the rain wanted it. to § 2. Having in mind what has been said, we will try to briefly touch on another characteristic that determines the purity of the significance of causation by mixing it with the ar significancsu es of cause, purpose, effect close to it. ir In order to distinguish causation from cause, we will call the spoken verbs here causative, the sentences of which they are serviles, o causative sentences. — In causative sentences we find syntactic 4 semantic components expressing situations. The causing 2 situation consists of the subject causer iš (1) ir (2) the causative action; causal situation (causacy object) subject of the causal — iš (3) situation ir (4) the causal state change or action (plg. In this article 1985, 237). we will try to review the semantic characteristics of the above-mentioned causation components by comparing ir them with the analysis su of the respective components of the ir purpose and cause 1582 sentence constructions and the descriptive effect sentences (for more details, see 1. CaBuurore 19801, 19802). Based on this analysis, we will try to show in which cases we can consider adequate the periphrase that coincides with the compound connective su purpose sentence, and in which cases we propose the ir periphrase — that coincides with the descriptive-effect sentence. su ju $ 3. The causative action is usually described by the multi-sensory verb do. Šį The action corresponds to the component of the periphrase "to do so o that", formally it is expressed by the causative suffix of the verb or the ir / change of the root vowels. It is not easy to detail the semantics of the causative action because of the grammatical expression. jo This often requires contextual knowledge of ar how the action expressed by the base word can actually be caused. Often causative verbs denote an active physical causative action, e.g.: tear, rub, rub, squeak, burn, move, crush, sculpt, dip, crumble, etc. ir Causative verbs of this type are semantically close to verbs serving as object constructs in sentences, which usually also denote an active ir physical action, e.g. work, go, run, carry, ride ir t. t. A fairly large group of causative verbs can mean active physical causative ir action indirect causative effect by word, permission, ir conditions, non-interference, etc., e.g.: starve, increase, spoil, treat, drink, blow, destroy, silence, improve, ir mouth ir t. t. Few causative verbs have the meaning of a causative action „to allow, create conditions, not to disturb“, e.g.: dvisinti, gižinti, laikyti, plėkiti, pūsti, etc. :t. There are ir causative verbs that denote the causative action, the causative ne state, o t. y. state capable of acting on the object. For example: : The sun fades shirts, turns hands red, brightens eyes; The rain stirred the earth — The sun shines, so the shirts fade, the arms round, the eyes pale; The rain is falling (rained), so the earth fell. Speech feature of causative verbs The activity of the state of causative action, apparently, is the — basis of the long-known ar similarity of the meaning of the causative iterative verb ir form. The intensity of the state of causal ir action is emphasized in the descriptive ir sentences of effect meaning. ar ir For example: : The horse so poisoned that the horse fell S. Dauk. ; So put out, so earned, that Suva wouldn't eat meat J. Apple; I Aš was so surprised that I nė could not answer a word NdZ I 420. Both causation and effect sentences are characterized by the intensity of the causative action or state. The corresponding component of causal sentences / and constructions is also unlimited semantics, only here the intensity of the causal action state is often not emphasized. ar Plg. : Did not come because it rained; The accident occurred because of the employee's negligence "The employee was negligent, so the accident occurred" and so on. The results of this analysis showed some laws of mixing the causation value with su the purpose and cause values. The more active the causative action, the closer the causation 159 is to the goal. The lower the activity of the causative action or effect, the closer the causative effect is to the state, the closer the causation is to the cause. The semantics of the causative action or effect of causative verbs almost coincides with the semantics of the causative action of descriptive-effect sentences. § 4. The causative action or effect and its subject are linked by the law of semantic coordination. The verbs of the active physical causative action are combined in the sentence with the subject capable of performing such an action. Most of the time, the cause of causative sentences are nouns denoting a living being. The use of a noun denoting a person or an intelligent animal in the position of the causative clause factor is one of the conditions for mixing the significance of causation and purpose, because the factor of purpose sentences and constructions can only be a noun denoting a person or an intelligent animal. Only with a living conscious subject are those verbs combined in the sentence that can indicate the causative verbal effect. There are particularly many verbs that can indicate both an active physical causative action and a verbal causative effect. On this basis, we distinguish two types of causators of subjects: 1) the performer, i.e. the causator, who performs the physical causative action, and 2) the initiator, i.e. the subject of the indirect non-physical causative effect (see Amucosa 1971, 98). A very large group consists of those causative verbs that can be combined with a subject of any semantics that can have an active effect (not necessarily purposefully and consciously). This is a person, a living being, the forces of nature, an object, an abstraction. For example: frighten [Man, wolf, scary stories...- ], burn [Man, fire, flame, sun...], revive [man, drink, medicine, coolness, wind, rain...], move (man, animal, wind...), bend, break [man, animal, wind, cargo...], rob [Man, animal, wind, explosion, Lightning...], freeze (Man, cold, frost...], scream [man, wave...], bother [Man, work, trip...] and so on. The semantics of the subject is not limited by causatives of other languages (Hemsnxos 1971, 9). A very small group consists of causative verbs, next to which nouns denoting inanimate objects (e.g. natural forces) can occupy the position of the factor, e.g.: permerkti, žliuginti [rain], giedrinti [wind], Zilpint! [beam of light, dim light] etc. ir etc. The semantic coordination of the principal factor and the adverb in descriptive sentences of the effect is also fairly loose. For example: : The driver tightened the rudders, even both horses stopped on their last legs NdŽ 1 175; The lion fell so low, even the leaves of the trees trembled NdŽ II 175; The wind blew, even the whistling thunder (d.) Ktv (LKZ VIII 737); And all kinds of little flowers are picked together, so that from afar it only looks like a beautiful marguerite A. Baran. In all cases, when a noun denoting an inanimate object is the factor of the causative sentence, the necessary semantic component of causation appears — the meaning of active influence, but there cannot be the component of consciousness of influence, purposefulness. This feature is characteristic not only of Lithuanian causatives, but also of causatives in other languages, e.g.: vėjas nulaužė šaką —the wind broke the branch; naujienos pralinksmino mane — the news 160 cheered me up (Kapnyserie 1976, 34). We will give some more examples from which it is clear that in the presence of an inanimate subject, the causative action cannot be purposeful: The rain stirred the earth DZ 256; The sun numb the snow DZ 461; The wind squeezed the leaves of the trees DZ 752; His voice canned the whole garden DZ 705; This bleached the disease Rdm(LKZ I 885); The pink color somewhat pales it DŽ 472; I knew many songs — time forgot DŽ 893; Old age bleached the old man DŽ 434; Apparently, the hardship has covered the kupron Rdš(LKŽ VI 877); The boy had four years, scarlet fever choked Sh (LKZ II 920); Blood runs down the head and reddens the face, even the whites of the eyes. The ice in the lake suffocated the fish DZ 229; Wheels shake his body, shake the lungs in the chest Š, etc. This type of sentence cannot be used with the causation perphrase "to do so that -+the alleged consequence", which coincides with the object sentence. These sentences are closer to cause and effect sentences. This is also shown by the fact that these sentences are often easily transformed into sentences with causal constructions, compound causal sentences or descriptive sentences with effect meaning. For example: : The earth is ripped by the rain; The blood splashes into the head, so (and) the face bleeds; The wheels so shake his body that the lungs tremble in the chest and so on. This type of causation closeness to the cause is also observed in other languages (cf. : Apyrioxosa 1974, 168; Kopum 1981, 54–55). Determinative sentences with an effect can also be transformed into causal sentences. For example, the teeth of a giant are so tiny that they could not even penetrate a man. J. Jabl —The giant could not even penetrate a man, because his teeth are so tiny. The purposefulness and consciousness of the action of the causator (person) of the subject is often considered a very important characteristic of causation (cf.: 3omorosa 1973, 284; Kpuuunxaiite 1979, 49). However, even in cases where the causative subject is alive and conscious, we have to distinguish between two types of causation: 1) purposeful (conscious) causation and 2) non-purposeful (unconscious) causation (cf.: Kastovsky 1973, 276—277; 3oxnorosa 1973, 284—285; Person 1975, 27—28; Kapnysere 1976, 34). The first type of causation would belong to such verbs as: odstaviti, vkrpati, verjeti, tiliti, hraniti, etc. Among the descriptive sentences of the effect meaning there are also examples close to the causative of the first type. For example, Kazys Jankauskas hung his birds on strings so that they would spin and float in the attic as if they were alive. On the other hand, there are a number of verbs that may or may not have a semantic component of the purpose of the causative action depending on the context, i.e. they may belong to both the 1 and 2 causation types. For example: to break [a rope], to kill [a person], to smash [a pot], to damage [a clock], to boil [brothers], to burn [a window], to cool [milk], to sharpen [a knife], to smoke [the glass of a lamp], etc. The same ambiguity is possible in the consequence sentences. Without context, we cannot say whether the subject consciously pursued a result, e.g. : Mother shouted so loud that and 161 neighbors heard Zem; I sang such a beautiful song that everyone laughs Vlkvy (LKG III 839). The action of the subject of objective sentences and constructions is not only active, but always conscious, purposeful, e.g. : He sent the children to catch mushrooms Grž(LKŽ V 35); Put bread, cheese, knife on the way (for the trip) J; Kirsk, daužk, that anas sa[vo] mother not know Rod(LKŽ II 334). Thus, we can relate the meaning of the goal only to the first type of causation, i.e. when a living conscious subject aims at a goal, consciously strives for a result. In other cases, causation is closer to the meaning of cause and effect. § 5. All morphological causatives of Lithuanian language are characterized by the direction of the causative action or state towards the object, although not always equally pronounced. The fact that the action is directed to the object is considered the main characteristic of causative transitivity in Lithuanian linguistics. However, our analysis showed that the presence of the direct object in the causative sentence and the semantics of that object depend on the semantics of the causative verb. A ir certain semantic combination of the object and the verb is already known in linguistics. It has been observed that verbs denoting an abstract action are weaker related to the object than those denoting a concrete action. If there is no object to the verb of a particular meaning, the meaning of the verb may not be sufficiently clear (Memaxnnnos 1978, 193; cf. also Spnesa 1972, 4—19). The active physical causative action of an active (mostly living) subject is strictly directed at an object, for example, he broke a window. On the contrary, objective directionality will be less pronounced in the presence of a weakly active (usually inanimate) causative influence of the subject, for example, that book made him very famous DZ 231. A causative verb next to a dead subject can also be without an object. For example: : Strenuous work exhausts man DG 917 — Strenuous work exhausts; The cold wind revived him—the cold wind revives, and so on. A living subject in sentences without an object often seems unusual, for example, a person is tired, warms, refreshes. Based on what has been said, we can distinguish 1) objective (conscious) and 2) non-objective (unconscious) objective direction of action. The first type is possible only in the presence of a living conscious subject causing, the second — in the presence of any semantic subject causing. The objective directionality of the first type is close to the objective directionality of the purpose sentences and constructions, the second type — the weak objective directionality of the cause sentences and constructions. The second type is more common here, because the factors of the main focus of these sentences can be nouns, denoting inanimate objects, and as auxiliaries - verbs, denoting states. The result of the effect sentences (conditionally we can call it an object) even in the presence of a living subject, can often be unexpected or one that the subject consciously did not seek. For example: : I worked hard, even my hands were numb NdŽ II 175; They fired so hard that even the windows broke down Grž(LKŽ VIII 737); She has so many fairy tales to tell, that K. Donel forgets to even peck her fingers. 162 Morphological causatives have more often a deliberate action directed at the object. For example: : Plant trees on the farm, it will be more beautiful Rm(LKŽ I 464); The calves were fed early in the morning by Ldvn (LKZ III 333). The object of causation is the causable situation, consisting of the subject and a certain process (change of state or action). This is particularly evident when the causative sentences are compared with sentences that have a causative verb's base Word. In the last sentences, the noun takes the position of the factor, which has become the complement in the causative sentence. For example: : I feed animals, People: Animals, people eat; The mother wakes the child: The child is sleeping (Jablonski 1957 I 137). The process-- related sentences, such as The door opened, The soup is heating, are generally considered the main ones, and from them causative sentences are derived, which denote not only the process but also the causing action: Linda opened the door, Linda is heating the soup (Ueūd 1975, 149; cf. also Smith 1972, 136). Thus, the causable situation, or the object of causation (subject - + process), is relatively independent, and causation is optional in relation to this process (Paulauskienė 1973, 23—24; Kpuuunkaitė 1979, 48). The causative process is usually not constant (when nothing happens to the subject), but changing, i.e. the causative change of the subject's state or action (Kpunuuxkaiire 1979, 48) grow, drink, heal, drip, ripen, eat, yellow, etc. For example: : Tree water; The calf drinks; The wound heals, etc. Depending on their lexical meaning, these verbs can be combined with a living or inanimate subject of the caused situation. The causative verbs lakdinti (: lėkti), landinti (: lįsti), lesinti (: lesti), valgydinti (: valgyti), etc. can be combined only with nouns denoting persons and animals, which occupy the position of the complement in the causative sentence. In descriptive sentences with the meaning of an effect, the effect situation can also consist of a living or inanimate subject and a change in its state, as well as a living subject and its action (see the examples of effect sentences above). There is a certain dependence of causation on the semantics of the object. The term "causation by direct physical action" is used to distinguish between "causation by command" and "causation by direct physical action". The first occurs in the presence of an “agent” object, and the second in the presence of an “object” object (Cruse 1972, 251—253). When the subject of the causative state or action is active and able to resist the causative action, a certain weakening of the causative action is observed. Verbal causation (or causation by command) is less active than direct physical causation. In the presence of an “agent” object (i.e. a living subject of the causal situation), both types of causation are possible; In the case of an “objective” object (i.e. an inanimate subject of the causal situation), there cannot be verbal causation. The caused situation is usually real. The speaker perceives the caused action or state as having happened, taking place or to take place (cf. Shibatani 1976, 163 1). In our opinion, this feature is reflected in the traditional way of ir describing causative verbs in Lithuanian, when causative verbs are su jų reference Words, e.g.: turn directio- (: n), bend bend),| (: tear tear) (: (LKG 1971, 227; ir kt ). Similarly, in the ir dictionaries, DŽ causative verbs are linked with the basic su ZodZias, using the abbreviation prZ., LKŽ, using the abbreviation — caus. Especially clearly the perception of the reality of the causative situation is reflected in the aforementioned association of sentences with a causative corresponding non-causative ir verb, e.g., Mother migin's child — The child is asleep. $ 6. The semantics of causation sentence components is the closest to the semantics of the corresponding components of descriptive-effect sentences. Therefore, ir we suggest describing causation sentences with periphrase “to do so that a direct consequence- + ”, coinciding with the descriptive sentence of su the meaning of the effect. In other words, the case may not be a case of the case of the case. Semantic real effect ir (t. y. The meaning component of the causative situation is easily noticeable in the sentence Gydė gydė ir sugydė DZ 757, but it is not present in the sentence Jis mane tuo dalyku tikino, bet neįtikino DZ 850. The sentences The doctor treats the sick, The child breaks the branch of a tree may not mean that "the disease ar heals", "the branch of the tree breaks". These sentences, depending on the context, may indicate - only the intentionality of the action of the subject causer and be closer to the periphrase coinciding with the object sentence. The meaning of the final unresolved result may sometimes depend on the initial meaning of causative verbs. According to J. Jablonskis, causative verbs in Lithuanian, made from intransitive verbs, always have the initial meaning (verba inchoativo-causativa) (Jablonskis 1957, 136). This fact, apparently, also confirms the periphrase “do so that + predicate”, because the predicate forms allow not only to indicate the grammatical time, but also the finality of the action. Therefore, extinguishing candles can be described by the periphrase "I make candles to move". However, most of the time, the caused situation is still perceived as real. If the final result is not achieved, it can be said that it is “beginning to be achieved” and will be achieved in the future. Such a treatment of the causal situation would be supported especially by the expression of the causal and causal action or state in the same verb — in the first case by formal means (preposition and | or vowel change), in the second — by lexical means (verb root). Therefore, I extinguish candles can be described as (1) "I make" + (2) "candles go out" or (1) "I make" + (2) "candles start to go out (and go out)". The use of the periphrase “do so that + predicate” can probably be explained by the fact that causative verbs are usually described in their communicative form. Therefore, it is quite natural that the pronoun is taken, which corresponds more to the communicative, rather than the direct pronoun, which denotes the time. On the contrary, when describing personified forms of verbs, and especially causative verbs in a sentence, direct inference is more appropriate. E.g.: grow "do so that it grows", but — grow "do so that it grows", growed — "I did so that it grew". 164 The periphrase, su which coincides with the purpose sentence, is more convenient to use when we want to emphasize the shade of purposefulness, consciousness of the causation of some causative verbs. Be therefore, this periphrase can adequately describe only the causing situation; the causal situation remains underexpressed. In conclusion, it is necessary su to emphasize that the meaning of the ir goal is particularly close to active purposeful, conscious causation (active action of the causator of the living subject, deliberately ir strictly directed į object). Such causation, which we can call passive, weak, unconscious (a weakly ar active, weak effect of a non-living subject on an object), is closer to the cause. The semantics of causation sentence components is closest to that of descriptive- -effect sentence components. LITTERACY Cruse D. A. A Note on English Causative. — Linguistic Inquiry, 1972, vol. 3, N4, p. 520— 528. Jablonskis J. Selected Writings. — V., 1957, t. 1. Jakaitiené E. Deverbative verbs with the suffix -inti in modern Lithuanian. — Baltistica, 1968, Nr. 4(2), p. 222—229, Jakaitienė E., Laigonaitė A., Paulauskienė A. Morphology of Lithuanian language. —V., 1976. Kastovsky D. Causatives. —Foundations of Language, 1973, vol. 10, N2, p. 255—315. English Grammar, V., — 1971, t. 2, 1976, t. 3. Partee B. H. On the Reguirement that Transformations Preserve Meaning. —In: Studies in semantics. New York, 1971, pp. 1-21. Paulauskienė A. Lexical-grammatical meanings of the verb in Lithuanian language. — V., 1967. Paulauskienė A. Some tendencies of self-expression. —Language Culture, 1973, No. 24, p. 23—27, Persson I. The system of causative functional verbs. A semantic-- syntactic analysis of some related constructions. —In: Journal of Germanic Studies, 1975, Vol. 42. Savičiūtė G. Semantics of auxiliary verbs. — Kn. : Journal of Linguistics, 1985, vol. 24, pp. 236—251. Shibatani M. The Grammar of Causative Constructions: a Conspectus. Syntax and Semantics. New York, San San Francisco, 1976, London, vol. 6, p. 1—39. Smith C. S. On Causative Verbs and Derived Nominals in English. — Linguistic Inguiry, 1972, vol. 3, Nl, pp. 136-138. Wierzbicka A. Semantic inquiries. —Wroclaw, Warsaw, Krakow, 1969, AnucoBa T. B. Ovepku CHHTAKCHCA COBDEMEHHOIO I need a quick s3bika. CeMaHTHYECKas H rpaMMaTH4ecKas CTpYKTypa IIpOCTOro npemioxenus. — M., 1971. Apyrionosa H. JĮ. CemanTrdeckoe OrtucaHHe CJIOB H HHTepmpeTanus npemioxesns. Conpemuy o X MeTomsl. - B ku. : I'paMmaTHyeckoe OITHCAHHE CHaBAHCKHX 5i35IKOB, M., 1974, c. 158-171. Apytionosa H, JĮ. I'm a Mexican. Jloruko-ceManTuYeckue nmpobnemsr. —M., 3oxorosBa I. A. Ouepk DYHKIHOH1976. AIBHOIO CHHTAKCHCA PYCCKOro s3mika. —M.,, 1973. Kapnysene I", O coueTaeMOCTHBIX CBOHCTBAX HEKOTOPAIX Kay3aTHBHEIX IJIarojJIOB JIHTOBCKOI'O A asnmiickoro s35IKOB. —Kalbotyra, 1976, t. 27(3), p. 31-39. 165