LIETUVIŲ KALBOS SINTAKSĖS TYRINĖJIMAI

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXV (1986)

GERTRŪDA SAVIČIŪTĖ

ON THE SEMANTICS OF CAUSATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS IN LITHUANIAN

§ 1. The problem of the asymmetry between content and form (when a form has more than one meaning, and a meaning is expressed by more than one form), long familiar in linguistics, is also closely related to the study of the semantics of causal verbs in Lithuanian. Lithuanian morphological causatives, i.e. verbs given a causative meaning by the suffixes -(d)inti, -(d)y­ti and/or vowel alternation in the root, have, in addition to their categorical meaning, other nuances of meaning. They are most closely associated with the meanings of cause, result, and purpose.

Most researchers consider causative verbs a means of expressing cause–result relations. On the other hand, their meaning is usually described by a paraphrase matching a complex purpose clause: “to do so that + subjunctive.” The perception of a nuance of purpose is also evident in some definitions of causative verbs. Cf.: “Causative verbs … denote an action performed in order for (с целью, чтобы совершалось) the action expressed by the motivating verb to take place: auginti ‘to cause to grow’ (: augti ‘to grow’), deginti ‘to cause to burn’ (: degti ‘to burn’)” (Якайтене 1968, 11; see also: Paulauskienė 1967, 11; Jakaitienė 1968, 227; Jakaitienė, Laigonaitė, Paulauskienė 1976, 110, etc.). This paraphrase is also used in the Dictionary of Modern Lithuanian (1972) (hereafter DŽ) when, for certain reasons, a verb cannot be marked with the abbreviation prž. (‘causative’), which identifies causal verbs, but one or more of its meanings are causative. E.g.: ištekinti 1. to make something run or flow out: Ištekinti sulą; blizginti 1. to make something shine: Blizginti batus.

In Lithuanian Grammar (1971, 25) (hereafter LKG), causal verbs are defined by specifying the semantic component of purpose. However, verbs formed with the suffix -inti from sound verbs are described with emphasis on cause–result relations: “These verbs denote an action that is the cause of the action expressed by the base verbs (emphasis ours — G. S.)” (LKG 1971, 264).

The semantic description of causatives is relevant not only to Lithuanian linguistics. The aforementioned paraphrase, which corresponds to a complex purpose clause, is also used by researchers of other languages (Недялков 1969, 106; Золотова 1973, 290, etc.). In describing Russian causative verbs using this paraphrase, A. Filipov notes that they denote not only the inducement of an action, but also an action that is the result of that inducement (Филиппов 1978, 90). V. Nedialkov and G. Silnitsky

157

consider causation synonymous with the cause–result category. They also point out that the caused state is the ultimate purpose of the causing situation (Наделков, Сильницкий 1969, 6–7).

In American linguistics, causative verbs are usually transformed into analytic constructions with the verbs to make, to cause. From the abstract structure It makes S ‘It makes S’, N. Chomsky derives the structure It makes John afraid ‘It makes John afraid’, and from this, the sentence It frightens John ‘It frightens John’. Here the symbol S denotes the subject and its state, i.e. John is afraid (Хомский 1972, 173).

Proponents of generative semantics derive all causative utterances from a single deep structure containing the deep causation element CAUSE. On the other hand, however, they advance the idea that there are also certain differences between closed and open causatives (i.e. between causative verbs and the paraphrases used to describe them) (Partee 1971, 7–8; Cruse 1972, 520–528; see also Арутюнова 1976, 167).

A. Wierzbicka’s proposed description of causative constructions is interesting: they are broken down into several phrases, linked by conjunctions expressing cause–result relations, and a modal verb is used. For example, the sentence Adomas peiliu padidino skylę sienoje ‘Adam enlarged the hole in the wall with a knife’ is described as follows: (1) The hole in the wall became larger, (2) because, (3) Adam’s body touched the knife, (4) and, (5) moved, (6) so that, (7) the knife touched the surface of the wall, (8) because, (9) Adam wanted it (Wierzbicka 1969, 74). This description shows that the will and desire of the subject—an exceptional human being—are the cause of its active action.

Other researchers also note the modal nuance of causative constructions (cf. Золотова 1973, 280).

However, our analysis showed that causatives can be described by the paraphrase “to do so that + subjunctive” or with a modal verb only when the subject-cause can consciously pursue a result, i.e. when it is expressed by a noun denoting a conscious being, usually a person. In describing the sentence The rain rotted the wall, it is unnatural to say The rain made it so that the walls would rot, and entirely impossible to say The walls rotted because the rain wanted it.

§ 2. Bearing in mind what has been said, here we shall briefly touch on several features that determine whether the meaning of causation remains pure or blends with the related meanings of purpose, result, and cause.

To distinguish causation from cause, we shall refer to the verbs in question as causative verbs, and to sentences in which they serve as predicates as causation sentences.

Causation sentences contain four syntactic-semantic components expressing two situations. The causing situation consists of (1) the subject causer and (2) the causing action; the caused situation (the object of causation) consists of (3) the subject of the caused situation and (4) the change in state or action of the causee (cf. Savičiūtė 1985, 237).

In this article, we shall attempt to review the semantic features of the aforementioned components of causation and compare them with the corresponding components of purpose and cause sentences and constructions, as well as

158

an analysis of the corresponding components of sentences expressing result (see in more detail Савичюте 1980¹, 1980²). On the basis of this analysis, we shall attempt to show in which cases a paraphrase coinciding with a complex subordinate purpose sentence may be considered adequate, and in which cases the paraphrase we propose, coinciding with a sentence expressing result, is adequate.

§ 3. The causing action is usually described by the polysemous verb daryti. This action corresponds to the paraphrase component “to do in such a way that,” and is formally expressed by a causative verb suffix and/or a change in the vowels of the root.

It is difficult to specify the semantics of the causing action precisely because of its grammatical expression. This often requires context or knowledge of how, in reality, the action expressed by the base word can be brought about (caused).

Causative verbs often denote an active physical causing action, e.g.: ardyti, dilinti, draikyti, girgždinti, gurinti, judinti, kiu žinti, lipdyti, nardinti, trupinti, etc. Causative verbs of this type are semantically close to verbs functioning as predicates in purpose constructions and sentences, which likewise usually denote an active physical action, e.g.: dirbti, eiti, lėkti, nešti, važiuoti, etc.

A fairly large group of causative verbs can denote both an active physical causing action and an indirect causing influence by means of words, permission, creating conditions, not interfering, and so on, e.g.: alkinti, didinti, gadinti, gydyti, girdyti, lėkdin ti, naikinti, tildyti, tobulinti, žiodyti, etc.

Few causative verbs have the meaning of a causing action “to allow, create conditions, not interfere,” e.g.: dvisinti, gįžinti, gulinti, plėkinti, pūdyti, etc.

There are also causative verbs that denote not a causing action but a causing state, that is, a state capable of affecting an object. E.g.: The sun faded the shirts, browned the hands, and dazzled the eyes; the rain soaked the earth—The sun is shining, so the shirts are fading, the hands are browning, and the eyes are being dazzled; it is raining (rained), so the earth became soaked.

The feature of the causative verbs in question—the activity of the causing action or state—apparently also underlies the long-noted similarity in form and meaning between causative and iterative verbs. The intensity of a causative action or state is also emphasized in sentences expressing result. E.g.: He rode the horse so hard that it collapsed S. Dauk.; He went about it and worked so hard that a dog would not eat the meat J. Jabl.; I was so astonished that I could not utter a word in reply NdŽ I 420.

Thus, both causation and result sentences are characterized by the intensity of the causing/causative action or state.

The corresponding component of cause sentences and constructions is also semantically unrestricted, but here the intensity of the causative action or state is often not emphasized. Cf.: He did not come because it was raining; The accident happened because of the employee’s negligence ‘The employee was negligent, so an accident occurred,’ etc.

The results of this analysis revealed certain regularities in the blending of the meaning of causation with the meanings of purpose and cause. The more active the causing act—

159

…tion, the closer the causation is to purpose. The less active the causer’s action or impact, and the closer the causer’s impact is to a state, the closer the causation is to cause. The semantics of the causer’s action or impact in causative verbs almost coincides with the semantics of the causal action in resultative sentences.

§ 4. The causer’s action or impact and its subject are linked by the law of semantic agreement.

Verbs denoting an active physical causative action agree in the sentence with a subject capable of performing such an action.

Most often, the subject of causative sentences is a noun denoting a living being. The use in subject position in a causative sentence of a noun denoting a person or an intelligent animal is one of the conditions for blending the meanings of causation and purpose, since only a noun denoting a person or an intelligent animal can function as the subject of purpose clauses and constructions.

Only a living, conscious subject can serve in a sentence with verbs that can denote verbal causative impact. There are especially many verbs that can denote both an active physical causative action and a verbal causative impact. On this basis, we distinguish two types of subject causers: 1) an agent subject, i.e. a causer subject that performs a physical causative action, and 2) an initiator subject, i.e. the subject of an indirect, nonphysical causative impact (cf. Алисова 1971, 98).

A very large group consists of causative verbs that can agree with a subject of any semantic type capable of exerting an active impact (not necessarily purposefully or consciously). This may be a person, a living being, natural forces, an object, or an abstraction. E.g.: frighten [a person, a wolf, frightening stories…], burn [a person, fire, a flame, the sun…], revive [a person, a drink, medicine, coolness, wind, rain…], move [a person, an animal, wind…], bend, break [a person, an animal, wind, a load…], draw [a person, an animal, wind, an explosion, lightning…], freeze [a person, cold, frost…], splash [a person, a wave…], tire [a person, work, a journey…], etc. The semantics of the subject is unrestricted for causatives in other languages as well (Недялков 1971, 9).

A very small group consists of causative verbs whose subject position can be occupied by nouns denoting inanimate objects (usually natural forces), e.g.: soak through, ruin [rain], clear up [wind], dazzle [sunbeam, bright light], etc.

Semantic agreement between the subject and predicate of the main clause in resultative sentences is also quite unrestricted. E.g.: The cart-driver dragged the wagon, so that even both horses came to a halt on their last legs NdŽ II 175; The lion roared so loudly that even the leaves of the trees trembled NdŽ II 175; The breeze blew, so that the forest roared (d.) Ktv (LKŽ VIII 737); And all kinds of little flowers intertwine so among themselves, — that from afar only a beautiful riot of colors can be seen A. Baran.

In all cases where the subject of a causative sentence is a noun denoting an inanimate object, an essential semantic component of causation is present—the meaning of active impact—but the component of conscious, intentional impact cannot be present. This feature is characteristic not only of Lithuanian causatives but also of causatives in other languages; cf.: wind

160

broke off the branch — the wind broke the branch; the news cheered me up (Каппувене 1976, 34).

Let us give some further examples showing that when the causal subject is inanimate, the causer’s action cannot be intentional: The rain softened the earth DŽ 256; The sun melted the snow DŽ 461; The wind rustled the leaves of the trees DŽ 752; His voice rang throughout the garden DŽ 705; The illness made her pale Rdm(LKŽ I 885); The pink color makes her somewhat pale DŽ 472; I knew many songs—the passage of time consigned them to oblivion DŽ 893; Old age turned the old man white-haired DŽ 434; Apparently, hardship stooped him over Rdš(LKŽ VI 877); The boy was four years old; scarlet fever deafened him Šs(LKŽ II 920); The blood gives a thump in the head and reddens the face, even the whites of the eyes Vaižg; The ice in the lake suffocated the fish DŽ 229; The wheels jolt his body, shaking his lungs in his chest Š, and so on.

The causative paraphrase “make it so that + subjunctive,” which coincides with a purpose clause, cannot be applied to sentences of this type. These sentences are closer to cause-and-effect sentences. This is also indicated by the fact that they can often be readily transformed into sentences with causal constructions, complex sentences expressing cause, or descriptive sentences expressing consequence. For example: The earth softened from the rain; The blood gives a thump in the head, so (and) the face turns red; The wheels jolt his body so that his lungs shake in his chest and so on.

The affinity of this type of causation with cause is also observable in other languages (cf. Арутюнова 1974, 168; Корди 1981, 54—55).

Descriptive sentences expressing consequence can also be transformed into causal sentences. For example, The grass snake’s teeth are so tiny that it could not even scratch a person with them J. Jabl — The grass snake could not even scratch a person, because its teeth are very tiny.

The intentionality and conscious nature of the action of a subject causer (a person) are often considered very important features of causation (cf. Золотова 1973, 284; Криниц-кайте 1979, 49). However, even in cases where the causal subject is animate and conscious, we must distinguish between two types of causation: 1) intentional (conscious) causation and 2) unintentional (unconscious) causation (cf. Kastovsky 1973, 276—277; Золотова 1973, 284—285; Person 1975, 27—28; Каппувене 1976, 34).

The first type of causation would include verbs such as: wean, inject, convince, silence, feed and so on.

Among descriptive sentences expressing consequence there are also examples close to first-type causatives. For example, Kazys Jankauskas hung his little birds on strings so that they seemed alive, spinning and floating beneath the ceiling V. Myk-Put.

On the other hand, there are quite a few verbs whose semantic component of intentionality in the causer’s action may or may not be present depending on the context; that is, they may belong to either causation type 1 or type 2. For example, intentionally or unintentionally break [a rope], kill [a person], smash [a pot], damage [a watch], set at odds [brothers], break [a window], cool [milk], wear down [a knife], smoke [a lamp chimney], and so on. The same ambiguity is possible in sentences expressing consequence. Without context, we cannot say whether the subject consciously sought the result; for example: The mother shouted so loudly that even

161

the neighbors heard Žem; I sang such a beautiful song that everyone is laughing Vlkv (LKG III 839).

The action of the subject in purpose clauses and constructions is not only active, but also always conscious and purposeful, e.g.: He sent the children so that they would gather lots of mushrooms Grž(LKŽ V 35); Take some bread, cheese, and a knife for the road (for the journey) J; Strike, beat him so that he will not recognize his mother Rod(LKŽ II 334).

Thus, only the first type of causation can be associated with purpose, that is, when a living, conscious subject purposefully and deliberately seeks a result. In other cases, causation is closer to relations of cause and effect.

§ 5. All morphological causatives in Lithuanian are characterized by the direction of the causer’s action or state toward an object, although this direction is not always equally prominent. In Lithuanian linguistics, the fact that an action is directed toward an object is considered the principal feature of causativity and transitivity.

However, our analysis showed that the presence of a direct object in a causative sentence, as well as the semantics of that object, depends on the semantics of the causative verb. A certain semantic compatibility between an object and a verb is already recognized in linguistics. It has been observed that verbs denoting abstract actions are less strongly associated with an object than those denoting concrete actions. If a verb with a concrete meaning has no object, the meaning of the verb may be insufficiently clear (Мещанинов 1978, 193; cf. also Ярцева 1972, 4–19).

The active physical causative action of an active (usually living) subject is strictly directed toward an object, e.g., He smashed the window. By contrast, object-directedness is less prominent when the effect of a less active (usually inanimate) subject-causer is involved, e.g., That book made him very famous DŽ 231.

A causative verb occurring with an inanimate subject may also appear without an object. For example: Hard work tires a person DŽ 917 – Hard work is tiring; The cold wind revived him – The cold wind revives and so on. A living subject in sentences without an object often seems unusual, e.g., A person tires, warms, revives.

On the basis of what has been said, we can distinguish 1) purposeful (conscious) and 2) non-purposeful (unconscious) object-directedness of an action. The first type is possible only when the causer is a living, conscious subject; the second is possible with a subject-causer of any semantics. The object-directedness of the first type is close to the object-directedness of purpose clauses and constructions, whereas that of the second type is close to the weak object-directedness of causal clauses and constructions.

Descriptive result clauses may display both types of object-directedness. The second type is more common here, since the subjects of the main clause in these sentences are somewhat more often nouns denoting inanimate things, while their predicates are verbs denoting states. The result of result clauses (which we may provisionally call an object), even when the subject is animate, may often be unexpected or may be something the subject did not consciously seek. For example: I worked and toiled until my hands went numb NaŽ II 175; He fired so much that even the windows shattered Grž(LKŽ VIII 737); She chatters about so many fairy tales that she even forgets to pluck the flax K. Donel.

162

Morphological causatives much more often denote an action consciously directed at an object. E.g.: Plant the homestead with trees, and it will be more beautiful Rm(LKŽ I 464); They water the calves early in the morning Ldv(LKŽ III 333).

The object of causation is the caused situation, consisting of a subject and a certain process (a change of state or an action). This feature becomes particularly salient when causative sentences are compared with sentences containing the base word of a causative verb. In the latter sentences, the subject position is occupied by a noun that functions as the object in the causative sentence. E.g.: I feed livestock, people: Livestock, people feed; Mother puts the child to sleep: The child sleeps (Jablonskis 1957 I 137).

Utterances denoting processes, such as English The door opened “The door opened,” The soup is heating “The soup is warming up,” are usually regarded as basic, while causative utterances derived from them express not only a process but also a causing action: Linda opened the door “Linda opened the door,” Linda is heating the soup “Linda is warming up the soup” (Чейф 1975, 149; cf. also Smith 1972, 136).

Thus, the caused situation, or the object of causation (subject + process), is relatively independent, whereas causation is optional with respect to this process (Paulauskienė 1973, 23—24; Криницкайте 1979, 48).

The caused process is generally not static (where nothing happens to the subject), but changing, i.e. it is a change in the subject’s state or an action that is caused (Криницкайте 1979, 48) grow, drink, heal, drip, ripen, eat, turn gray, etc. E.g.: The tree is growing; The calf is drinking; The wound is healing, etc.

Depending on their lexical meaning, these verbs can combine with either an animate or an inanimate subject of the caused situation.

Causative verbs lakdinti (: lėkti), landinti (: lįsti), lesinti (: lesti), valgydinti (: valgyti), etc., can combine only with nouns denoting persons and animals that occupy the object position in a causative sentence.

In descriptive sentences expressing a result, the result situation can likewise consist of an animate or inanimate subject and a change in its state, or an animate subject and its action (cf. the examples of result sentences given earlier).

A certain dependence of the meaning of causation on the semantics of the object can be observed. A distinction is made between “command” causation (“causation by command”) and direct physical causation (“causation by direct physical action”). The former occurs with an “agentive” object, and the latter with an “object-like” object (Cruse 1972, 251—253).

When the subject of the caused state or action is active and capable of resisting the causing action, a certain weakening of the causing action can be observed. Verbal (or “command”—“causation by command”) causation is less active than direct physical causation. With an “agentive” object (i.e. an animate subject of the caused situation), both types of causation are possible; with an “object-like” object (i.e. an inanimate subject of the caused situation), verbal causation is not possible.

The caused situation is generally real. The speaker perceives the caused action or state as having occurred, occurring, or about to occur (cf. Shibatani 1976,

163

1). In our view, this feature is also reflected in the traditional way of describing Lithuanian causative verbs, in which causative verbs are paired with their base words, e.g.: kreipti (: krypti), lenkti (: linkti), plėšti (: plyšti) (LKG 1971, 227; etc.). Dictionaries follow a similar practice: in DŽ, causative verbs are linked to their base words using the abbreviation prž.; in LKŽ, the abbreviation caus. is used. The aforementioned pairing of sentences containing a causative verb and its corresponding non-causative verb most clearly reflects the perception of the caused situation as real, e.g., Mother is putting the child to sleep – The child is sleeping.

§ 6. The semantics of the components of causative sentences is closest to that of the corresponding components in sentences expressing a result. We therefore propose describing causative sentences by the paraphrase “do so that + indicative,” which corresponds to a sentence expressing a result.

It must be acknowledged that in some cases a causative sentence may not express the reality of the caused situation. The semantic component of a real result (i.e., the caused situation) is readily apparent in the sentence He treated him and treated him until he cured him DŽ 757, but it is absent from the sentence He assured me of that, but he did not convince me DŽ 850. The sentences The doctor is treating the patient, The child is breaking a tree branch may also fail to mean that “the patient is recovering” or “the tree branch is breaking.” Depending on the context, these sentences may express only the intentionality of the subject-causer’s action and be closer to a paraphrase corresponding to a purpose clause.

The meaning of an outcome not ultimately achieved may sometimes depend on the initial meaning of causative verbs. In J. Jablonskis’s view, Lithuanian causative verbs formed from intransitive verbs always have an inchoative meaning (verba inchoativo-causativa) (Jablonskis 1957, 136). This fact, it seems, also supports the paraphrase “do so that + subjunctive,” since subjunctive forms allow one to leave unspecified not only grammatical tense but also the completion of an action. Thus I am putting out the candles can be described by the paraphrase “I am doing so that the candles go out.”

Nevertheless, in most cases the caused situation is perceived as real. Even if the final result is not achieved, one can say that it “begins to be achieved” and will be achieved in the future. This interpretation of the caused situation is especially supported when the causing action and the caused action or state are expressed by the same verb—by formal means (a suffix and/or vowel alternation) in the former case, and by lexical means (the verb stem) in the latter. Thus I am putting out the candles can be described as (1) “I am doing so that” + (2) “the candles are going out,” or (1) “I am doing so that” + (2) “the candles are beginning to go out (and will go out).”

The use of the paraphrase “do so that + subjunctive” can apparently also be explained by the fact that causative verbs are usually described using their infinitive forms. It is therefore quite natural to choose the subjunctive, which corresponds more closely to the infinitive, rather than the indicative, which expresses tense.

By contrast, the indicative is more suitable when describing finite verb forms, and especially causative verbs in sentences. Cf.: auginti “to do so that [something] grows,” but auginu “I am doing so that [something] grows,” užauginau “I did so that [something] grew.”

164

A paraphrase corresponding to a purpose clause is more convenient when we want to emphasize the purposive, intentional nuance of the causation expressed by certain causative verbs. Moreover, this paraphrase can adequately describe only the causing situation; the caused situation remains insufficiently expressed.

In conclusion, it must be emphasized that active, purposive, intentional causation is especially close to the meaning of purpose (the active action of a living subject as causer, consciously and directly aimed at an object). Such causation, which we may call passive, weak, and unintentional (the slight, weak effect of a living or non-living subject on an object), is closer to cause. The semantics of the components of causative sentences is closest to that of the components in sentences expressing a result.

LITERATŪRA

Cruse D. A. A Note on English Causatives. — Linguistic Inquiry, 1972, vol. 3, N4, p. 520—528.

Jablonskis J. Rinktiniai raštai. — V., 1957, t. 1.

Jakaitienė E. Deverbatyviniai dabartinės lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžiai su priesaga -inti. — Baltistica, 1968, Nr. 4(2), p. 222—229.

Jakaitienė E., Laigonaitė A., Paulauskienė A. Lietuvių kalbos morfologija. — V., 1976.

Kastovsky D. Causatives. — Foundations of Language, 1973, vol. 10, N2, p. 255—315.

Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. — V., 1971, t. 2, 1976, t. 3.

Partee B. H. On the Requirement that Transformations Preserve Meaning. — In: Studies in semantics. New York, 1971, p. 1—21.

Paulauskienė A. Leksinės-gramatinės lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžio reikšmės. — V., 1967.

Paulauskienė A. Kai kurie savaiminio veiksmo reiškimo polinkiai. — Kalbos kultūra, 1973, Nr. 24, p. 23—27.

Persson I. Das System der kausativen Funktionsverbgefüge. Eine semantisch-syntaktische Analyse einiger verwandter Konstruktionen. — In: Lunder Germanische Forschung, 1975, Bd. 42.

Savičiūtė G. Parūpinamųjų veiksmažodžių semantika. — Kn.: Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai, 1985, t. 24, p. 236—251.

Shibatani M. The Grammar of Causative Constructions: a Conspectus. — In: Syntax and Semantics. New York, San Francisco, London, 1976, vol. 6, p. 1—39.

Smith C. S. On Causative Verbs and Derived Nominals in English. — Linguistic Inquiry, 1972, vol. 3, N1, p. 136—138.

Wierzbicka A. Dociekania semantyczne. — Wrocław, Warszawa, Kraków, 1969.

Алисова Т. Б. Очерки синтаксиса современного итальянского языка. Семантическая и грамматическая структура простого предложения. — М., 1971.

Арутюнова Н. Д. Семантическое описание слов и интерпретация предложения. Концепции и методы. — В кн.: Грамматическое описание славянских языков. М., 1974, с. 158—171.

Арутюнова Н. Д. Предложение и его смысл. Логико-семантические проблемы. — М., 1976.

Золотова Г. А. Очерк функционального синтаксиса русского языка. — М., 1973.

Карпувене Г. О сочетаемостных свойствах некоторых каузативных глаголов литовского и английского языков. — Kalbotyra, 1976, t. 27(3), p. 31—39.

165

Корди Е. Е. Семантическая и синтаксическая структура предложения со знаменательными каузативными глаголами и оборотами в современном французском языке. — В кн.: Структура и объем предложения и словосочетания в индоевропейских языках. Л., с. 49—68.

Криницкайте С. А. Классификация глагольных оппозиций по переходности / непереходности в литовском языке. — В кн.: Проблемы синтаксиса и структуры слова. М., 1979, с. 42—53.

Мещанинов И. И. Члены предложения и части речи. — Л., 1978.

Недялков В. П. Некоторые вероятностные универсалии в глагольном словообразовании. — В кн.: Языковые универсалии и лингвистическая типология. М., 1969, с. 106—114.

Недялков В. П. Каузативные конструкции в немецком языке. Аналитический каузатив. — Л., 1971.

Недялков В. П., Сильницкий Г. Г. Типология каузативных конструкций. — В кн.: Типология каузативных конструкций. Морфологический каузатив. Л., 1969, с. 5—19.

Савичюте Г. С. Предикаты цели и предикаты каузации (на материале флективных индоевропейских языков): Автореф. дис. … канд. филол. наук. — М., 1980.

Савичюте Г. С. Предикаты цели и предикаты каузации. — Изв. АН СССР. Сер. лит-ры и яз., 1980, т. 39, № 6, с. 539—548.

Филиппов А. В. К вопросу о каузативных и некаузативных глаголах. — Русский язык в школе, 1978, № 1, с. 90—93.

Хомский Н. Аспекты теории синтаксиса. — М., 1972.

Чейф У. Л. Значение и структура языка. — М., 1975.

Якайте Э. Суффиксальные глаголы современного литовского языка: Автореф. дис. … канд. филол. наук. — Вильнюс, 1968.

Ярцева В. Н. О синтаксической роли прямого дополнения в языках различных типов. — В кн.: Члены предложения в языках различных типов. Мещаниновские чтения. Л., 1972, с. 4—19.

Г. САВИЧЮТЕ

О СЕМАНТИКЕ КАУЗАТИВНЫХ КОНСТРУКЦИЙ В ЛИТОВСКОМ ЯЗЫКЕ

Резюме

Значение морфологических каузативов литовского языка (глаголов с суффиксами -(d)yti, -(d)inti и / или аблаутом) тесно связано со значениями цели, причины и следствия. Для выявления основных точек пересечения каузации со значениями цели, причины и следствия в статье приводятся результаты анализа семантического согласования между основными компонентами предложений, выражающих отношения каузации, с одной стороны, и предложений, выражающих отношения цели, причины и следствия, с другой.

Склеивание значений каузации и цели имеет место при активной и произвольной каузации (активное действие одушевленного субъекта каузатора целесообразно и строго направлено на объект).

Пассивная, непроизвольная каузация (неактивное воздействие неодушевленного или одушевленного субъекта каузатора нецелесообразно и слабо направлено на объект) обнаруживает тесную связь с причиной.

Семантика компонентов предложений, выражающих отношения каузации, в целом наиболее близка к семантике компонентов предложений, выражающих отношения следствия. Поэтому предлагается описывать семантику предложений с каузативными глаголами посредством перифразы, совпадающей со сложноподчиненным изъяснительным определительным (nuskакаsis) предложением следствия „делать так, что + изъявительное наклонение“. Перифраза, совпадающая со сложноподчиненным предложением цели („делать так, чтобы + сослагательное наклонение“), применима в основном в тех случаях, когда имеет место склеивание значений каузации и цели.

166

G. SAVIČIŪTĖ

ON THE SEMANTICS OF LITHUANIAN CAUSATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS

Summary

The semantics of Lithuanian morphological causatives (verbs with suffixes — (d)yti, -(d)inti and / or ablaut) is closely connected with Purpose, Cause and Consecutive semantics.

On the basis of semantic analysis of components of sentences with causative verbs in predicate position 2 types of causation are given: 1) active purposive causation (active purposive action of sensible subject is strictly directed to object); 2) passive purposeless causation (passive purposeless action or state of animate or inanimate subject is nonstrictly (feebly) directed to object).

The comparison of the corresponding components of sentences with causative verbs and components of purpose, cause and consecutive clauses has shown that the active purposive causation is connected with Purpose semantics and the passive purposeless causation is connected with Cause semantics.

The highest degree of semantic resemblance has been discovered between causative constructions and consecutive clauses.