Parūpinamųjų veiksmažodžių semantika

MOKSLO KALBOS KULTŪROS IR TERMINOLOGIJOS PROBLEMOS LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXIV(1985) GERTRŪDA SAVICIOTĖ THE SEMANTICS OF CURATIVE VERBS 1. Practical problems in compiling the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (hereafter LKŽ) make it necessary to draw attention once again to a dwindling group of Lithuanian verbs—the curative verbs (verba curativa, or causativa passiva), whose distinction from causative verbs (verba causativa activa) presents considerable difficulties. The main criteria for distinguishing them—the semantic, formal, and relationship-to-the-base-word criteria¹—are not considered entirely adequate. In the search for new criteria, attention shifted from the word itself to the study of its use in a sentence. One such criterion may be the syntactic criterion proposed by A. Jakulienė, based on the transformational method, concerning the relation of the action to its object². Taking this further, we sought to examine curative verbs as performing the function of the predicate in a sentence, organizing the sentence—that is, as capable of taking nominal terms, the subject term and the object term, and restricting their semantics. For the analysis, more than a thousand sentences were drawn from the 12 volumes of LKŽ and the second edition of the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian (hereafter DŽ), selected to illustrate verbs marked with the abbreviations cur. (LKŽ) and prp. (DŽ). Illustrative word combinations are used here only in part. The results of this analysis were compared with those of an earlier analogous analysis of causative verbs³. Breaking sentences of both types down into surface and deep levels revealed certain differences in the “valency” of curative and causative verbs. Analysis of the semantics of the main sentence components—the predicate, subject, and object—made it possible to note several features common to both verb groups as well as features that distinguish one group from the other. 2. The frequent similarity in the structure of sentences of both types (which may be considered one of the conditions leading to confusion between these verbs) is merely a surface-level feature. Although in sentences of both types, besides the predicate, we find a subject and an object (unless they are omitted because of the context), for example: She has4 the child eat— 1 For a detailed critical analysis of these criteria, see Jakulienė A. Criteria for distinguishing causative and curative verbs.— Kalbotyra, 1975, vol. 26(1), pp. 78—81. 2 Ibid. The criteria mentioned will be discussed later in this article. 3 Savichute, G. S. Predicates of purpose and predicates of causation (based on inflectional Indo-European languages): Abstract of the dissertation... Candidate of Philological Sciences.— Moscow, 1980; by the same author. Predicates of purpose and predicates of causation.— Proceedings of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Series of Literature and Language, 1980, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 539—548. 4 Abbreviations are as in the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language. 236 She weaves (causative) a bedspread; the deep structure of sentences with procurative verbs is more complex than that of sentences with causative verbs. The former contain one additional subject and an action performed by it. F. Kurschat evidently discerned this feature when he wrote that verbs with the suffix -dinu denote an indirect action, performed by someone else (indirekt, durch einen Andern)5. The presence of another subject is also mentioned in J. Jablonskis’s definition of procurative verbs: with procurative verbs “we say that the agent merely takes care of things, arranges everything, does or permits things so that the action is performed by others, so that the work itself is done by others or by someone else”6 (underlined by us.— G. S.). By contrast, causative verbs have only one subject: with causative verbs “we indicate that the agent himself carries out the entire action, that here he himself does the whole particular job”7. A second subject of procurative verbs is also mentioned by other authors8. This account of the deep structure of sentences of this type is supported not only by explanatory sentences, e.g.: Lodindini (cur.) dogs, i.e. you order someone to make them bark (caus.) J, but also by sentences unfamiliar to users of the literary language, in which the second subject is expressed explicitly. E.g.: Plaučiūns had many... bunches of radishes brought to his godparents by servants K. Donel; The thief had [them] torn apart by dogs S. Dauk; He ordered the herd to be driven along the narrow path and trampled underfoot by animals S. Dauk, etc. In one or another complex sentence, the action of another subject is also expressed, e.g.: I’ve been working on the leather shoes for half a year already, and the master can’t manage to finish sewing them Sts. If we represent each deep-structure component with symbols (S — subject, P — predicate, O — object, → — causation or curation relation), we could depict the deep structure of both sentence types with formulas. Causative sentence: (S+P)→(O+P). Curative sentence: (S₁+P₁)→(S₂+P₂)→(O+P), more precisely (O/= S₃/+P₃). We see the differences between deep and surface structure even more clearly when we describe actual sentences of both types using the causative paraphrase “make it so that.” E.g.: The sun melted (caus.) the snow DZ: (1) “The sun made it so that” + (2) “The snow melted”; [You] lodindini (cur.) the dogs J: (1) “You make it so that” + (2) “[Someone] makes it so that” + (3) “The dogs bark.” Thus, in causative sentences we find 4 components expressing 2 situations: 1) the causing situation (the subject, the causer, and its causative action) and 2) the caused situation (the object and the subject-causer’s 5 Kurschat F. Grammatik der littauischen Sprache.— Halle. 1876, S. 122. 6 Jablonskis J. Rinktiniai raštai.— V., 1957, t. 1, p. 289. 7 Ten pat. 8 Якайтене Э. Суффиксальные глаголы современного литовского языка. Автореф. дис.... канд. филол. наук.— Вильнюс, 1968, с. 11; Jakaitienė E., Laigonaitė A., Paulauskienė A. Lietuvių kalbos morfologija.— V., 1976, p. 110. 237 (the caused change of its state or action). In curative sentences, we find 6 components expressing 3 situations: 1) the initiating situation (the initiating subject and its initiating action), 2) the intermediate curative situation (the intermediary subject and the action it performs, curated by the initiating subject), and 3) the final curated situation (the object and the change in its state or action, caused by the intermediary subject and curated by the initiating subject). The fact that the deep (and sometimes surface) structure of curative sentences is more complex than that of causative sentences shows that, when curative verbs occur in a sentence, they determine more complex subject–object relations. Curative sentences express a more complex situation in reality than causative sentences. Next, we will try to analyze the semantic properties of each component. 3. The results of the semantic analysis of each component of curative sentences will be presented in a table. In reviewing it vertically and comparing it with the corresponding results of the analysis of causative sentences 9, we will seek to show not only the points of “intersection” that provide grounds for confusing verbs of the two groups, but also a certain specialization of the components of curative sentences, and their difference from the semantics of the corresponding components of causative sentences. In our view, this should help distinguish curative verbs from causative ones in practice. 3.1.1. Analysis of the semantic properties of the subject (S1) expressed in sentences of both types showed that curative verbs restrict its semantics far more than causative verbs do. The latter combine in a sentence with any subject capable of performing an active action or exerting an active influence. This may be a person (Daktaras gydo ligonius K), an animal (Margiukas išlandino kiaulę per skylę rš), a force of nature (Lietus ištežino žemę D2), an object (Vežimas gruodą laužia D2), or an abstraction (Mokėjau daug dainų — laikas užmaršino D2). By contrast, in sentences with curative verbs, the subject can generally only be a person. At the same time, these sentences are related to causative sentences whose subject may be a person. A considerable number of curative sentences display a certain distinctiveness in their subjects. 1) The subject is a person with the power to command. E.g.: Karalius tą atsitikimą ing kningas įrašydino J; Vyresnysis vyrų pulką botagais plukdino Jrk; Amtsrots... taip sumušdino Prčkų, kad, vos tris dienas sulaukęs, numirė bedžius K. Donel; Liuob nupliekins vaikai žmogų ir paleis Šts. 2) Another fairly clear group consists of sentences whose subject is any person unable to perform the curated action themselves. E.g.: Tėvas paragintas ketino savo sūnų į šuilės mokytojus išmokindinti Ns 1849, 2; Kaldink, mergyte, aukso žiedelį, mušdink mano vardelį N 94. 3) The subject of a considerable proportion of sentences is not so strictly 9 See footnote 3. 238 Semantic alignment at the deep level of curative sentences Group of curative sentences S₁ (initiator—person) P₁ (indirect influence) S₂ (intermediary—animate) P₂ (direct influence) O (= S₃) (usually—inactive) P₃ (state, its change, action) 1 person with the power to command to command subordinate person “punishment” actions person, part of fate to experience the state of being destroyed 2 a person unable to perform the supervised action to commission, to give something to be done a person who knows how and is able to perform a certain action (usually a craft; a representative of a profession) actions associated with particular expertise and skills (usually in a craft or profession) thing to be made to remain in a state 3 any person to ask, order, force any person involved various physical and nonphysical actions thing, abstraction, person, animal to experience the state of being destroyed; to perform an action limited, as in the first two types. Here it may be any person, e.g.: Juzė tau žuvies atnešdino Slnt; Meškeres išmete kandin­ti, žvejai grįžta į krantą rš. We cannot say anything about the semantics of the subject without context in sentences where it is expressed by a pronoun or not expressed at all. E.g.: Aš jau antrus ratus apkal­dinau, o už tai man kad bent gerą žodį primestų Brs; Nekaldinau irk­lelio JV 642. The semantics of the subject in sentences of the first two types suggests that the sentence subject does not perform the action itself, but merely takes care that others perform it. Sentences of the third type, being indifferent to this feature, may, in our view, create the conditions for confusion between procurative verbs and their base verbs. It is only by this circumstance, the rhythmic requirements of folk songs, or a simple mistake that we can explain the appearance, in place of the initiating subject, of an intermediary subject (a person who knows a craft) in several sentences. E.g.: Kalvis nukaldė naujas pasagas Jrb; Pats ėmęs nukaldydino gelžies šakę trimis nagais S. Dauk; Tilžės miestely jauns aukškalėlis, tas perkaldys žiedelį LB 49; Da aš turiu gobtūrą..., mezgėjelių megzdintą JV 416. In these sentences, verbs with the suffix -dinti (-dyti) most likely denote not a procurative, but a direct physical action, e.g.: kaldinti ‘to forge’, siūdinti ‘to sew’. The verb megzdinti in the sentence cited is explained by the authors of LKŽ with the verb megzti ‘to knit’ and is not considered procurative. Several sentences were found in which the subject position is occupied by nouns denoting an institution or collective with the authority to issue orders. They are clearly aligned with sentences whose subject is a person with the authority to issue orders; therefore, we can consider the verbs used in these sentences procurative. E.g.: Valdžia paieškodino LC1886,11; Dvaras, darbams pasibengus, liuob jautį pamušdins LMD (Sd). Thus, the subject (S₁) of procurative verbs can only be a person (institution, collective) who oversees the performance of the action expressed by the base word of the procurative verb, but does not perform it himself. Cf.: The king has a letter written (cur.) — The clerk writes (tr.) a letter; The girl has a ring forged (cur.) — The goldsmith forges (tr.) a ring; The authorities had the roof removed (cur.) — The workers (tr.) removed the roof. On the basis of this feature, we can call this subject the initiator, distinguishing it from the intermediary subject (S₂), which performs the supervised action. 3.1.2. The overseeing action of the initiating subject, embedded in the verb suffix, has been studied many times, both in terms of form of expression and meaning. The suffix -dinti(-dyti), as acknowledged by many researchers, is not a sufficient criterion for distinguishing procurative verbs from causative verbs—it is also used to form causative verbs, e.g.: sprogdinti, želdinti, valgydinti and others.10 Procurative meaning may also be expressed by 10 Cf.: Jablonskis J. Min. veik., p. 290; Lietuvių kalbos gramatika.— V., 1971, t. 2, p. 265; Якайтене Э. Min. veik., p. 11; Jakulienė A. Min. veik., p. 79. 240 verbs with the causative suffix -inti, e.g.: malinti (Malūne malini grūdus J), nešinti (Susizgribęs karalius iš svetimų šalių žvirblius nešino, pakolės dėl įveisė M. Valanč.) and so on. It is difficult to specify the semantics of the initiating subject’s overseeing action precisely because of its morphological expression. We infer the meaning contributed by the suffix from the context or from knowledge of the extralinguistic situation (i.e., how a given action can actually be performed). Most researchers regard the initiating subject’s action as synonymous with the verb rūpintis ‘to take care’, and the name of the verb group under discussion was coined on this basis. Procurative verbs are most often distinguished from causative ones according to the semantics of this action.¹¹ However, if we apply only this criterion, we would not know to which group to assign the verbs šokdinti, grąžinti, girdyti and others.¹² J. Jablonskis quite justifiably regards the verbs kepinti, deginti, jodinti, gulinti, lesinti, lakinti, sausinti as causative, although he also describes their meaning with the verb rūpintis: “I take care that the bread bakes, that the candle burns, that the child rides—lies down, that the hen eats, that the dog drinks, that the meadow is dry.”¹³ One of the main reasons for the confusion between procurative and causative verbs, apparently, is that the subject’s causative action in causative verbs may be not only physical, e.g., Audra medžius verčia Dž, but also a certain indirect influence exerted by will or words (an order, request, etc.) on a living, sentient object (a person or animal), e.g.: Jis buvo išlaipinęs keleivius iš priekinės lėktuvo dalies RŠ; Šunį landinti į lapės urvą DŽ. The overseeing action is closely related to this type of causative action. That it denotes the subject’s indirect influence on the object, which does not always coincide with ‘taking care’, is particularly clearly demonstrated by some explicative and compound sentences. The semantics of the overseeing action is often conveyed by the verbs liepti, prikalbėti, samdyti, siųsti, vadinti ‘to invite’, duoti and others. E.g.: Grauždinu sėtinį, rope, t. y. liepiu grauži tį antram J; Reikdinu aš jamui tą daiktą, t. y. prikalbu, kad jis storotus reikalauti tą daiktą J; Pasamd yčiau meistružį, pakirtinčiau uoselį (d.) Vž; Darbininkai, iš savo tarpo kelis išmintingus vyrus pas poną nusiusdami, jam sakydino, kad tat permenk algos LC1878,17; Aš pavadinsiu tris jaunus bernelius, aš ir iškirtinsiu tą viešnynėlį (d.) Plt; Jis žiemos šalty la ižydinęs (davęs laužyti) kišį, o liežuvis prilipęs Jrk19. With (1) a purposive or (2) a non-purposive causative action meaning “to allow, create conditions, not hinder,” e.g.: (1) Motyna lepino dukrelę..., migino kuo ilgiausiai Žem; (2) Kam išbėginai putrą? J, overseeing action 11 Cf.: Jablonskis J. Min. veik., p. 289; Paulauskienė A. Leksinės gramatinės lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžio reikšmės.— V., 1967, p. 13; Lietuvių kalbos gramatika, t. 2, p. 25. 12 Cf. Jakulienė A. Min. veik., p. 78. 13 Jablonskis J. Min. veik., p. 137. 16 Užsak. Nr. 1007 241 is somewhat less related, since the latter most often denotes a more active effect of the subject, precisely directed at the object. Only a few examples can illustrate the imprecision of the procurative action (i.e., when the initiating subject does not consciously seek the result), e.g.: They keep the dogs loose; perhaps they will tear someone to pieces Slnt; I trampled three troublesome fellows, though I watched carefully to keep the pig from calming down Sts. Several sentences found in LKŽ are to be considered atypical, in which procurative verbs are used with lexical synonyms of the procuring action (to order, to give). E.g.: So that there might be some bread, he could have a bushel ground and brought in KlvrŽ; I gave someone else clothes to have washed J; An unworthy thing was given to have a Roman townsman beaten DP169; He ordered the things to be taken away from there brš. These sentences express an even more complex situation than simple procurative sentences, or they indicate a mixture of procurative verbs and their base verbs, e.g., to give to have ground may mean ‘to give to be ground’. 3.1.3. Semantics of the intermediary subject (agent of the action) is easiest to determine from sentences in which it is expressed by a separate word. By calling this subject an intermediary, we emphasize that it is “external” to the action being performed: it performs the action not for itself. This feature helps distinguish procurative verbs from causative ones in cases where the indirect object in causative sentences is the person performing the caused action. E.g.: He had the children eat the apples (caus.) DZ — The children ate the apples and the girl hires workers and has them cut the beam Vrd — The workers cut the beam. Although the intermediary subject performs the procured action, it is subordinate to the initiating subject. Its lack of independence is especially emphasized, and its semantics brought closer to that of an “instrument,” by the fact that the intermediary subject is usually expressed in the instrumental case or in constructions with the prepositions with, through, to. E.g.: Whoever enslaved a free man had him torn to pieces by dogs S. Dauk; Put salt in the clover and tread it in with horses, so that you can press the clover for winter Sts; Do not announce it yourself, and do not announce that language to anyone through another I; I had that tin object tinned by a tinsmith Grg. In addition, in most procurative sentences the intermediary subject is not expressed at all. E.g.: They had the walls covered with boards from outside rš; We had a little horse shod with little golden horseshoes JD 810; I had a letter written, but it did not arrive Kl; Get your hair cut—it is already too long Als. The fact that the intermediary subject need not be expressed could apparently be explained by the same reason used to explain the decline of procurative verbs: “The agent who ensures that the action is performed is more important here than the one who actually performs the action” 14. On the other hand, the semantics of the intermediary subject is close to that of the causer subject of causative verbs. Both one and the other can 14 J a k a i t i e n ė E., L a i g o n a i t ė A., P a u l a u s k i e n ė A. Min. veik., p. 110. 242 be (1) a person, (2) an animal, (3) a force of nature (or another kind). E.g.: Soon a few bundles of clover... perhaps they will have them carried home over the planks K. Donel; Have the cat catch all the mice J; I will write a little letter in gold, have the breeze carry it back JD637. Most examples of the first type were found, far fewer of the second, and only a handful of the third. A word denoting a thing or an abstraction usually does not occupy the intermediary-subject position. The few examples of this type that are found are intermediate between procuration and causation: ėsdinti is considered procurative in DZ, but causative in LKŽ, e.g., Sulfuric acid is used to etch metals DZ. A certain semantic specificity of the intermediary subject—the person—became apparent. Most often this is (1) a s u b o r d i n a t e person or (2) a p e r s o n w h o k n o w s h o w o r i s a b l e t o d o a p a r t i c u l a r t a s k. E.g.: (1) He quickly had three barrels of beer carried into the sitting room by servants K. Donel; (2) There are two little smiths at the end of town—I’ll have the little ring reforged JV1008. There are procurative sentences with an intermediary subject that denotes a n y p e r s o n whatsoever, obeying an order, command, or request. E.g.: He had his complaints submitted through Algis rš. The first two semantic types of the intermediary subject—the person—in procurative sentences are to be considered the most characteristic. 3.1.4. Investigations of the procured action (performed by the intermediary subject), inferred from the verb root and corresponding to the base word, were summarized according to the criterion of its relationship to the base word. It was established that procurative verbs are derived from transitive verbs of active action, e.g., to have built (: to build), whereas causative verbs are derived from intransitive verbs of spontaneous action, e.g., to raise (: to grow)15. However, it turned out that some causative verbs can also be derived from transitive verbs of active action16, e.g.: to give to drink (: to drink), to suckle (: to suck), to feed (birds) (: to eat), etc. Apparently, owing not only to other factors but also to this shared feature, the authors of LKŽ consider the verbs ėdinti, ėsdinti causative, whereas the authors of DZ regard them as procurative. Another very important semantic feature of base verbs was identified. It is claimed that they are usually verbs of making, denoting an action by which an object is created or destroyed17, e.g., to build (to have built) — to demolish (to have demolished). However, as the analysis of the semantics of base verbs has shown, the base words of procurative verbs may also denote other actions that do something to an object. In general, we can say that the base word of a procurative verb most often denotes a p h y s i c a l a c t i o n and only in a few cases a n o n - p h y s i c a l a c t i o n or e f f e c t. Through actions of the first type, (a) a n o b j e c t i s m a d e / d e s t r o y e d or (b) s o m e t h i n g i s d o n e t o a n o b j e c t 15 Plg.: Jablonskis J. Min. veik., p. 289—290; Paulauskienė A. Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodis.— V., 1971, p. 8—9. 16 Plg. Lietuvių kalbos gramatika, t. 2. p. 25. 17 Žr. Paulauskienė A. Leksinės-gramatinės lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžio reikšmės, p. 13. 243 something is done. We can divide verbs of this type into 3 semantic groups. (1) Verbs denoting particular actions related to work, a trade, or more generally to skill and expertise, e.g., (a) the object is made: knit (have knitted) gloves, bake (have baked) bread, cast (have cast) letters, etc.; (b) something is done to the object: cut (have cut) hair, resew (have resewn) a dress, reforge (have reforged) a ring, etc. (2) Verbs denoting acts of “punishment,” e.g., (a) the object is destroyed: hang (have hanged), tear apart (have torn apart) a berry, gouge out (have gouged out) eyes, etc.; (b) something is done to the object: flog (have flogged), thrash (have thrashed), beat (have beaten) a criminal, etc. (3) Verbs denoting various other physical actions that are not highly specific, e.g., (a) the object is destroyed: hang (have hanged) a dog, slaughter (have slaughtered) an animal, tear up (have torn up) books, etc.; (b) something is done to the object: harness (have harnessed) a horse, stoke (have stoked) a furnace, cover (have covered) a table (with a tablecloth), etc. Verbs in the first group are the least dependent on the semantics of the object and subject, although they too may sometimes belong not only to the first group but also to another, e.g.: (1) put on (have put on) false teeth, teeth and (2) put (have put) someone barefoot (on a burning tow). In this respect, verbs in the second and third groups are much less independent. Verbs in the second group can be combined in a sentence only with a subject who has the authority to give orders and an object denoting a person or a body part. Verbs in the third group do not restrict the semantics of the subject, but their object is generally only an animal or an inanimate thing (less often, a body part as well). The same verb may fall into one group or another depending on the semantics of the subject or object, e.g.: (2) hang (have hanged), tear apart (have torn apart) a berry and (3) hang (have hanged) a dog, tear up (have torn up) a book. Causative verbs formed on the basis of verbs in the third group are most often confused with causative verbs because these actions, which require no particular skill, may be performed by either an intermediary subject or an initiating subject. They are especially difficult to distinguish when the semantics of the sentence subject is unclear without context. E.g.: Have the grain sifted until you have sifted it all J; Have the clothes gathered from the fence J. With respect to the semantics of the object, verbs denoting a nonphysical action or effect differ somewhat from one another. Verbs denoting a nonphysical action may combine with objects of various semantic types, e.g.: Have their honor proclaimed S. Stan (: proclaim their honor); The dukes had those saltworks leased S. Dauk (: leased the saltworks). Verbs denoting a nonphysical effect on an object, often a verbal one, generally combine with objects denoting persons, e.g.: I have already had people invited for tomorrow Vd (: invited people). The base words of causative verbs that denote a physical action are close to causative verbs denoting direct physical causation 244 verbs, e.g.: demolish, break; base words denoting a nonphysical action or effect on an object are close to causative verbs denoting indirect nonphysical causation, e.g.: make angry, enrich. Apparently, owing to this similarity, the language developed causative verbs that form three-way oppositions: causative—causative—unaccusative or active-action verb, e.g.: have broken—break—break (intr.), have dogs bark—make dogs bark—bark. Examples of this type show especially clearly the difference between causative and causative verbs. 3.1.5. Studies of the object of causative verbs have been consolidated under the criterion of the relation of the action to its object, according to which the object of causative verbs cannot be the subject of the base word’s action when the object phrase is transformed18. E.g.: teach (caus.) a child — the child learns (a lesson); have a dress sewn (cur.) — sew a dress. In our view, this confirms precisely that causative verbs, unlike causative verbs, entail the presence of a second subject (expressed or unexpressed). This is particularly evident when it is a sentence, rather than an object phrase, that is transformed. E.g.: The mother feeds (caus.) the child — The child eats; The mother has (cur.) a dress sewn — [The seamstress] sews a dress. As our observations have shown, the semantics of the direct object of causative and causative verbs do not differ. The object of either type may be a person, an animal, an inanimate thing, a body part, or, less often, an abstract entity. E.g.: The ruler had shot (cur.) the sages of his country DZ — Misfortune made him hunched (caus.) DZ; Have horses shod (cur.) DZ — Have dogs bark (caus.) dogs DZ; Have a letter delivered (cur.) a letter DZ — I pulled the rope but could not break it (caus.) DZ; Have a head cut off (cur.) DZ — Dislocate an arm (caus.) DZ; Have a meeting convened (cur.) DZ — Cure (caus.) a disease DZ. Such commonality in object semantics is one of the preconditions for confusion between the verbs under discussion. Another factor that apparently contributes to confusion between causative and causative verbs is the presence (or possibility of presence) of an indirect object in some curative and causative sentences. Thus, the prefixed verbs have eaten, have given to drink are classified as causative by DZ, while other authors propose classifying them as causative: have (a child) eat an egg — eat an egg19. Transforming curative sentences with an indirect object reveals that the indirect object takes the meaning of (a) a person for whom something is allocated or to whom it belongs, who receives something, or (b) a person who, by experiencing an effect or action, loses something or is destroyed. E.g.: (a) The father had clothes made for the child DZ — [The tailor] made clothes for the child — The child received clothes; (b) He had Nikanor’s head cut off... Bb1Mak7,47 — [The executioner] cut off Nikanor’s head—Nikanor was destroyed (killed); The king...had his tongue cut out M. Valanč—[The executioner]...cut out his tongue! —...He lost his tongue. 18 See Jakulienė A. Min. work, pp. 80—81. 19 Cf. ibid., p. 81. 245 This feature had apparently already been observed by J. Jablonskis, who paraphrased a sentence with the reflexive curative verb pasistaty­dinti, meaning “to have built for oneself”: Ponas pasistatydino tiltą — “the gentleman took care of it, made it so that a bridge would be b u i l t for him (and thus g o t a b r i d g e)”²⁰ (emphasis ours. — G. S.). By contrast, in sentences with the aforementioned verbs suvalgy­dinti, sugirdyti, analogous suvesti, sulakinti, etc., the indirect object is the a g e n t o f t h e a c t i o n. For example: Obuolius vaikams suvalgydino DŽ — Vaikai suvalgė obuolius; Tuos trupinius vištom sulesink Er — Vištos sules trupinius. Thus, verbs of this type should be regarded as causative. 3.1.6. Continuing the transformation further—turning the direct object of curative (as well as causative) verbs into the subject—we identify the “object predicate.” For example: Tokie speigai iššaldys (caus.) vaismedžius DŽ — Vaismedžiai iššals nuo tokių speigų; Mama... batelius pasiūdė (cur.) Skr — Bateliai (1) pasiūti [batsiuvo] ir (2) pasisiūdinti mamos. Unlike the object predicate of causative verbs, which coincides with the base verb and is expressed by its finite form, the object predicate of curative verbs is generally identifiable only through a passive transformation and takes the form of a passive participle. The object predicate of only a few verbs in ternary oppositions can be expressed by a finite verb form, e.g., lesindinti (cur.) — lesinti (caus.) žąsį — žąsis lesa. Moreover, this transformation shows that the object of curative verbs is affected in two ways: directly—by the subject as intermediary (bateliai pasiūti [batsiuvo]) and indirectly—by the subject as initiator (bateliai pasisiūdinti mamos). Summarizing our observations on the semantics of the object predicate, we can say that this component in both types of sentence denotes a certain state (or change of state) and an action. However, we find only a few curative verbs whose direct object can perform a caused (and curated) action; they generally belong to ternary oppositions, e.g.: lodindinti (cur.) — lodinti (caus.) šunį — šuo loja, lakindinti (cur.) — lakinti (caus.) šunį — šuo laka. A caused action of the object is much more common with causative verbs. It is characteristic not only of those mentioned above that belong to ternary oppositions, but also of other verbs, e.g., girdyti ark­lį — arklys geria, valgydinti vaiką — vaikas valgo, sodinti svečią — svečias sėda, etc. A state whose (a) existence (emergence) and (b) change are caused (curated) is characteristic of both curative and causative verbs. For example: (a) pykindinti (cur.) — pykinti (caus.) tėvą — tėvas p y k s t a, miginti (caus.) vaiką — vaikas m i e g a, pl akdinti (cur.) žmogų — žmogus p l a k a m a s; (b) griaudinti (cur.) — griauti (caus.) namą — namas g r i ū v a, akinti (caus.) žmogų — žmogus a n k a, megzdinti (cur.) — megzti pirštines — pirštinės m e g z a m o s. 20 Jablonskis J. Min. veik., p. 289. 246 The fact that the object predicate in curative sentences almost always denotes a state rather than an action, and that most often it can only be expressed in the form of a passive participle, shows that this component is considerably more passive than the corresponding component in causative sentences. 3.2. A horizontal review of the table reveals one or two patterns of semantic alignment that illustrate the specific nature of curative-verb semantics, and highlights certain points relevant to the history of the emergence of curative verbs. 3.2.1. We identified three groups of curative sentences whose components, embedded in the verb (in its root or suffix), clearly constrain the semantics of the other sentence components. (1) The curating action “to order” combines with an initiator subject denoting a person with the authority to give orders (karalius, ponas ir t. t.). The semantics of the curating action and the initiator subject presuppose not only the presence of an intermediary subject and its action, but also their semantic properties. Only in sentences of this type is the intermediary subject a subordinate person (tarnas, budelis, etc.); its action is expressed by verbs of punishment (mušti, plakti, etc.) or by verbs that acquire this meaning from context (įmetindinti į duobę); the object is a person (or body part) that undergoes the action or is destroyed (nukirsdinti ranką, pakardinti vagį). (2) An action being curated that requires special knowledge or skill (siūti, austi, etc.) entails the presence of an intermediary subject denoting a person skilled in that work (siuvėjas, audėjas, etc.). Only in sentences of this type is the initiator subject often a person unable or unskilled to perform the action being curated (mergelė — kalti žiedeli, mama — siūti batus, etc.); its curating action means “to order, to have [someone] do [something]”; the object is an item that is made, or upon which some work is done, through an action requiring special knowledge or skill. (3) The curating action “to ask” places the fewest constraints on the semantics of the other components. The initiator subject here can be any person (not necessarily someone with authority to give orders or unskilled at performing the action being curated); the intermediary subject can be any person (not necessarily subordinate or skilled at performing the action being curated), or even an animal (šuo, arklys, etc.); the action being curated may be a variety of physical or nonphysical actions requiring no particular knowledge or skill (atnešinti kopūstų, kviesdinti žmones, etc.); and the object may be a person, animal, or thing upon which something is done. On the other hand, sentence components expressed by the verb affect the semantics of the other components to varying degrees. In sentences of the first type, the semantics of the initiator subject is most strictly constrained, while the meanings of the other components may coincide with those of the corresponding components in sentences of the second and third types (indicated by a dotted line in the table). For example: Herodas neilgą trukęs, nukirtino tą savo moterį M. Valanč; Karalius avis savo buvo nukirpdinęs BBAm7,1; Karalius po geležine asla buvo ugnį pakurdinęs Jrk33. In sentences of the second type, the semantics is strictly constrained 247 the semantics of the intermediary subject and the object. In contrast, the initiator subject and its procuring action may be semantically the same as in the other two types of sentence: a person with the authority to give orders may command, while any other person may ask someone to provide an object or perform an action requiring a special payment (indicated by a dotted line in the table). The first two types of sentence, which have the greatest semantic restrictions compared with causative sentences, best illustrate the differences between procuration and causation. In our view, the third type of sentence is peripheral in relation to the other two. Procurative sentences, which have the fewest semantic restrictions, are most easily confused with causative sentences (respectively, procurative verbs with causative verbs). 3.2.2. With regard to the individual sentence components, an effort was made to show that each of them shares certain semantic features with the corresponding components of causative sentences. The first three deep-level components of procurative sentences are semantically equivalent to the components of indirect nonphysical causative sentences: the initiator subject, a person, acts upon the intermediary subject—a person or an animal—through an indirect, nonphysical action. The intermediary subject, its action, and the object are semantically very close to the components of direct physical causative sentences: the intermediary subject, a person, acts upon any object by means of a physical (rarely nonphysical) action. As already mentioned, the direct object of a procurative sentence is affected twice—directly by the intermediary subject and indirectly by the initiator subject. In our view, this allows procuration to be provisionally called “double causation.” It is especially important that the components of the surface level of procurative sentences are also related to the semantics of the components of indirect nonphysical causative sentences. Their characterization as “an indirect, nonphysical action (influence) by the person who is the initiator subject, directed at any object” coincides with the characterization of the components of indirect nonphysical causative sentences. For example: Jis sukūtiesdino (cur.) žmones — Jis išlaipino (caus.) keleivius. This shows not only the synchronic closeness of procuration and causation, which leads to the confusion of procurative and causative verbs, but also their interrelations diachronically. In our view, the separation of procuration from causation (and of procurative verbs from causative verbs) was encouraged by the specific lexical semantics of certain components of indirect nonphysical causative sentences (highlighted in a box in the table). In one type of sentence, the initiator subject—a person with the authority to give orders—and, in another type, the procured action, associated with a particular payment or skill, presupposed the possibility of a second subject, expressed or unexpressed. Thus, procurative verbs developed (1) through semantic changes in the components of indirect nonphysical causative sentences, that is, through a narrowing of their semantics, and (2) through the emergence of another subject at the deep or surface level of these sentences (a change in the verb’s valency), that is, through the adaptation of indirect non- 248 physical causative sentences to express a more complex situation in reality. 3.2.3. The practical application of the analytical findings presented here should help lexicographers distinguish procurative verbs from causative ones, especially in cases where other criteria are less effective. We will provide several examples. Despite the suffix -dyti and the transitivity of the base word, the verb nusemdyti cannot be considered procurative in the sentences: Itai pavoras (samtis), kur nusemdo puodus, kap bėga Grv; Pastačiau per didelį sagona, vandeniu daug — nusemdžiau kiek Rod. The procured action here is simple and does not require special skill; the overall semantics of the sentence do not indicate the presence of an initiator subject (a person with the authority to give orders). Therefore, the verb nusemdyti most likely denotes a simple, direct physical action performed immediately by the sentence subject. The fact that the procured action does not require special skill and that the sentence subject is an ordinary person, not someone with the authority to give orders, shows that we cannot identify an intermediary subject and its action in sentences with the verb (pa)sėdinti, for example, Atvažiavo tas senas našlelis, anas pasėdino ažu balto stalelio (d.) Svnč. This verb should be regarded as causative, not procurative, even though the subject’s action may be indirect and nonphysical (that is, it may coincide with the procuring action of procurative verbs). The implied object of the sentence performs the caused action itself here—(pa)sėda ažu balto stalelio. The verbs keldinti ‘to stand someone up’, lakdinti (: lėkti) should likewise be considered causative rather than procurative. For example: Dabar piršlys, paėmęs jaunajai už rankos, keldin eitų pas jaunikį LMD(S. Dauk); Vaikai lakdyne (aitvara) lakdina NdZ. These sentences exhibit a feature of causation, not procuration: the sentence subject’s direct physical action. In contrast, the verb žogdinti (: vogti) should be called procurative because its procured action presupposes the presence of an intermediary subject (a thief). Because there is no intermediary subject and the sentence subject’s action is passive (“not to interfere, to allow”), the verbs aižydinti, kirmydyti, pendėdinti, (su)pelėdinti should be considered causative, not procurative. For example: Aižydink tu žirnius nevalęs į pastogį, t. y. laikydamas ant dirvos J; Kam dabar tą vaiką ligi pusryčių kirmydote — kas gero iš jo išeis? Jnšk; Ana pendėdin duoną, kad mažai suvalgo, t. y. sendin J; Supelėdinti duoną DZ. According to the semantics of the sentence subject, the verb išlupdinti should be called procurative. LKŽ marks it with the abbreviation caus., for example: Karalius akes anam išlupdino I (that is, someone gouged out the eyes, as ordered by the king). In contrast, we cannot consider as procurative verbs whose subject is not a person but forces of nature, things, or abstractions. We cannot call these subjects initiators, and consequently cannot identify the presence of an intermediary subject in the sentence. For example: Vėjas nuo stogo lašą skina ir in šalį palakdina 249 rš; Although it is cold, the sun is still making the snow settle Trgn; The seas were inundating vast areas of land rš; The sludge settled out by wastewater-treatment facilities and other waste contain many organic and mineral substances needed by plants tsp; The results of linguistic studies cannot make us turn a blind eye (we must take an interest in them) rš. There is no intermediary subject or its action in sentences whose subject performs the action itself, for example: Those doctors cut and operate on another person Šts. The lexicographic differentiation of curative and causative verbs would be greatly facilitated if lexicographers (a) indicated a subject that is known from context but is not expressed in the sentence or is expressed only by a pronoun, and (b) clarified the situation expressed by the sentence, i.e., noted whether the sentence subject itself performs the action. 4. Conclusions. 4.1. The close relationship between curative and causative verbs is indicated not only by the insufficient differentiation of their suffixes and their derivation from transitive verbs, but also by the frequently coinciding surface structure of the sentences in which they function as predicates, and by the semantic commonality of the components at the surface level of those sentences. The characterization of the semantics of curative sentences as “an indirect, nonphysical action or influence by an initiating subject, directed at any object” coincides with the characterization of the semantics of indirect nonphysical causation sentences. 4.2. The semantic similarity at the surface level between curative sentences and only one type of causation sentence allows curative action to be regarded as semantically narrower than causation. On the other hand, curative verbs entail more complex subject–object relations at the deep (and, more rarely, surface) level of the sentence (i.e., the presence of an intermediary subject); therefore, curative sentences express a more complex situation in reality. 4.3. At the deep level, curative sentences express two situations: a) an initiating subject (a person) acts upon an intermediary subject (usually a person) through an indirect, nonphysical action, and b) the intermediary subject acts upon any object through a physical (more rarely, nonphysical) action. The components expressing the first situation are semantically close to the indirect nonphysical causation type, while those expressing the second are close to the direct physical causation type. Therefore, curative action may conditionally be called “double causation”. 4.4. The above-mentioned similarities between curative and causative sentences attest to not only synchronic but also diachronic relations between curative and causative constructions, i.e., between curative and causative verbs. 4.5. The separation of curative action from causation, i.e., of curative verbs from causative ones, was apparently associated with the adaptation of indirect nonphysical causation sentences to express a more complex situation in reality. In our view, the emergence of a second subject was made possible by the semantic properties of the initiating subject in one type of sentence and by the semantic properties of the action being undertaken in another type of sentence. 250 4.6. We suggest distinguishing curative verbs from causative verbs by relying not only on the criteria applied earlier, but also on a) differences at the deep level of sentences and b) the semantic properties of sentence components. Only those verbs that are maximally distinct from causatives should be considered curative, that is, those that condition more complex subject–object relations at the deep or surface level of a sentence and most strongly constrain the semantics of sentence components. SEMANTICS OF CURATIVE VERBS S u m m a r y The article examines curative verbs in Lithuanian from the perspective of the semantic properties of the sentences whose predicates they are. Two significant properties of curative verbs in comparison with causative verbs are established: 1) they impose greater semantic restrictions on the components of the surface level of the sentence, corresponding to the predicates of sentences expressing only one type of causation—indirect non-physical causation; 2) they give rise to more complex subject–object relations at the deep (and, more rarely, surface) level of the sentence; that is, they involve an intermediary subject who performs an action supervised by the initiating subject. It is suggested that curative verbs originated from causative verbs through the adaptation of sentences expressing indirect non-physical causation to express more complex relations in reality, a process facilitated by changes in the semantic properties of certain sentence components.