Veiksmažodžių valentingumo klausimu

GRAMMATICS CATEGORIES IR JŲ RAIDA LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS XVIII (1978) N. SLIŽIENĖ VERBS VALENTINGUMO QUESTION The verb of all iš parts of speech is especially distinguished by its constructive characteristics. Due to the fact to that in recent times many linguists consider it to be the center of the sentence, organizing the other words of the sentence, Abramov, having divided all the powers of word B. union intocentrical, showing the dependence of one word on another, excentric, į showing the dominance of one word over another, noted that the verb is the only one ir that in the sentence has only excentric powers (A6paMOB 1966). Ta The verb’s ability to join other words to itself has recently been increasingly referred to as the verb’s valency, although linguists are not yet unanimous about the extent of this phenomenon. ir In this article, we will try to outline the main concepts of valency researchers to indicate their views ir on this issue. The main focus will be on verb valency studies. 1. IŠ The term “valentine” is taken from chemistry and is used to describe certain iš connective ir powers of words. In linguistics the jį first began to use L. Tesniere, one of the most prominent creators of the valence theory (1934; 1953; 1959). L. Tesniere spoke only of the valency of the verb as the center of the sentence. He compared the verb group to a small drama, in su which the process, the actor, certain circumstances can be distinguished. In the ir structural syntax plan, this is a verb, participants in the action — (actants) ir circumstances (circumstances) (Tesniere 1959 : 102—29), Actants participate in the action regardless of their activity, for example in a sentence Alfred gives the book to Charles The actors, be Alfred, are ir Charles and the book. The number of participants is limited. The ability of the verb to connect a certain number of rą actants L. Tesniere compared the su valence of an atom to its ir valency. no According to the number of actants, he divided all verbs into avalent į (without actants), single-valent (with one actant), bivalents (with two actants) trivalent ir (with three actors) (Tesniere 1959 : 238 — 82). Actantais L. Tesniere considered only nouns or equivalents, and only three verbs: the jų subject noun, be the object suffix, and the noun. jų ir Everything else to him — circumstances (circonstants) of which the number is unlimited which are expressed ir by adverbs or equivalents. jų L. Tesniere ignored the fact that these ir so-called jo circumstances are sometimes necessary for the verb, and did not take them into account when classifying verbs. į « Today, valentine is understood much more broadly. It is only about ne the valency of the verb, but about the valency of the noun, ir adjective, adverb (Sommerfeldt 1971; Sommerfeldt — Schreiber 1974; 1975; Bondzio 1971 : 90— 1). Soviet linguistics refers to external internal valency; the latter is determined in the part-of-word level (CrenanoBa ir 1973 : 31—61). However, both Soviet and 107 foreign linguists focus mainly on the valence of the verb, since it has a decisive effect on the structure of the sentence. Especially much has been done in this area by German linguists!. Recently, interest has also been shown in the valency of Lithuanian verbs (T'enromene 1970; Geniušienė 1971). Although a lot has been written about the valency of verbs, there is still no unanimous opinion as to what should be considered as it, what are its limits, to which level it belongs, and in such circumstances there can be no question of a single definition acceptable to all. 1.1. Understanding the extent of valence 1.1.1. Some linguists tend to consider the grammatical connections of a verb with all the words dependent on it, i.e., what is also called the verb’s ability to join (,,coueratesbHasi CIocoOHOcTs“, „Fūgungspotenz“), as valency. For example, S. Kacnelson, who was the first to use the term valency in Soviet linguistics, defined this phenomenon in general as “the property of words to be realized in a certain way in a sentence and to enter into certain combinations with other words” (Kannenbcox 1948: 132)2. This is not only the subjective and objective, but also the circumstantial relationships of the verb with other words. Such a large number of conjunctions cannot be relevant for the syntactic classification of verbs. For example, many circumstantial indications can be found at almost every verb (yesterday went, ate, thought, rained, installed, worked, etc.)?. In this broad sense of valence, verbs are usually classified only according to the so-called necessary or obligatory valence. Only those verb connections with other words, the realization of which is sufficient for the sentence to be grammatical, are considered necessary valency. All other potential verb connections are considered optional valence. However, the boundaries between the necessary and the optional valence are often unclear, because they identify two criteria that are not entirely coincident. It is said that the necessary surrounding is determined by the verb itself, that it is required by the semantics of the verb, and the optional surrounding is only potential (ITouenios 1969: 66—9; Pocheptsov 1970: 867; Geniušienė 1971: 8). On the other hand, it is asserted that the necessary valency is always realized in the sentence, that the necessary verb surrounding forms the necessary minimum of the verb sentence, and without including any required form, the entire syntactic construction is incomplete; whereas the optional elements are irregular, can join almost every verb, and without them the syntactic construction loses neither semantic nor pie) rinis completeness (Anon 1958: 113; IlouenuoB 1969: 69; Geniušienė 1971: Jlefikuna 1961: 11; BoaawipeBa 1970:: 20; VlBanumkoBa 1965: 85-6). Right! The syntactic surrounding determined by the meaning of the S lksmaword is not fully realized in all cases, some of its elements may remain unrealized, and neither the meaning nor the structure of the construction suffers from this. For example, very often in syntactic constructions there is no instrumental noun, and therefore it is even considered optional (Geniušienė 1971: 12). In 1969, GDR linguists were the first to prepare and publish a dictionary of German verb valencies (Helbig-Schenkel 1969). In 1973, the second, expanded and improved edition of this dictionary was published. edition repeated in 1975 (Helbig-Schenkel 1973; 1975). In addition, they have prepared a publication specifically devoted to valency issues, see: : Contributions to the theory of valence. Halle (Saale), 1971. 2 Similarly, valency was defined by E. Geniušienė: “Valency of a verb is its ability to connect with a noun, an adjective and other parts of speech” (Geniušienė 1971: 8). 3 »sThe diagnostic power of environmental positions is small, and in many cases practically zero. These positions can be included in the “distributive formula of verbs” of the most diverse classes,” writes J. Fomenko (Pomenko 1975: 6). On the other hand: “From the whole verb encirclement only those members are relevant that constitute the necessary verb distribution, especially those whose presence in the sentence is required by the semantics of the verb” (Pocheptsov 1970: 867). 108 meaning of real verbs (air su tractor, knife, stick su etc.). su it Be therefore, ir this adverb sometimes has a meaning for the syntactic classification of verbs. For example, in a sentence, although it (1) may be omitted, it ir indicates a different syntactic use of the verb to distract in a different meaning than in a sentence where it is not ir needed. (2) (1) The tail of the mussel is blunt. (2) Merga blaško (fucking) flour bags. | Similarly, prepositional ir constructions in the (3) ir (4) sentence could be omitted, ir be jų sentences do not cease to be grammatical, but are determined by the verb meaning; they even indicate different meanings of the verb džiauti: (3) Mother was drying her clothes on a rope. (4) Ji dried people's iš money, clothes other things. The necessary ir determinants of the verb susiginčti E. Geniušienė (1971 :13) considers only the noun construction ir dé/ originator, but the + meaning of this verb presupposes the realization of the contraction, for example, ir su + adjutant (argue — what? su What? For what? ). Also, the verb to tell ir determines only the agent noun prepositional ne construction of the content ir meaning (about the + recipient), but the ir recipient's beneficiary (tells — what? Where? About what? ). Thus, we see that the imperative environment of the verb, determined by the determining power, the imperative environment, į jo distinguished on the basis of its ir necessary syntactic realization, does not coincide. Iš where there may therefore be clear boundaries between the necessary optional ir valence. 1.1.2. Other linguists consider only those conjugation potentials that are implied by the verb's meaning that are relevant to the syntactic classification ir of verbs to be verb valence. For example, Helbig, who perhaps wrote mostly about the valency of G. verbs, described the phenomenon as the ability of the verb to šį (Fahigkeit) to open to yourself a certain ‘vacant seats’ to be filled by compulsory or optional partners (Mitspieler) (Helbig— Thigh 1975 : 49). Those constituents of the sentence that join the verb, but do not occupy the existing jo “free spaces”, G. referred to by Helbigo as free instructions (free Angaben). For example, the verb wohnen “to live” requires a place, sterben o “die” does jo not require, cf.: wohnte Er in Dresden: Er died in Dresden (Helbig—Schinkel 1975 : 38). G. Helbig determines the valent partners of the verb based on the deep structure of the sentence: it contains the necessary optional partners, but ir no free instructions. When analyzing the sentence, he distinguishes The constituents that correspond to the arguments of the logical — predicate are the partners of the verb. Those constituents that can be treated as potential independent predicates are considered free instructions. For example, a sentence Die Children bathed an the Spree G. Easy to decompose į Die Children were bathing ir Das Baden war (happenean d) the Spree, i.e., the location indication, does not enter the į predicate structure of the verb baden as an argument. O sentence Berlin lies the an Spree doesn't seem to be so decomposed, because ną it corresponds to the middle-class predicate R (a, (Helbig b) 1971 b: 274). To distinguish ir mandatory optional partners G. Helbig uses the transformation of elimination of elements of the external structure of the sentence (constituents): optional partners can be omitted, the sentence is grammatical because it has not ir ceased to be grammatical, the to necessary partners cannot be omitted. o These G. Helbig's criteria are interesting and worth considering, ir but the problem is that the first one, which requires a clear understanding of the deep structure, is difficult to use. The concept of deep structure in linguistics is not yet very clear in general, o G. Helbig still ją understands it in his own way, considering it some kind of “auxiliary syntactic layer”, which is close to the logical structure (1971b : 274) ir which differs from the deep structure of generative grammar in even greater abstraction universality ir (1969 : 162). 109 1.2. Three levels of valence and three concepts of valence researchers Currently, the question of which level of valence relations belongs to is a topical and much discussed one. Uncertainties arose due to the fault of the pioneer of the valence theory, L. Tesniere, who left this matter unexplained and also, as W. Bandzio (1971: 88) has pointed out, confused the different levels, identifying the actants belonging to the semantic-logical level and the verb-constituents belonging to the grammatical level. Now the question is usually posed as follows: is valence a formal or an abstract category, and whether it belongs to the level of expression or content (Helbig 1971b: 279; Helbig—Schenkel 1975: 63). If it is a formal category, it can be studied in each individual language as a specific phenomenon, and if it is abstract, it is universal and can be described by means of relational logic. 1.2.1. Helbig speaks separately of logical, semantic and syntactic valence, which are determined in the respective terms and reflect the relationship between reality, consciousness and language (Helbig 1971b: 280; Helbig—Schenkel 1975: 65—6). Logical valence — the circumstances of reality, formulated as statement structures, i.e. as predicates with a few free places; The operators of the statement are usually considered verbs, and the arguments of the logical predicate — nouns, but the most important is not this linguistic realization, but the fact that we are talking about a logical predicate with a certain number of arguments. Logical valentia is non-verbal, that is, universal. Semantic valence is the requirement of verbs for certain contextual partners with certain distinctive characteristics of meaning and the inability to have partners with other characteristics of meaning. Thus, G. Helbig considers the semantic valence as selective restrictions, which are regulated by the semantic inter-coordination of the verb and its partners. The semantic valence is understood by G. Helbig more broadly than the logical and, as we will see later, the syntactic valence. Logical and syntactic valence includes only the relationships of the verb and its partners, and semantic includes also the relationships of the verb with free instructions; The latter, according to Helbig, “can be freely added and subtracted syntactically, and are limited only by semantic valence” (Helbig 1971b: 280). Other authors define semantic valency more narrowly. For example, W. Flamig (1971: 109) describes it as follows:,,The semantic valence of the actionZodZi regulates the filling of free spaces with classes of semantically motivated partners, i.e., verbs require partners — words with certain distinctive characteristics of meaning according to the relevant role in real circumstances: agent, patient, product, starting or ending point, place… The appropriate partner — word is chosen on the basis of semantic mutual coordination of the verb and its complements, which in turn is motivated by the structure of real circumstances”. The semantic valence understood in this way is not different in scope from the logical and syntactic valence. G. Helbig describes syntactic valence as mandatory or optional filling of empty spaces; the number and nature of places as required by the verb in each individual language. Helbig emphasizes that these relations, although closely related to each other, are not identical and cannot be isomorphically represented as going one after the other, because not all abstract relations are realized equally in language, let alone their realization in different languages. For example, the verbs helfen "to help" and unterstitzen "to support". p.“ assumes the same abstract logical relation that can be written as R(a, b), but the argument b is syntactically realized differently (/elfen requires a beneficiary, and unterstiitzen — a beneficiary). Special rules for transferring from one layer to another are required, but they would be very complicated, and therefore no one has yet created them (Helbig 1969: 167; 1971 a: 43; Helbig—Schenkel 1975: 100). 68 —9). Therefore, G. Helbig examines valency as a formal phenomenon on the level of expression, specific to each individual language. Its starting point is verb relations with other words in the external structure of the sentence, but the 110 criterion for determining valency still looks in the deep structure jų (Helbig 1971b : 273—4). 1.2.2. There's a iš whole other side to this thing W. Bondzio ir W. Flourish. They take the actual meaning of the word as their starting point and see ir the basis of valency in the logical realm (Bondzio 1969; 1971 : 88—95; Flamig 1971 : 107—11). The constructive role of the verb in the sentence corresponds to the role of the logical predicate in the proposition function, which consists of the logical predicate ir jo free space, E.g. : sleep, back x x y. The function of statements is to record the circumstances of reality reflected in consciousness as thought structures. Real circumstances in the logical sense are individuals and their characteristics — (properties or relationships). Iš the function of the ar statement to be seen, reflecting the property of the individual, e.g., P(x), t. y. x has a feature P (Gold shines), ar the relationship between R individuals, e.g., (x,y) i.e. x has relation R suy (Peter isko Paulius). In the first case, the predicate is single, in the second — double. The logical relationships in the statement structure correspond to the semantic relationships in the sentence structure. Therefore, the structures of statements are a kind of intermediate auxiliary constructions that help to connect the circumstances of reality reflected in the sentence in the consciousness, ir although both systems are not entirely unambiguous in their derivation from each other. ir iš W. Flaminius (1971 : 110) described his concept of valency in a three-level scheme. On the basis of the circumstances of reality reflected in consciousness, logical (thought) structures are formed, which are represented by the predicate ir jo arguments. Next are the semantic structures. They are represented by the relationship of semantic mutual coordination of words, taking into account į certain roles in real circumstances. The third level is syntactic structures, which are represented by — hierarchical relationships between sentence constituents. Logical structures belong to the abstract non-verbal sub-level, semantic syntactic structures to specific o language ir sub-levels. Abstract — relationship structures in the logical domain form the basis of word valence. The number of free places depends on the abstract content of the predicate, in terms of the valency of the verb from the content of the verb. — W. In Bondzi’s words, “having valency” means first of all that the linguistic expression, on the basis of its abstract content, has free spaces in the sense of the logic of relations. (1969 : 234—5). Thus, the starting point must be the actual meaning of the word, valency is a property of meaning and, as such, is o characteristic only of verbs, but not of other parts of speech ne ir (plg. but Bondzio 1971 : 89). Similar ir K. E. Sommerfeldtas su H. Schreiberiu (1974 : 15) valency defines as the iš meaning-derived capacity of a word to join with other words. If we su consider logical structures as the basis of valency, the question of how to move from the abstract logical to the concrete linguistic level naturally arises. Pats W. Flamig noted (1971 : 111) that hypothetical valence models always coincide with ne specific sentence structures. su Some models, it turns out, can be reduced. Šį phenomenon based on Ch. F. Hockett, W. Flaumig explains it like this. The valence of a morpheme may remain unsaturated, then it o encompasses the context of the ir situation daB dann das (,,... Morphem seine Valens in den Situational context extend“). Unoccupied spaces in specific sentences are perceived as context economy, constituents being o considered known in the whole ir context as a presumption. The number of free spaces, as a phenomenon of the logical subspace, does not depend on the fact that they are filled with specific words in the outer ar subspace, no, because abstract valence models are represented in ar each case by complete structures. When they do not correspond to the linguistic realization, in the opinion of Flimig, one can speak of optional jų reduction, but of optional ne valence of the optional fills of the empty spaces. ar This approach is based on a iš purely logical understanding of valency. Speaking about the realization of abstract valence models, Bondzio W. (1969 : 236—9; 1971 : 95—100) suggests as some ir transfer of one level to iš another rules, but į you have to agree su G. Unfortunately, they are far from sufficient for this purpose. When filling in blanks, it is not enough to know the valency of the word — 111 the possessor's —nature and grammatical form. W. Bondzio also emphasizes the need to consider the possibility of filling variants, when the same abstract relational structure corresponds not to one, but to, say, two linguistic realizations, but it is not clear how to predict this based on the logical level. It is true that at one point Bondzio suggested that the results of the meaning analysis could be compared with language practice or that the analysis of the vacant spaces could be started from the linguistic usage in order to determine which constituents occupy the vacant spaces (Bondzio 1969: 238), but he did not further develop or specify these ideas. 1.2.3. J. Apresiano’s concept of valency is also close to W. Bondzi’s and W. Flūmig’s views, but his approach is more semantic- *. His focus is on the meaning of the word and the semantic valencies that derive from it, which enable him to join syntactically dependent words (Anpecan 1974: 119 et al.). The number of semantic valentness of the word coincides with the number of participants in the situation it denotes. In analyzing the situation, Apresian uses the means of logic and represents it as a composite predicate. He divides the complex predicates into simpler ones and then determines the total number of valences of those predicates. For example, the author of the verb co-induced describes the situation as follows: Person A causes person B to know fact C. The predicate in co-induced is divided into two simpler predicates to cause and to know, for which the valency B is common. Therefore, there are three valences, and coobwjams is a trivalent verb (1974: 122)°. Such determination of the number of valences is well-motivated from a semantic point of view, but it must be said that it is far from easy to denote the situation of each word (for example, of each verb) and to break down the corresponding compound predicate. Perhaps this will become possible when semantic research reaches the appropriate level. By analyzing the situation of a word, Apresian determines not only the number of its semantic valences, but also their nature (the meanings of subject, object, addressee, counterpart, instrument, etc.). Having these data, he forms a management model that reflects the possibilities of morphological realization of valences. The control model must record all possible ways of morphological expression of each semantic valence, for example, the valence of the content (i.e. explanatory) meaning of the verb Hadeamscs can be realized by a secondary sentence (naderoce, umo ycnetuiko oKOH4Y Yykueepcumem) or a prepositional construction (naderoce Ha Yycnewrnoe OKOH4UaHue Yykueepcumema) (1974: 143). The same semantic valencies of different words are realized even more differently, e.g. the realization of instruments: pesams HONCOM, npbizamo Cc napaturomoM, CIMPEASiMb U3 PYNCoS, Kypumo mpyoKy, npoyedums 4uepe3 mapa, mepemo Ha mepke (1974: 146). Finally, the semantic valence of some words is not realized at all, for example, the number of valence of the verb pas6urmosamo is the same as that of 3a60urmosamo, but one of them remains unrealized, cf. 3a0uxmosamo pyky mapaeil, but pas6uxmosamo pyxy (1974: 147). It is hardly possible to predict all of this variety of morphological realizations in a management model based on the meaning of words and the semantic valencies resulting from it and based solely on language skills. Similarly as G. Helbig speaks of necessary and optional syntactic valence, J. Apresian (1974: 149 et seq.) speaks of syntactic necessity and optionality of valence, determined in the sentence by elimination. He relates these phenomena to the content and morphological expression of valence and points out, for example, that subject4 J. Apresian investigates valence only to the extent necessary for his semantic studies. Valentinism interests him as a kind of auxiliary tool to help describe the semantic meanings of words. 5 W. Bondzio (1971: 92—4) also proposes a similar division of the meanings of words. For example, he breaks down the meaning of the verb to give as follows: A does so that B has C. This expression he writes as the functionor structure A does: B has C. In cases where an object appears as a result of an action, the functionor structure is A does: B is (exists), when the object changes as a result of the action —* A does: B has the property e or A does: B is e. 112 toir object valencies are syntactically necessary more often than the place of the instrument, twice as often ir as the time of o the cause, to, — pure verbs are more often necessary ir than be prepositional constructions. However, the most important thing is that any valency can be syntactically necessary for some words, optional for others. — Unlike other researchers, Apresian, to, still speaks of J. the semantic be necessity of the optionality of the valences ir (1974 : 124—5). Some valences seem very possible, although semantically absolutely necessary, for example, ne the purpose valence to the verbs of oriented movement (go eating, run shopping). In determining the word’s valency structure, it is proposed to take into į account such valencies, but at the same time to discuss their semantic facultativeness. 1.2.4. Iš discussed concepts highlight three approaches to verb valence: į syntactic, logical semantic. ir G. For Helbig, the most important are the verb's relations with su other words in the syntactic, external context. Į valenting he sees as a practitioner who needs to define the context of use of each verb, t. y. indicate the su classes of words and the forms in ir which the jų verb is used in the sentence, as well as indicate which partners are necessary and which jo are optional. o All these instructions are very useful for the formation of regular sentence ir patterns, especially useful when learning foreign languages. G. Helbig does not attempt to answer į the question why a verb requires some forms of words and not others, what ir determines the number of available free places, jo in other words, what forms the basis of valency. Šį the mą questioner leaves aside, although he acknowledgir es that in many cases there is nevertheless a direct relationship between the meaning of valence, that valence distributional relations in ir general are a reflection of semantic ir phenomena. For example, to the majority of the verbs that signify giving a message have ir the ide. in the language family are trivalents, because they presuppose the giver (speaker) in their content, ką although given (communicair ted) ir recipient semantically requires the agent, ir object goal. Finally, semantic relations can be described structurally tangibly and formally ir through valence distributional relations (Helbig-Schenkel 1975: 60). On the other hand, G. Helbig’s deep structure still seems very close to the logical level (if any). ne su Thus, with su certain reservations, it can be said that he sees the basis of valency in the ir abstract logical domain, and associates its realization with the specific domains of language. J. Apresian sees valentness in the same way as a practitioner, only his goal is different — not syntax, but semantics. Since the valent properties of a word are derived from its lexical meaning, it is possible to describe the meaning of a word semantically by knowing the valent model. W. Bondzi and W. Flimig are more concerned with what constitutes the basis of valency, they try to answer the question why a verb (or any other word, because valency is not only a verb feature) has ti jo a certain number of free spaces, which must be filled with the corresponding word forms. However, with the main focus on the construction of hypothetical models of valency based on the meaning of words, the questions of syntactic realization seem to be sidelined by Bondzi and Flamig. Thus, according to all three above mentioned concepts (logical, semantic and syntactic), valence is perceived approximately the same: the same scope, the same assumptions of existence, but different attitudes to it, and therefore, of course, different definitions. ir | 2. WHAT IS THE VALIDITY OF VERBS, HOW DOES IT IMPORTANT CHARACTERISTICS BRUO ZAI 2.1 When examining the valence of verbs, the first question arises as to what its scope should be: does it include all possible connections of the verb with other words, or only those that are implied by the meaning of the verb. It has already been pointed out that the broad understanding of valency has little practical use 8. Grammatical categories and their development 113 (see 1. 1. 1.), and it has no general theoretical basis. The potentials of conjunction, having a subclassificating meaning, and the purely grammatical capacity of the verb to connect other words and forms, which is characteristic of verbs in general, are combined into one ju (plg. Anpecsn 1974 : 120). The realization of all the potentials of the verb jo creates an environment of syntactic use, or distribution, which is usually described as a set of surroundings (contexts) in which one or another linguistic element can go, opposed to those surroundings in which it cannot go (AxmManosa 1966 : 137)*. Thus, it would seem more appropriate, when speaking about the valence of the verb, to limit ourselves to those conjugation potentials that derive from the meanings of the verb. 2.2 Each of the three concepts of valence mentioned above emphasizes one side of valence — logical, semantic or syntactic. However, by making one of them an absolute, the others are not given sufficient attention. Therefore, the idea arises that valency should be studied as a multi-layered phenomenon, whose basis is in the abstract domain, and the realization — in the concrete linguistic domains." It is not possible to talk about logical, semantic and syntactic valence in isolation, because they are different sides of the same phenomenon, forming a dialectic unity. If we study valence only as a syntactic phenomenon, we will not be able to determine the number of free places of the verb, and thus the number of partners, if we study it only as a logical or semantic phenomenon, we will not have a clear picture of its linguistic realization. It is necessary to investigate valence in all three dimensions." Since not only the number of arguments of the predicate, but also their semantic meanings (of the agent, patient, addressee, instrument, etc.) are relevant to the valence, it seems appropriate to talk about an abstract logical-semantic domain, in which the number of free places of the verb as a predicate and their semantic content are determined. In a specific semantic domain of language, classes of semantically motivated words or even individual words are identified, which can, as partners, occupy the free places of the verb. The syntactic part of the language determines the morphological form of the verb partners, and it is only in this part that the necessary and optional partners are distinguished. 3. DETERMINATION OF THE VALIDITY OF VERBS 3.1 Since the valence of the verbs only includes the potentials of conjunction derived from the meaning, the researcher’s starting point must therefore be the meaning of the verbs. Each verb denotes a certain situation in which a certain number of members of a defined meaning are involved – the participants in the situation, or the actors. For example, the verb to cut "to separate a part by cutting with a sharp object" denotes a situation in which three actants must necessarily participate: who cuts (the agent), what cuts (the subject) and with what cuts (the instrument). Thus, this situation can be recorded as a predicate with three free places: R (x, y, z). These spaces must be filled with arguments, one of which has the value of the agent, the other the value of the patient, and the third the value of the instrument. 6 G. Helbig and W. Schenkelis (1975: 50) consider the distribution to be only the morphological and semantic characteristics of verb partners, i.e. the qualitative side of valence, although at the same time, based on Z. S. Harris, they describe the distribution of a linguistic element as the sum of all the environments in which it occurs. This contradiction has already been noted by M. Stepanova (1973: 19). 7 Pig, Sommerfeldt —Schreiber 1971: 227, where it is stated that it is based on logical valence. syntactic and semantic valence. Later (1974: 21) the authors somewhat modified this idea, saying that syntactic valence is created on the basis of logical-semantic valence. 8 A similar interpretation of valency is given by W. A. Buchbinder (1971: 284), who says that valency in its essence encompasses both the logical and all three linguistic components. He distinguishes three linguistic components: grammatical, lexical-semantic and usual, which the author considers to be the specific rules of word association used as the basis of the “sense of language”. 114 In a particular language context, the predicate is a verb, and the arguments are words or constructions of a certain form, the meaning of which corresponds to the above-mentioned meanings of the agent, patient and instrument, and which semantically agree with the meaning of the verb. Since the situation involves an instrument, the role of the agent is played by a person; patient —objects that can be cut, and the role of the instrument is usually played by a knife, saw, axe, certain machines, etc. Thus, the verb to cut has three associated nouns — (or jų equivalents) which, when used in the appropriate forms, one denotes the acting person and has the meaning of the agent, the other denotes the acting object and has the meaning of the patient, and the third denotes the object with which the action is performed, has the meaning of the su instrument. Based on our knowledge of ir the language, we can create the appropriate syntactic implementations: (5) Father mowing hay (with) dagger. (6) Kolkhoz workers harvesting cereals (with) combines. We check, all ar verb partners are necessary: (5a) Father cuts the hay. (5b) *Father cuts (with) dagger. (5c) *Father is reaping. (5d) * Cutting hay (with) dagger. (6a) The kolkhoz workers are harvesting grain. (6b) *Collectivists are cutting (with) combines. (6c) *The farmers are cutting. (6d) *Pjauna javus (with) combines. We see that the noun instrument conjunct, alone or with a prefix with, can be omitted, su because the sentences do not cease to be grammatical, ir thus this to partner of the verb cut is optional. Omitting the noun of the actor and the ending of the subject makes sentences incomplete ar (such sentences are only possible in a broader context, when the things they are silent about have been mentioned before or are well known to the conversation participants). In some cases, when there is no noun of the agent, the verb endings indicate the agent (plg. Kommuanckuit 1965 : 173 tt. ), e.g. : When will you mow the rye? ; Pjauk, ko stand up; Yesterday we cut the hay until dark; In the past, they used to cut rye with sickles (the character su is generalized). Thus, the syntactic model of valence of the verb to cut in this case can be represented by the formula S,VS, (S; withS;)?, where / the optional partner is in brackets. The optional member can be į either a noun noun, or a noun with a prefix with. The sign | denotes the alternation of these forms. However, other implementations of the verb to cut are possible, e.g. : ir (7) The combine not only cuts the grain, but also cuts. Here the noun has an agent ne (t. y. actor who performs the action on his own initiative), but the meaning of the instrument, and in this case the agent in the sentence can no longer be li realized (plg. Fillmore 1969a), the ir valence of the verb to cut is syntactically realized according to the model S„VS,. Here, the interrelationship and conditionality of semantic and syntactic valence becomes particularly clear. The syntactic realization of the verb depends on the semantic meaning of the required denominator. jo When the verb pjauti means the ability of the object to cut, sharpness, it is usually used only with one partner — the noun, but the suffix is also completely possible, because it is impossible to imagine the cutting situation of the cutting object be (plg. Anpecsin 1974 : 149). (8) Does your scythe still cut? (9) This saw also cuts the oak. * The following symbols are used in S — formulas: noun (or jo equivalent), n — denominator, g — the d — originator, the beneficiary, a — crewman, i — lieutenant, lieutenant-- — colonel, lieutenant-colonel, il — iliative, PSrec prepositional: — construction, have directional meaning, pSyoc prepositional — construction, have place meaning, etc. ir gi 115 Pocheptsov G. G. Constructional Analysis of Sentence Structure. —In: Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Linguists. T. II. Bucharest, 1970, pp. 865-9. Sommerfeldt K. E. On the Valence of the Adjective. —,,German as a Foreign Language“, 1971, Hf. 2, pp. 113–117. Schreiber H., Sommerfeldt K. E., Schreiber H., Sommerfeldt K. E. (2006). —,,German as a Foreign Language“, 1971, Hf. 4, pp. 227–231. Sommerfeldt K. E., Schreiber H. Dictionary of German Adjectives. Leipzig, 1974. Sommerfeldt K. E., Schreiber H. A Dictionary of the Valence and Distribution of Nouns. —“German as a Foreign Language®, 1975, Vol. 2, pp. 112–119. Tesniėre L. How to build a syntax. —In: Bulletin de la Faculté des lettres a Strasbourg, 1953, pp. 13-14. —In: Bulletin de la Faculté des lettres a Strasbourg, 1953, 1934. pp. 13-14. Tesniére L. Elements of structural syntax. Paris, 1959. A6pamoB B. A. CHHTaKcHueCKHe NOTEHUHH IJIaroja (B COMOCTABJIEHHH C IOTEHUKHSMH APYTHX vacrei ily —„Hayuxnbie pokaaanl Beicuein mkousl. OujiojiorHueckHe Hayku“, 1966, T. 3, c. 35-44. Anmonn B. I. 3aBepuieHHOCTb KOHCTPYKIHH KaK SBJIeHHe CHHTaKCHUYeCKOH ¢opmel. —,Bonpocbi f3biKo3HaHuA“, 1958, No 1, c. 111-117. Anmonu B. I. CTpyKTypHBIil Kapkac 3/1€MeHTapHOrO NPeJJIOKEeHHSI B COBPEMEHHBIX repMaHcKHX si3blkaX. —B KH. : CTPYKTYpPHO-THIOJIOTHYECKOE ONMHCAHHE COBPEMEHHBIX TEDMAHCKHX s35IKOB. M., 1966, c. 167-197. Anpecsn IO. JI. 9xcnepuMeHTaIbHOR HCCJ/IEIOBAHHE CEMAHTHKH pycckoro raaosa. M., 1967. I've been shut down. JI. It's just cement. M., 1974. AxmanoBa O. C. CioBapb JHHIBHCTHUECKHX TepMHHOB. M., 1966. Boaasipera M. M. O coueraeMocTH, AHCTPHOYUHH, BAJEHTHOCTH B CHHTAaKCHCe. —, YueHbe 3anuckH MITIHHSL. Bonpocsl pomauno- -repmarnckoit Ousiojornu“, 1970, T. 55, c. 12-23. lenomene E. III. BaneHTHOCTHBIE KJ1aCChI JIHTOBCKOIrO IJaroJia H CHCTEMa CHHTAKCHUECKHX CTpYKTyp. - B Ku. : CHHTarmMaTHKa, NapajHrMaTHKa H HX B3aHMO/CHCTBHE Ha yPOBHE CHHTakcuca. Marepuajibi konepenuuuu. Pura, 1970, c. 58—60. HsBanunkroBa E. A. O ctpykTypHOii gakyjibTaTHBHOCTH H CTPYKTYDPHOMH 0053aTe/IbHOCTH B CHHTakcHce. —,Bonpochl s3biko3HaHHs“, 1965, No 5, c. 84-94. Kaunneascon C. JĮ. About the mother of Huecki Kateropun. —,Bectuuk JITY “, 1948, No 2, c. 114 —134. 1999. pp. 351. "I. B. Jloruka u ctpykrypa si351Ka". M., 1965. Jlefixuna B. M. Hekoropbie acnekThi XapakTepHCTHKH BaJjeHTHocTeil. —„JloKJiajibi HA KOHĖepenuHH 110 o6paGoTKe HH(OPMAIUHH, MAIIHHHOMY TEPeBOJY H aBTOMATHYECKOMY 4TEHHIO Tekcra", 1961, Boom. 5. ITouenuos I. I. O npuHnMnax cHHTarMaTHYeCKOil KJjaccHpuKauuu ruaarosnos. "Hayunbie JWOKJIAJIbi BbICINeH LIKOJIbI. Punosornueckne HaykKu“, 1969, No 3, c. 65—76. CrenanoBa M. JĮ. Teopusi BaJ€HTHOCTH H BaJIGHTHBIH anajiu3. M., 1973. I mentioned IO. B. I'arosnl nciXuYeckoro BO3JEHCTBHS B PyCCKOM si35IKe. - B ku. : Bonpocsi TEOpHH little sisbika. Hosocu6upcek, 1975, c. 3—22. I'm copying it. HIM. O ¢aky/bTaTHBHOCTH H OGO; 3aTEJIbHOCTH KOMIOHEHTOB CHHTAKCHUECKOIl CTpYKTYpE, —B kn. : Bonpocki chHrTaKcHca pycckoro si35bika. PocroB-Ha- -/Įoty, 1973, c. 3—10. H. IUC)XEHE K BOIPOCY O TMmIATMJIbHOHK BAJIEHTHOCTH Pe3rome Ha ocnoBe ananu3a Tpex CyUeCTBYIOIHX KOHUENIHH BaJEHTHOCTH, a HMEHHO: JIOTHUECKOK, CEMAHTHYECKOH H CHHTAaKCHYeCKOii, MpPeACTABHTEJSAMH KOTOPHIX SBJSIOTCS COOTBETCTBEHHO B. Bouasuo c B. ®asmurom, IO. I. Anpecan nu T. Xess6nr, B crarbe je/iaerTcs BHIBOJ, uTO pasJIAUHSA MEXJĮY HHMH COCTOSIT TOJIbKO B HHTepIIpeTaLHH BaJIEHTHOCTH, a CYUIHOCTb 3TOTO 1BJIEHHSI HMH TIOHHMaeTrcsi OjfHHAKOBO. Kaas KOHILETIOHS BbiJIBAraeT BIIepejį OJĮHY CTOPOHY BaJIEHTHOCTH —JIOTHYECKYIO, CeMAHTHUSeCKYIO HJH CHHTaKCHYeCKYyl0 —H HejooneHHBaeT Ąpyrue. [losTOMY aBTOpPY I0Ka3aJioCh BO3MOXKHBIM H IlEJIECOOGpa3HbIM 3TH KOHUENUHH OObeJKHHHTb, H TJaTOJIbHYIO BaJIGHTHOCTb pacCMaTpHBaTb Ha BCEX TpeX ypPOBHSX —aGCTPAKTHOM JIOTHKO-CEMaHTHYEeCKOM H KOHKPETHBIX $I3bIKOBbIX CEMaHTHYECKOM H CHHTAKCHYeCKOM, TaK Kak BCE 3TH CTOPOHBI BaJICHTHOCTH 06pa3yloT AHajieKTHueckoe efnHcTBO. OCHOBA IJ1aro/IbHONH BaJEHTHOCTH HAXOAHTCS Ha aGCTPAaKTHOM, a €e PeaJH3aUHs —Ha KOHKPeTHHX ypoBHsX. Ha a6cTpakTHOM JIOTHKO-CeMAHTHYECKOM YPOBHE C IIOMOIIbIO IIpejįHKATHbIX CTPYKTYP YCTaHABJIHBAETCS UKHCJIO CBOGOJĮHbIX MECT nNpH rJiarojie H ONpeAensioTcss CeMaHTHYECKHe 3HAYeHHS! HX NOTeHIHAJbHBIX 3allOJIHHTEJIEH COOTBETCTBEHHO OTpPEeJIeJIEHHBIM DpOJIAM (areHTa, NaTHeHTa H T.Jl.) Yy4aCTHHKOB O603HauaeMOH rijarojoM cHTyanHH. Ha KoHKpeTHOM CHHTaKCHUECKOM Ypobhe OTpeAe]sieTcsi rpaMMaTHYecKas 122 'popMa 3ariojiKuTeJIeli CBOGOJHBIX MECT — MapTHEPOB rJIArOJIA H ycTaHaBJIHBaeTCH HX 00s3aTe/bHOCTb HJIH (aKy/IbTATHBHOCTb, A HA CEMAHTHUECKOM — JaeTchi HX CeMaHTHUECKas XapakTepHcTHKA. Takum o6pasoM, Noj BajieHTHOCTbIO TJarosa aBTOPOM MOHHMAEeTCA difference CrnocobHOCTh Ha ‘OCHOBAHHH CBOErO SHAUCHHS OTKpbITb OTpe/le/ieHHOe UHCJIO CBOGOJHBIX MECT, KOTODbIE Ha KOHKpeTHOM SISLIKOBOM YPOBHE 3arOJIHAIOTCS OG/IMIATOPHBIMH HJH (DaKyJIbTATHBHBIMH TNapTHEPAMH. "CBo60jitibie MecTa — 3TO COUETATeJbHBIE NMOTEHLHH TI/1aroJa, 06yC/IOB/IEHHBIE ETO CeMaHTHKOII, a napTHepbl — C/IOBOĒDOpMbI HJIH KOHCTPYKUHH C ONpeeJCHHBIM CEMAHTHUECKHM 3Haychhem. It's a good idea. IJ1AroJa HCXOAHON TOUKON SBJASETCS rJIarosbHoe 3HauenHe. [1arosiom o6o3nauaercsi cuTyauus AeiCTBHS, B KOTOPOH yuacTByeT onpejeJIEHHOE UHC/IO aKTAHTOB, BbINOJIHAIONMIHX OTIpeI ble eH POH. AHAJTH30M CHTYAIHH yCTAHABJIHBAETCH JIOTHKO-CEMAHTHYECKAst CTPYKTYPa Low I./iaroja, KOTOpas NOKA3biBAET UHCJIO CBOGOJIHBIX MECT TPH r.tarojie H HX CeMaHTHYECKOe COjiepxkaHne. Ha OcHOBAHHH TOTO, UTO y rpamMaTHYECKHX Highest H NPeLJIOKHBIX KOHCTDYKIKU TOKE HMeeTCs THIECKO® cookware (cM. Fillmore aGerpakTHas 1968), sioruko-cemanTHyeckas CTPYKTYpa CpPaBHHBAeTCH C KOHKDETHBHIMH CHHTaKCHUECKHMH KOHCTPYKUMSIMH, H TaKHM 06pas’oM OMNpejesisieTcsi UHCJIO H rpaMMaTHuecKasi Gopma It's a blast to be here. [IpHMEHEHHEM K CHHTAKCHUeCKOH KOHCTPYKUHH TPaHC(OPMAUKH 3JIHMHHHDOBAHHS yCTAHAB/HBAETCH MX 06S3aTeIbHOCTD HJIH haky.ibTaTHBHOCTb. TOrJla 3arikcbiBaeTC51 CHHTAKCHYECKAst MOJejb It's a big deal. - Yes, sir. Sister. y ‘GOJIIIHHCTBA TJIATOJIOB HMECTCA HeCKOJIbKO 3HAUYeHH, NIPHTOM HEKOTOPHIE€ You. IaroJbl CrnocoOHbI BbINIOJIHSTb PA3J/IHUHbIe CHTHHOKHKATHBHbIE QYHKUWH, a CHTHH(pPHKATHBHbIE Pa3/HYHS CBA3AHbI C Pas/HYHAMH CHHTAKCHYECKOTO YNOTPeGJIeHHs, y TJIaroJIOB GbiBaeT MO HECKOJBKY -MyJieil BaJICHTHOCTH. BBIABHTL ECB MINE Ba/ICHTHOCTH Section I.1 BO3MOXKHO TOJIbKO IPH HAJIHUHH J0- 'CTaTOYHOr0 MaTepHaljia, H/JIOCTPHPYIOMEro CHHTAaKCHYECKOe yrioTpeOjieHHe 3Toro rJaroJa. Hakonen, aaercsi cemanTHuecKasi XapaKTepHCTHKAa BaJeHTHOCTH, T.e. onpejeasiercsi, KaKHe CEMAaHTHYECKHE KJIaCCbI CJIOB (HJIH OT/Je/bHbIE CJIOBA) MOTYT 3aNOJIHHTH TO3HIKHH B CHHTAKCHYECKOH Mine. N. SLIZIENE ZUR QUESTION DER VALENTINE DES VERBS Summary Auf Reason for Analysis of the three existing Opinions of the Valence, namely the lcgic, «the semantic and the syntactic, is the sluff conclusion drawn, since they are only the in Interpretation of the Valence distinguish, whilst they in beings are equal. Jede opinion raises only one Page of the Valence, while the others are not fully reported. Die Author considers es for possible and zweckmiBig all three unite opinions zu and the verbal Valence on three levels, namely on zu the abstract logical-semantic level and on the concrete linguistic levels, the semantic and the syntactic, because all of them Aspects of Valence a dialectical Form a unity. Die Base of the verbal Valence insists on abstract, their Realisation but on the concrete Levels. On the abstract logical-semantic Layer is replaced with Help of the pradicative Structures that Number of Vacant positions at Verb established and the semantic Importance of potential Ergidnzungen determined in Dependence on the Role of the Components of the verbal Situation. On the concrete syntactic level becomes the grammatical Form of Players of the Verbs and their obligatory and/or optional character determined, on the semantic level will be their Meaning characterized. On these Way is understood under the Valence of Verbs seine Capacity on Reason of his Meaning a certain Number of empty um spaces around the zu earth, which on a concrete language level by compulsory or optional co-players zu are occupied.