BALTŲ KALBŲ VEIKSMAŽODŽIO TYRINĖJIMAI LIETUVOS TSR MOKSLŲ AKADEMIJA

V. AMBRAZAS

POSITIONAL PATTERNS OF THE LITHUANIAN ACCUSATIVE WITH PARTICIPLE

0.1. Although Lithuanian word order is relatively free and is not usually considered a clear indicator of syntactic function, in certain cases—for example, in distinguishing attributive and predicative word relations—it can nevertheless acquire a differentiating significance. The fact that attributive adjectives and participles in Lithuanian usually precede the word they modify makes it possible in many cases to define their function and determine their relations with other words. For example, in written language, word order alone distinguishes the attributive phrase gražus vakaras ‘a beautiful evening’ from the predicative construction vakaras gražus ‘the evening is beautiful’. Such word order apparently reflects a general tendency to use postpositionally words expressing predicative relations; on the other hand, it points to a far-advanced process of semantic differentiation in nominal constructions. In this respect, Lithuanian differs markedly from many languages in which attributive adjectives and participles, like predicative ones, usually follow the words they modify¹.

Word order also plays an important role in semi-predicative constructions, that is, constructions in which mutually related words do not form the basis of a sentence. The predominant form for expressing semi-predicative relations in Lithuanian is participles and the closely related half-participles and gerunds.

The aim of this article is to examine the relationship between word order and syntactic function in semi-predicative accusative-with-participle and accusative-with-gerund constructions (the so-called accusativus cum participio). These constructions, abundantly attested in old writings from the sixteenth century onward, have not been markedly influenced by other languages², and their development can be traced throughout the entire period of the written tradition. This makes it possible to investigate diachronically the role of word order in expressing semi-predicative relations and to consider how changes in the syntactic relations among the construction’s constituents relate to their position.

0.2. In the accusative-with-participle construction, we distinguish three main constituents: the verbal (V), nominal (N), and participial (P) constituents. All three constituents are part of the verb phrase. The nominal and participial constituents, linked to each other by a semi-predicative relation, are together subordinated to the verbal constituent. For example, in the construction matau tėvą pareinantį ‘I see my father coming home’, not only the noun tėvą ‘father’ but also the participle pareinantį ‘coming home’ is subordinated to the verb matau ‘I see’, since neither of their functions corresponds to the function of the nominal-plus-participial phrase as a whole³.

¹ Plg. J. Greenberg, Universals of Language, Cambridge (Mass.), 1966, p. 85, 100 tt. ² Žr. aut., „Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai“, XI, p. 56—57. ³ Šiuo atžvilgiu vardažodžio ir dalyvio galininko formų santykiai atitinka egzocentrinius santykius, plg. L. Bloomfield, Language, New York, 1933, p. 194; B. Bloch and G. L. Trager, Outline of Linguistic Analysis, Baltimore, 1942, p. 76; Л. С. Бархударов, Структура простого предложения современного английского языка, М., 1966, p. 39—40.

169

The order of the construction’s constituents is relevant in many cases. The position of P relative to N is particularly important. For example, we tend to interpret the construction matau pareinantį tėvą ‘I see the returning father’ differently, primarily because these constituents occur in different positions: preceding the noun, the participle is linked to it as an attribute and has no direct relation to the verb (unless, of course, context or intonation signals such a relation). A postposed participle, by contrast, is generally not subordinated to the noun but relates to it in a manner similar to a predicate (cf. matau: tėvas pareina ‘I see: father is coming home’). Thus, in this construction, the participle’s semi-predicative function is in many cases conditioned by its postposition. A similar role of position is evident in corresponding constructions in other related languages⁴.

1.1.0. In the present-day literary language, the use of the accusative with participle is already quite limited; moreover, a gerund is most often used here instead of an accusative participle. The construction is most widely attested in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century writings, where it exhibits highly varied structures and a broad range of use. Therefore, in examining the position of its constituents, it is useful first to survey the data from old writings.

Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century writings attest all six possible positional patterns of the three-constituent construction. They also contain both possible patterns of the two-constituent construction (with N unexpressed). Table 4 shows the quantitative distribution of these patterns across different texts.

The table shows that constructions with P postposed relative to N not only predominate in old writings but account for about 95% of all cases, including two-constituent ones. Thus, the participle’s postposition is a very clear indicator of its semi-predicative function.

1.1.1. Most often, in the accusative-with-participle construction, the verb comes first, followed by the noun (or pronoun) in the accusative, with the participle in third position. VNP is the principal positional pattern of this construction, attested in old writings in 84.9% of all examples. It is stylistically neutral and is not conditioned by any special features of sentence structure or broader context.

If you see the Syrians overpowering me, then come to my aid BrB I Chronicles 20, 12 (Wenn mir die Syrer zu starck werden LB)⁵. I heard that Philip had learned to write well BrP I 316. Human reason asserts/thinks that (295) this world will remain forever MT 235 – 235^a. (The teacher) shows that his teaching can easily be fulfilled and carried out (pokazuia / że náuka ich tacno może byddź wypetniona) SP II 136. His sons rise up and proclaim her blessed VEE 169³ (IRe Soene… preisen sie selig LB).

The exceptional status of this pattern is explained by more general regularities of Lithuanian word order. The position of N after V is conditioned by the postposition of the object accusative relative to the verb, characteristic of Lithuanian, while the position of P after N reflects the already-mentioned postposition of the predicative constituent.

Unlike the principal pattern, the other positional patterns are associated with certain structural and semantic features, so it is useful to discuss them separately.

⁴ Plg. D. Müller, Studies in Modern Syntax, Winterthur, 1957, p. 33, 44; B. E. Коваленко, Именные средства выражения предикации, Львов, 1969, p. 173.

⁵The article uses the same source abbreviations as the Lietuvių kalbos gramatika [Grammar of the Lithuanian Language] prepared by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature (I—1965, II—1971), except that J. Bretkūnas’s Bible (1579—1590) is designated BrB, his Postilė (1591) BrP, and his hymnal (Giesmes Duchau­nas, 1589) BrGD. The abbreviation LB designates the 1549 edition of M. Luther’s Bible (Wittemberg, Hans Lufft), while W designates the sixth edition of J. Vujek’s Mažoji postilė (1617).

170

1.1.2. NVP model, whose examples make up 5.8%, ranks second in frequency. In many examples, placing N before V is clearly motivated by the sentence structure. The nominal constituent here often consists of the accusative of the pronoun which, functioning as a connecting word in a subordinate clause and therefore introducing that clause. This function of the pronoun which altogether prevents it from occurring after the verb, for example:

Is this your son, whom you say was born blind? BrB John 9, 19. The Jews whom Ambrosius S. mentions as being such DP 456⁷. We read about King Saul, whom Scripture says reigned over Israel for two years SP I 136¹². And the first voice that I heard speaking to me like a trumpet said ChB Revelation 4, 1.

For the same reason, the form of the pronoun kas that functions as a relative pronoun is also used prepositionally, e.g.: nieko notguldinedami iżg to ką riagimę santi duszios' sawoms' naugingo (sic!) DP 512¹⁵.

In other examples representing the NVP model, the nominal constituent is likewise most often the accusative of various pronouns (especially the third-person pronoun jis). These refer to concepts mentioned in an earlier part of the sentence or in a preceding sentence, thereby linking the construction to its context. This characteristic connection between pronouns and preceding context also accounts for their more frequent preposing in accusative-with-participle constructions.

The spirit has no flesh and blood, as you see me having DP 194¹⁴ (iāko widžičie že ia mam W 330), likewise also MP 168³⁶. Then you see her, formerly poor, as though she had never possessed her own true little head SE 75²³. The spirit does not fall to anyone else, but only to the apostles of Christ; for the Evangelist says [that] the people had gathered in our house BrP II 141. Another you will find born of a lowly and poor family BrP II 276⁷.

Due to their connection with preceding context, demonstrative-pronoun phrases with nouns are also used prepositionally, e.g.:

The Lord… was saying. This woman will be pregnant… And this woman Mary, says Luke, having come from David’s house BrP I 334. Great was the shame of the woman because of her sins… not to be fruitful… Such a woman, the Jews said, was accursed by God BrP II 263. We call that man possessed by the devil in body, who… is severely tormented BrP LI 280.

N is also preposed for stylistic reasons. When placed in an unusual position, it receives greater emphasis and prominence. In verse texts, its preposing is sometimes also determined by metrical and rhyming requirements.

For he sees four men walking freely in the fire BrB Dan 3,25 (the original has a different wording: Sehe ich doch vier Männer loß im Few er gehen LB). And how Saul sees David going out against the Philistines, he says BrB I Sam 17,55 (Da aber Saul David sahe ausgehen LB). The little boy they found wrapped up and lying in a manger / not having… clothes BrP I 96. The little boy, she said, was lying there in the manger RG 184. …Who has laid us in such afflictions, you know, unable to bear them Mž 563 (GCh II).

In translated texts, N may sometimes have been moved to the beginning of the construction under the influence of the language of the originals. For example, in M. Daukša’s and the Anonymous 1600 postils, the word order in almost all examples representing the NVP model is the same as in the corresponding passages of J. Vujek’s and M. Rėjus’s postils.

⁶ Panašiai dar DP 32⁴⁸, 34³¹, 374³¹.

⁷ Panašiai dar BrP II 97, 248, I 161, 302–303 ir kt.

171

Thus, the NVP model is inverse in the old writings. It is most often conditioned by features of sentence structure and broader context, or is stylistically marked. 1.1.3. Model NPV is the third most frequent (4.2%). It is generally used when the N–P combination is to be emphasized more strongly or linked to the preceding sentence, clause, or one of its parts. The inverse nature of this model is conditioned by the previously mentioned Lithuanian tendency to place object cases or constructions after the verb.

…It is necessary to know Christ… risen. And our Lord… not having suffered corruption or decay in the earth | nor having seen destruction | But… risen from the dead | this we truly know from these Six Articles BrP II 7. And those who had done this, as the wood market, brought him BrB IV Moz 15 (Und die in drob funden hatten | da er holtz las LB). He commanded that Hetmona… come upon the earth, to make a declaration to them KN 139¹³. St. Paul… the whole fullness of the Godhead dwelling bodily in the disciple MT 27¹⁸. The error of Aristotle | and other Philosophers is rejected, | who say that the world was from eternity | and assert that it will remain eternally MT 46¹⁷.

Sometimes the NPV model is also conditioned by the verb’s relation to subsequent constructions, e.g.: People who have been ill since the beginning of the world | and are ill now | everyone knows | not only from the written account | but also from everyone’s own experience BrP II 459; this avoids a great distance between the P–N combination and V.

The connection of N, brought to the initial position, with the preceding context is also indicated by demonstrative pronouns accompanying the noun, e.g.:

But to come in a humble and beggarly manner… For this first coming | that the weary Holy Prophets would be… had foretold BrP I 8–9. Only those believe this life to be DP 584³¹ (only that life to be believed W 995). But I did not know that such a thing had been said to the Lithuanians BrP II 517.

The placement of a nominal constituent at the beginning of a construction may be conditioned by sentence structure, for example in interrogative sentences or sentences taking the form of an indirect question.

What do the crowds say that I am? BrB Luk 9, 18 (the original has a different wording: Quem me dicunt esse turbae?). And whom do you say that I am (465) ? DP 465–466 (whom do you say I am W 776). Blessed are those servants | whom the Lord, when he comes, will find watching SE 288²².

Nevertheless, when a nominal constituent is brought forward, the NVP model is more often chosen. Sometimes the NPV order is determined by the need for a symmetrical arrangement of sentence parts, e.g.: You, Maria, first did not see the Angel | nor hear him speaking | but were frightened by my coming again and again and by my speaking. BrP I 336. And the jailer, having awakened and seen the prison doors open, drew his sword ChB Apd 17, 27.

In the old writings, the NPV model is distributed very unevenly (cf.: 1% BrB, 4% BrP and 11% DP, 20% SE, 22% MT). In some cases, the higher frequency of this model can partly be explained by the influence of the source texts. For example, it is most widespread in S. Vaišnoras’s translation of “Žemčiūga” from Latin, in which postposition of the verb after accusativus cum infinitivo (as generally after object constructions) is very common. In M. Daukša’s Postilė, examples of the NPV model most often correspond in word order to constructions in the Polish original. Of course, this by no means indicates that the model is borrowed.

172

In all three models discussed so far, P follows N. Cases with a participle in preposition account for only 3.2% of all examples. They are noteworthy chiefly because the participle, which has a semi-predicative function, occupies here the position characteristic of an attributive modifier.

1.1.4. Model VPN is attested in many sixteenth- and seventeenth-century writings. Although it is rare, it is represented by constructions with participle forms of both types and various tenses.

a) He… hastily hurried to the rulers, so that they might come to him; then, wishing to receive a great reward and give gifts BrB Mak 16, 19. For when they would know themselves to possess so many wicked deeds Vln 6—7. We must likewise… receive… body and blood | as we see all true Christians doing this BrP II 414.

b) We did likewise | as here we see these tax collectors and great sinners doing BrP II 225. For some understood | that, when the people were gathered, Jesus was speaking to them SE 248₁₈.

c) By what testimony do you lead those following you toward eternal life? MT 253₁₄. Know that after nine days there will be Easter BrP Ip 356. The story tells us about the angels … always on earth… the people who will be (90) and will endure. BrP I 90—91.

d) Let us firmly believe | that all sins are truly forgiven us BrP I 263. Whoever then does not believe that forgiveness of sins is given MT 138₁₈. Hear | that through works, without merit, God’s mercifulness forgives sins MT 72₁₁.

e) Salna, having heard that Holofernes’s head had been cut off, is frightened BrB Judit 15, 1. Mahieius… writes | Porop Kristauspi brought a man suffering from a bone disease. There are ropes… about which St. Peter writes and says that evil angels or devils are bound with them (says… that those angels are bound) SP I 373₁₅.

In some cases, the participle’s semi-predicative function becomes apparent from its relation to N. For instance, in most examples in (a) and (b), the participle precedes pronouns or combinations of pronouns and nouns, with which an attributive modifier is not normally used. The semi-predicative function is also indicated here by the relation between V and N: the noun cannot be regarded as the direct object of the verb (the constructions *rašė save, *tikėtų save, *regim muitininkus, *pranešė žmones, and so on, are semantically impossible in the quoted sentences). Thus V is related here to both N and P, whereas such a relation would be impossible if there were an attributive relation between N and P. The semi-predicative function of P is entirely clear in examples where P is the participle of the verb būti ‘to be’, for example:

Further on, he teaches that in the one Godhead there are three persons. BrP II 238 Rasz tas… says that it cannot send things | adunt kas… iszmonitu SP I 210₃. But I know you to be of no small virtues KN 265₁₄. Dumok, not far from here, the army BrB Sir 7, 17—18.

Thus, in the cases mentioned, the syntactic function of preposed P remains sufficiently clear. By contrast, the position of P immediately after V makes it possible to emphasize their semantic connection more strongly and to link the actions they denote more closely. In this way, the action denoted by P, rather than its agent, is brought to the fore. In some cases, the influence of the sentence’s overall structure also becomes apparent—for instance, when a subordinate clause linked to N is present, and a postposed participle would need to be placed after it, at the end of the sentence (e.g., Kaip tatai tankei girdim kalbanczes tas szmones | kurios delei pikto kakio darbo | gadinamas ira BrP II 437), or when the use of the participle before N is prompted by material already stated and associated with that participle

173

circumstantial or object constructions (e.g.: Kristus… išchroda | ikki swieto galo busenczius bei gerus bei piktus krikschczonistie BrP I 24).

When P precedes N, which can be the direct object of V, the participle’s semi-predicative function is not clearly differentiated and usually emerges only from the meaning of the sentence (a). As in the constructions mentioned above, this can be emphasized by the fact that P is used not immediately before N, but before its pronominal modifiers (b). Sometimes the object of the action denoted by P is stated between V and P (c).

a) And immediately they will see the Son of Man in the cloud of heaven BrB Mat 24, 30 (et videbunt Filium hominis venientem). And thus Jonas S. also says: I saw hell following death (widzial piekło idące za śmiercią) SP II 42₁₅.

b) The Lord saw the coming future faults MP 179^a₁₇ (he saw the future various errors RP 121). And after returning to Jerusalem they found the gathered eleven SE84₁₈. The selection …is compared in the writing to a battle | in which you will find mentioned all kinds of weapons of war (in which you will find a mention of all manner of weaponry) SP I 13₄.

c) We must receive …his body and blood | as we see all true Christians doing this BrP II 414.

The remaining two ternary models with a preposed participle are entirely unproductive. Their relation to the VPN model is approximately the same as that of the inverse models with a postposed participle to the typical (VNP) model. Here we see a double inversion: both the participle (preposed) and the verb (final or medial) are in an inverse position.

1.1.5. The PNV model is represented in Old Lithuanian writings only by isolated constructions.

A person suffering from bone disease | we call one whose bones | legs or arms are greatly swollen BrP I 188. Should we say, “The Law is a burden to us | it is harsh”? You would not say so if it had died. So that he might find you unexpectedly, and find you sleeping ChB Mark 13, 36. Having laid us down for evil | you saw us all KN 227₂. From now on all generations will call me blessed DP 471 (₁₄they will call me blessed W 106).⁸

1.1.6. The following examples of the PVN model were found in all the texts examined:

To consider this… goodness… it would be necessary… to think and never let it leave one’s heart | as we see her doing | not only that holy King David BrP I 236. And among Christians we see countless poor people (an uncounted multitude we see | who are poor | and have nothing) SP II 210₃. If you count those, you will tell me all the families WP 141.

1.1.7. Besides the three-member constructions discussed above, two-member constructions consisting only of V and P are also sometimes found in old writings. In such cases, N is usually understood from an earlier part of the sentence, a preceding sentence, or the context. Therefore, the two-member constructions do not constitute a separate type of accusative-with-participle construction, but should be regarded as elliptical variants of the three-member models mentioned above. In them, too, the verb most often precedes the participial accusative (VP), e.g.:

And when they came to Jesus, seeing him (as noted in the margin) already dead! (he had died), they did not break his bones BrB John 19, 33. There is no promise which | …does not harm one’s neighbor, seeing him doing evil | as it sends us innocent | falsely accuses | mocks | and sins grievously in other ways SP II 53₆. You servants, know it | …as you now see

⁸Similarly DP 473₄₀, VEE 66₂₂; the word order is probably conditioned by the Latin construction beatam te dicunt.

174

advancing | Teyp wel is zwisit atánti KN 166₁₉–₂₀. Heard speaking. Not one who speaks in this way or does such things will perish, but one who believes SE 129₂₀. For when (the writing) says that Saul had been king for two years, he understood well and piously that the Lord had ruled according to God’s will SP I 136₂₃. (A person) 6. Does not know about… rejecting vmižinon complaint concerning sins | in which God sees (them) dying without punishment for them (widži Bog že vmrže bez pokuty) SP I 116₁₈.

Only in one passage in J. Bretkūnas’s Postil, already discussed by E. Tangl⁹, does the participial accusative denote an action without a clearly defined agent: Raupsais reta karta girdim Prusu szemie apsirgusi BrP I 188. From the context, only the generic noun žmogų ‘person’ can be restored here. However, this use of the participial accusative is characteristic neither of Bretkūnas nor of other sixteenth- and seventeenth-century authors. In the absence of a defined agent, constructions with converbs are more usual (see 2.1.).

Only the following five examples of two-member constructions with a preposed participle (PV) have been found in old writings:

Therefore, when we see a person dying | or dead, we shall hear, “Let us not fear God,” BrP II 411. Such perverse things should not be imputed as sins to those who …believe in Christ seated… and confess that he is truly present in the Sacrament of the Supper with his body and blood. MT (PM) 32₁₃. We do not see souls in the body | but infer from their deeds that they are there (We get into trouble for this). SP I 97₅. You would not say that the body is dead, but rather that it is sleeping, as if in God. RG 539₁₄. There, at the door, I saw her already breathing her last. RG 568—569.

In all the examples, the omitted N is readily recoverable from the same sentence, in which the concept it denotes is expressed in the accusative or another case; the ellipsis of N is explained by stylistic considerations (avoiding repetition of the same word).

1.1.8. The order of the members of the accusative-with-participle construction varies more in those sources in which this construction is less frequent and less widely used. For example, in „Knygoje Nobažnystės“, where it is relatively rare (fewer than 3 instances per author’s sheet), instances of the more usual word order are in the minority (4: 12, i.e. 25%), as is likewise the case in Vilento Enchiridion (3: 4). Even examples of the VPN model, with the participle preposed, are more numerous in „Knygoje Nobažnystės“ than those of the typical VNP model. In the hymnals of J. Richteris and S. M. Slavočinskis, inverted examples are as numerous as typical ones. The percentage of inverted constructions is also considerably higher than the overall rate in the writings of M. Daukša, M. Mažvydas, and M. Petkevičius. By contrast, in sources where the accusative-with-participle construction is widely used, the position of its members is much more stable. In J. Bretkūnas’s Postil, the VNP model accounts for 87%, and in the Bible translation for as much as 93.8% of all instances (the percentage is even higher in the translation of the Old Testament). S. Vaišnoras’s „Žemčiūga“ differs somewhat in this respect: the percentage of examples with the usual order (VNP) is below average (71%), but this is partly explained by the activity of the NPV model, associated with the influence of the Latin original. All this suggests that there is a certain relationship between the prevalence of the construction and the stability of its positional model. The more prevalent the construction, the more stable the order of its members, and vice versa. It is possible that the standardization of this construction in the literary language also positively affected the positional stability of the members of the accusative-with-participle construction.

E. Tangl, Der Accusativus und Nominativus cum Participio im Altlitauischen, Weimar, 1928, p. 47.⁹

175

1.1.9. The overview of the positional patterns discussed shows that variation in the ordering of the members of the accusative-with-participle construction is determined mainly by the construction’s relations to the sentence as a whole or to the broader context, and by stylistic considerations. Their order is not directly related to the lexical or morphological properties of the members. Therefore, in the tables summarizing the distribution of positional patterns, constructions are not further classified according to the lexical meaning of the verb or the morphological groups of the participles. Nevertheless, closer inspection reveals that with certain verbs, for example, rasti, norėti, inverted word order (especially NVP) is more frequent. For example, in S. Vaišnoras’s *Žemčiūga*, constructions with the verb norėti are mostly inverted (7 examples are NVP and only 3 are VNP). Of the 20 constructions with the verb rasti used in J. Bretkūnas’s *Postilė*, 10 have an inverted ordering of members. In J. Bretkūnas’s New Testament translation of the Bible, the percentage of corresponding inverted constructions is lower (28%), but considerably exceeds the overall figure (15%); it is similar in B. Vilentas’s *Evangelijos ir epistolos* (21%). On the other hand, it is very low in the same J. Bretkūnas’s translation of the Old Testament (about 3%). In M. Daukša’s and the Anonymous 1600 postils, inversions with the verb rasti are more frequent than with other verbs (DP — 44%, MP — 66%); however, in almost all examples the word order is the same as in the corresponding passages of the originals, and may therefore be explained by their influence. Although the data vary, they clearly indicate lower positional stability in constructions with the verbs mentioned.

In older texts, constructions in which N can be regarded as the direct object of V (most often with verbs such as matyti, regėti, išvysti, rasti, etc.) make up about 21.4% of all accusative-with-participle examples (587 out of 2748). Among them, cases with verb interposition (NVP) occur much more frequently than elsewhere (about 11%). Apparently, the still-active government relation between V and N weakened the predicative relation between N and P, thereby creating more favorable conditions for V interposition. The frequency figures for the other positional patterns differ little from the overall figures (VNP — 81%, NPV — 4%, VPN — 1.5%, PNV — 0.8%, PVN — 0.19%, and VP — 1.1%), while the proportion of all inverted constructions (9%) is also only slightly higher than the overall figure. Thus, in the 16th–17th centuries, the two types of accusative-with-participle construction were not clearly differentiated in the positions of their members.

Comparing the data from the older texts discussed here with present-day data, we see that the status of the accusative with a participle has changed considerably.

1.2.0. At present, the accusative with a participle is used in the literary language only when N can be regarded as the direct object of V. Other constructions have become archaisms and occur only in cases serving a special stylistic purpose. The domain of use of the accusative with a participle has itself also narrowed considerably (generally, belles lettres and folklore).

The positional patterns of the accusative with a participle in present-day Lithuanian were established on the basis of 1,000 examples, collected mainly from belles lettres and folklore. Table 1 shows their relative distribution.

1.2.1. A review of the present-day data first draws attention to the greatly increased productivity of constructions with a preposed participle. Here, the VPN pattern accounts for as much as 16% of all examples, compared with 2.7% in older texts; that is, it is more than five times as frequent. Here are a few of its more characteristic examples:

176

a) It was already late afternoon when Papievis saw Alena’s father coming along the path from Jakūbava VnA 18. In a very beautiful garden she saw a young man walking Lt III 290. Having gone out into the field, he could still hear the birds singing sweetly Sd (MLLG II 418). In the morning he finds the hut all dirty LKŽ I 655. Now, Jonas, go into the shop. There you will find a witch lying down Lt III 389.

b) Seeing his father greatly distressed, the son… asked Lt III 211. The father was frightened when he saw such gentlemen entering Lt III 345.

c) Seeing me get up earlier than usual, Mother asked VenciPU 47. Seeing her (the goddess of the plague) riding through the village, they ran out onto the road MLLG II 62.

Table 1

Order of the members of participial constructions in present-day language

Positional pattern

Number of constructions

%

VNP

795

79,5

VPN

140

14

NPV

10

1

NVP

50

5

VP

5

0,5

The greater productivity of the VPN model is probably related to a change in the position of the construction itself within the system of syntactic means. As the sphere of use of the accusative with a participle narrows, the ordering tendencies of its constituents are apparently increasingly influenced by attributive phrases. Since the oblique cases of participles now usually precede nouns, they are also more often used prepositionally when the participle is linked both to a noun and to a verb at the same time. With pronouns, by contrast, to which participles, like adjectives, are not joined attributively, P generally retains its postpositional position. Examples with P before pronouns (c) are very rare.

The participle’s semi-predicative function is less strongly felt overall in VPN-model constructions with nouns. The possibility of interpreting the participle as an attribute disappears or diminishes only when pronouns or numerals precede the noun (b).

1.2.2. Other inverted construction models are currently represented somewhat less frequently than in the 16th–17th centuries, and some have not been observed at all. Consequently, the ratio of the main VNP model to the other models, which can be regarded as an indicator of the construction’s positional stability, has decreased comparatively little (only about 7%).

2.1.0. Besides the participial accusative, the constructions examined here also use an indeclinable participial form—the gerund. It is useful to consider how the inclusion of the gerund in this construction affects the positions of its constituents.

In most 16th–17th-century texts, the gerund form is not yet very widespread: it is found in only 13.5% of all constructions, and in the writings of some authors (for example, J. Bretkūnas) in just 3.1%. The relative proportions of the positional models of constructions with gerunds are shown in Table 2.

12. 902

177

Table 2

Order of constituents in gerund constructions in the 16th–17th centuries

Positional model | Number of constructions |% VNP | 257 | 60.5 NVP | 20 | 4.7 NPV | 47 | 11.1 VPN | 40 | 9.4 PVN | 1 | 0.2 VP | 55 | 12.9 PV | 5 | 1.2

2.1.1. The positions of the constituents in gerund constructions are less stable: the VNP model accounts for only slightly more than half of all examples. The binary VP model, meanwhile, accounts for 12.9%, making it more than ten times as frequent as in the corresponding participial constructions. This difference is related to the grammatical nature of the gerund as an indeclinable form and to its specific development: binary constructions were one of the early centers from which the gerund spread; it penetrated them earlier than constructions with masculine and feminine nouns in the accusative (in the writings of J. Bretkūnas and M. Daukša, the latter constructions are still very rare indeed)¹⁰. Here are a few examples of this model.

Kas su wagimis bendrauie, gird keikent o ne apsaka BrB Pat 29,24 (hoeret fluchen LB). Er neszinnai, wissadai teipo buwus BrB Hiob 20,4 (das alle zeit so gegangen ist LB). Permanikem... reikent wiriusibes BrP II 500. Ischgirdes primenant Galilea | klause ghis VEE 209. O isch to saka ghie galint ischlikti pagalbomis MT 264¹¹Sunus... kad atajo ir artynos namump, izgirdo begiedz iand ir szokinejant ChB Luk 15,25.

2.1.2. In the trinary constructions of old texts, the gerund is more often preposed than the participle. Since an attributive function is not characteristic of the gerund, its position relative to N had no distinguishing significance; and because this form had spread only recently, its position was also not very firmly established. When the mutual connection of an action needed to be emphasized, in the 16th–17th centuries the gerund was more often than the participle placed immediately after the verb. In K. Sirvydas’s “Punktai sakymų,” such VPN constructions make up about one third of all examples.

Heretics say that they sow tares with God (they say that they sow tares, the weeds of sin) SP I 288¹⁷. Saint Chrysostom replies: therefore Christ did this, because the Apostles were good (that is why Christ did it) SP II 40—41. If anyone sees his brother sinning... ChB I Jon 5,16. And the one upon whom you see the Holy Spirit descending and remaining on him, that is... ChB Jon 1,33. The holy angels... proclaimed the birth of the king to the shepherds RG 20_15–18. Then he believes in the holy one PK LVII.

¹⁰ Cf. author, Baltistica, IV(2), 1968, pp. 197 ff., 201–202.

178

As we can see, the most pronounced positional differences among the constructions discussed here, as reflected in the statistical data, are determined by the differing syntactic properties of participles and converbs.

2.1.3. The popularity of the inverse NPV model in converb constructions (e.g.: rožes žydint mátom RG 546₃) may depend at least in part on stylistic and rhythmic factors (e.g., it is much more frequent in verse), and in some cases also on the tendency encouraged by Latin originals to place the verb at the end of the sentence (e.g., in S. Vaišnoras’s “Žemčiūga,” where NPV accounts for 26 of 103 constructions, i.e. 23.3%).

2.2.0. Today, accusative constructions with converbs are used much more widely than participial constructions. Their positional models have also changed somewhat in relation to one another.

The positional models of converb constructions in present-day language were established on the basis of 1,600 constructions, drawn mainly from twentieth-century fiction, folklore, and spoken language. Table 3 shows the distribution of examples by positional model.

The order of elements in converb constructions in present-day language

Table 3

Positional model | Number of constructions |% | VNP | 1260 | 79 | VPN | 114 | 7 | NPV | 39 | 2.5 | NVP | 63 | 4 | VP | 120 | 7.5 | PV | 4 | 0.2

2.2.1. The table clearly shows the increased positional stability of converb constructions. The main VNP model now clearly predominates and occupies a position similar to that among participial constructions. The converb form, which was relatively rare in older writings, has now become standard and can replace participles in all the contexts in which they are used in this construction. The relative weight of the two-element VP model is now lower, not because this model has generally become less frequent, but primarily because the converb has become customary in those constructions as well (for example, with accusative nouns of masculine and feminine gender) into which it was only beginning to make inroads in the sixteenth century.

2.2.2. The standardization of the converb construction apparently did not increase—and in fact slightly reduced—the percentage of cases with preposed P (9.4: 7.01). Although the postposition of the converb (unlike that of the participle) is irrelevant to its syntactic function, it is nevertheless conditioned by the general Lithuanian tendency to place the predicative element after the subject element. Therefore, from the perspective of present-day language, constructions with a preposed converb are just as inverse as utterances in which the verb follows a nominative subject (cf.: matau einant brolį and matau: eina brolis). The relationship between the stability of the positional model and the extent of use of the construction was also noted when discussing examples with participles in older writings (cf. 1.1.8.); this can partly explain

12*

179

180

Word order in accusative-with-participle constructions in the 16th–17th centuries

Positional model | MŽ | Vln | VĖE | BrB ST | BrB NT | BrP | BrGD | DP | PK | WP (išt.) | MT | MP | PsD | SP | SIG | KN | SE | MKr | CbB | Ev | RG | KM | Total number |% | VNP | 12 | 3 | 54 | 873 | 243 | 637 | 8 | 92 | 7 | 2 | 162 | 30 | 8 | 49 | 15 | 4 | 44 | 1 | 55 | 21 | 11 | 1 | 2332 | 84,9 | NVP | 3 | – | 5 | 15 | 22 | 30 | – | 33 | – | 1 | 18 | 12 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 160 | 5,8 | NPV | 3 | 1 | – | 11 | 2 | 27 | – | 11 | 1 | 1 | 36 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | – | 116 | 4,2 | VPN | – | 3 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 16 | – | 6 | 2 | – | 11 | 6 | 1 | 10 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | 75 | 2,7 | PNV | – | – | 1 | – | 1 | 1 | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 3 | 1 | 1 | – | 1 | – | 2 | 1 | 12 | 0,4 | PVN | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | 3 | 0,1 | VP | – | – | 3 | 3 | 10 | 6 | 2 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | 1 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | 45 | 0,6 | PV | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | 1 | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | 2 | 1 | 5 | 0,2

The relationship between the word order of members in participial and gerundial constructions

Table 5 (summary)

Positional model | 16th–17th-century texts | In present-day language | constructions with participles | constructions with gerunds | constructions with participles | constructions with gerunds | number |% | number |% | number |% | number |% | VNP | 2332 | 84,9 | 257 | 60,5 | 795 | 79,5 | 1260 | 79 | NVP | 160 | 5,8 | 20 | 4,7 | 50 | 5 | 63 | 4 | NPV | 116 | 4,2 | 47 | 11,1 | 10 | 1 | 39 | 2,5 | VPN | 75 | 2,7 | 40 | 9,4 | 140 | 14 | 114 | 7 | PNV | 12 | 0,4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | PVN | 3 | 0,1 | 1 | 0,2 | — | — | — | — | VP | 45 | 1,6 | 55 | 12,9 | 5 | 0,5 | 120 | 7,5 | PV | 5 | 0,2 | 5 | 1,2 | — | — | 4 | 0,2

This explains the initially rather curious circumstance that the percentage of prepositional VPN cases among the examples with gerunds proved lower than among the examples with participles.

Conclusions

1. The predominant positional model for accusative-with-participle constructions, VNP, is determined by general tendencies in Lithuanian word order (the position of the object accusative and the predicative constituent in the sentence). The postposition of the participle, found in 95% of the constructions identified in 16th–17th-century texts, reflects a semi-predicative relationship between the accusative forms of the noun and the participle.

Other positional models depend on the structure of the sentence or broader context, lexical composition, or are stylistically marked, and are therefore considered inversions.

2. The principal positional differences of gerund constructions in older texts (freer word order and the much more frequent two-member VP model) are explained by the syntactic properties of the gerund and its still relatively limited spread in combinations with the accusative.

3. The increase in the positional stability of gerund constructions observed during the period of the written tradition is associated with the expansion of their sphere of use.

181

4. The order of the constituents in the accusative-with-participle (converb) construction is syntactically motivated. The distribution of positional models in two synchronic cross-sections (the 16th–17th centuries and 20th-century language) reflects general patterns in the development of the construction.

В. АМБРАЗАС

POSITIONAL MODELS OF THE ACCUSATIVE WITH A PARTICIPLE (ACCUSATIVUS CUM PARTICIPIO) IN LITHUANIAN

Abstract

On the basis of a statistical study and comparison of data from Old Lithuanian written sources and the modern language, the relationships among the positional models of the accusative-with-participle or converb construction (accusativus cum participio) are examined. In this construction, the verb (V) governs the accusative noun (N) and participle (P), which are linked to each other by a two-way semi-predicative relation.

The position of the three principal constituents of the construction is syntactically motivated. The semi-predicative function of the participle is largely determined by its postposition relative to the noun, found in 95% of the clauses in texts from the 16th and 17th centuries and in 86% in the modern language. In the rare cases when the participle occupies a preposed position, its semi-predicative function is signaled by other structural features (a link to a pronoun or to a combination of a pronoun and a noun), by the nature of its relation to the verb (the impossibility of treating the noun as the direct object of the verbal action), or remains syntactically indeterminate.

The main positional model of the VNP construction is based on general patterns of the Lithuanian sentence: the predominant postposition of the object accusative relative to the verb and the postposition of the predicative constituent relative to the subject constituent. Other models are conditioned by particular structural and semantic features of the surroundings (context) or are stylistically marked.

Constructions with an indeclinable participial form in -nt or -us (a converb), which account for only 13% of all accusative constructions in 16th–17th-century written sources, have freer word order and greater productivity of the two-member VP model. These differences are due to the grammatical properties of the converb form (the absence of agreement and attributive function), as well as its early spread specifically in two-member constructions.

Comparison of constructions in Old Lithuanian and the modern language reveals an increase in the positional stability of constructions with a converb, which now occupies the position of declinable participial forms in most cases here. On the other hand, among constructions with declinable participial forms, the number of clauses with a preposed participle (VPN) increases. These data indicate a direct connection between positional stability and the spread of the construction under study. Since the current scope of use of constructions with declinable participial forms is limited to cases in which the noun is the direct object of the verb, the increase in constructions with a preposed participle may be explained by the influence of the corresponding attributive construction. Thus, changes in the relationships among positional models reflect general patterns in the development of the structure of the accusative with a participle during the period of the Lithuanian written tradition.

Statistical data on positional models of the accusative with a participle and their relationships are presented in Tables 1–5.