LIETUVIŲ KALBOS MORFOLOGINĖ SANDARA IR JOS RAIDA

LIETUVOS TSR MOKSLŲ AKADEMIJA

ON THE MORPHOLOGICAL STRUCTURE OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE AND ITS DEVELOPMENT

(By Way of Introduction)

A. VALECKIENĖ

§ 1. The basis of the morphological structure of a language consists of word forms. Most words in a language have not just one, but several or many forms. Word forms are united by the lexical meaning of the word. Words and their forms also have grammatical meanings, which are highly abstract. A given grammatical meaning may be shared not merely by a particular word or form, but by an entire group of them. Grammatical meanings are understood through the relation of words and forms to other words and forms in language. They are also very closely connected with the lexical, that is, concrete, meanings of words. V. Vinogradov emphasizes that the grammatical meaning of a word organically forms part of the semantic structure of every word¹.

On the basis of the grammatical meanings of words, their morphological features, and their syntactic functions, traditional linguistics distinguishes certain groups, or types, of words, called parts of speech. Parts of speech (noun, adjective, numeral, etc.) constitute the principal morphological categories. The general morphological features characteristic of a part of speech and applying to its words (e.g., gender, number, case, etc.) are also considered morphological categories. The means of external expression of these latter morphological categories, which also determine the morphological structure of word types, are word forms. The grammatical meaning of the forms constituting a particular morphological category is also the meaning of that morphological category. The two aspects of morphological categories (formal and semantic) form an indivisible whole.

§ 2. Word forms usually have external formal categorical markers. In inflectional languages (to which Lithuanian also belongs), such markers are generally various affixes (endings, suffixes, prefixes). Sometimes word forms are created through different vowel alternations (so-called “internal inflection”), stress, and accent. In Lithuanian, these latter means of form formation are generally combined with affixes. In Lithuanian, as in other languages related to it, analytic forms are also used

¹ В. В. Виноградов, Русский язык, Москва—Ленинград, 1947, p. 33.

5

forms consisting of an independent word and an auxiliary word that has no nominal function of its own. The grammatical meaning of analytic forms arises not from the meanings of their component parts, but from the semantic synthesis of the whole construction. These are entirely new forms with a specific grammatical meaning of their own. Lithuanian is characterized by analytic verb forms, called compound forms, which, alongside synthetic forms, constitute an independent system of conjugation. (The structure and principal functions of the compound perfect forms of Lithuanian verbs, in comparison with synthetic forms, are examined in this volume in the article “Compound Perfect Forms of Verb Tenses and Moods in the Lithuanian Literary Language.”)

§ 3. Morphological categories are expressed not by the morphological features of an individual word, but by the totality of functionally equivalent forms. For example, in Lithuanian, the gender category of nouns has several formal categorical markers. Masculine forms are characterized by the singular nominative case endings -as, -is, -ys, -us, -uo; feminine forms by the endings -a, -ė, -i, -is, -uo. Singular nominative forms of masculine and feminine nouns that have identical endings are distinguished by other forms in the inflectional system of words in the same group. For example, masculine nouns with the singular nominative ending -is have the singular dative ending -iui (dantis, dančiui), whereas feminine nouns with the same singular nominative ending have the singular dative ending -iai (akis, akiai), and so on. Thus, morphological categories generally function in language as particular systems of forms. Within the system, a grammatical form is sufficiently defined even without a separate categorical marker. For example, in Lithuanian, alongside the paradigm of the numeral “10”: dešimtis, dešimties, dešimčiai, dešimtį, dešimtyje, the following paradigm has also become established: dešimt, dešimties||dešimt, dešimčiai, dešimt, dešimties, dešimtyje. In the latter system, the form dešimt, which has no formal marker of the case category, is understood as the singular nominative, accusative, and sometimes genitive form.

Formal markers of individual morphological categories may coincide. For example, in Lithuanian the ending -as syncretically marks the gender, number, and case categories of nominal words and pronouns; that is, words with the ending -as are grammatically characterized as masculine singular nominative forms.

Some indeclinable words may also lack external formal categorical markers. For example, the properties and grammatical meaning of prepositions as a morphological category become apparent from the words with which a given preposition is combined (hence the distinction between genitive-governing, accusative-governing, and other prepositions).

§ 4. In studying word forms in morphology, one cannot detach them from the morphological structure of the whole word and of word types. Thus morphology encompasses not only the study of word forms and their systems, but also that of morphological word types and morphological features of words—of the morphological nature of the whole word, even when it is morphologically unanalyzable.

6

In morphology, methods of word formation are also usually studied. If word-boundary formation is distinguished as a specific method of word formation, the other principal means of forming words and word forms coincide (suffixes, endings, prefixes). In Lithuanian, the same ending can serve as a means of forming a new word and as an indicator of form, e.g., jaunis (brother) is a derivative formed with the ending -is from jaunas; the ending -tis also identifies this derivative as the masculine singular nominative case. (In this publication, the field of word formation is represented by the articles “On the Study of Hydronym Formation” and “Lithuanian Compound Particles.”)

The subject matter of morphology is closely related to that of syntax—phrases and sentences. The syntactic function of words is one of the criteria for distinguishing parts of speech. The grammatical meaning of words also emerges from their syntactic function and their relation to other words in a sentence. The grammatical meaning of some morphological categories can be explained only through their syntactic analysis. For example, the grammatical meaning of a preposition is understood in the phrases formed with the words whose syntactic relations it marks (most often a verb and a noun). (See the article in this volume, “The Meanings and Use of the Preposition į in Contemporary Lithuanian.”) On the other hand, the rules governing the combination of words in a sentence sometimes also depend in part on features of their morphological structure. Participles provide a striking example. Participles have morphological features of both verbs and adjectives. Consequently, they can perform both attributive and predicative functions (the latter in narrative language). In addition, some participles perform a sort of intermediate function between the predicative and attributive. In such cases, they express a secondary action or state in the sentence and have dual syntactic relations with other words; functionally, such participles are linked to the word expressing the main action (usually a verb) and to the word expressing the subject of the action (usually a noun), cf.: The tired child stopped running. The latter function of participles is examined in the article in this volume, “The Attributive-Predicative Use of Lithuanian Participles.” Here, the morphological structural features of the category of participles itself are also revealed in full.

§ 5. Language is constantly changing. “Every period in the development of a language creates something new, and this, as the language gradually changes, forms the basis for its further development”². Both vocabulary and grammatical structure change in a language, but not at the same rate. Changes in vocabulary are somewhat more noticeable. With every new change in social order, the language acquires new words, while some words fall out of use. The grammatical, and especially the morphological, structure of a language changes very gradually and imperceptibly. Over a longer period, however, certain changes can also be observed in this area: word forms and systems of forms change, the grammatical meaning of words and forms and the nature of morphological categories evolve, and even new morphological categories arise.

² I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay, *Selected Works on General Linguistics*, vol. 1, Moscow, 1963, p. 67.

7

In Lithuanian, among the most characteristic forms that are disappearing are the dual forms, which still occur in works of belles lettres and in some dialects. As a system, dual forms are used only in the western part of the Samogitian dialect. In other dialects, dual forms are no longer found with all words (most often only with certain older words whose meanings relate to the person or their everyday life). Nor are dual forms of all cases still used (the masculine nominative-accusative is more robust, e.g.: dù výru). Noun dual forms usually occur with the forms of the numerals dù, dvi, abù, abi. (See the article in this volume, “The Lithuanian Noun Dual.”) It can be seen that the dual forms of these numerals, having become established as standard, help the corresponding noun dual forms to persist for some time as well, owing to the principle of agreement in the sentence.

Postpositional locatives, formed from various cases with postpositions, are also archaic in Lithuanian, especially the adessive and allative. In contemporary Lithuanian, only isolated, fossilized forms of these latter two cases occur (e.g.: velniõp, vakarõp, namiẽpi, etc.). These cases are more widely known from old written sources. The illative is still alive in the eastern Aukštaitian dialects and is used after verbs of motion (išėjo miškañ). In some areas, this case already shows signs of decline: it is confused with the inessive (miškė). (This volume includes an article on the history of the plural forms of the inessive.)

Disappearing word forms become isolated in a language and survive for a time as a kind of relic. Sometimes they persist for a very long time in phraseological expressions. However, as some forms disappear, other forms with the same function emerge. As a result, the grammatical system of the language remains intact, and the language continues to perform its communicative function without hindrance. For example, in literary Lithuanian, prepositional constructions have become established in place of postpositional locatives (goes to the city, goes to the house||toward home, lives with us, etc.). The function of disappearing forms can also be taken over by other forms already present in the language. For example, plural forms take over the function of dual forms³. As a result, the grammatical meaning of plural forms and the nature of the number category itself change somewhat.

§ 6. One of the most noticeable processes in the development of a language’s grammatical structure is the lexicalization, or adverbialization, of individual case forms. As a language gradually changes, the case forms of some words detach from their paradigms, lose any grammatical connection with the forms of other cases (and thus their former grammatical meaning), and become independent—they are lexicalized. They begin to perform new, adverbial functions. Once a form’s former connections with the entire paradigm have been severed, the common formal marker of the case (the fossilized ending) loses its categorical meaning. Thus, from the perspective of contemporary language, forms that have become adverbs-

³ Probably, dual forms began to disappear for this reason: in terms of their grammatical meaning, they were opposed in the language to singular forms alongside plural forms.

8

The forms of cases that have become adverbs can no longer be compared with other forms that retain the same ending and have a case meaning. Not all case forms that function as adverbs are equally detached from their declensional system. Forms that have become adverbs are generally considered to be those to which a modifier can no longer be added. New adverbs can be formed with the same formant on the basis of isolated case forms. In this way, an isolated case form may again become productive in another system of grammatical phenomena (the category of adverbs). (See the article in this volume, “The Adverbialization of the Singular Genitive and Adverbs with the Formants -(i)os, -ės in Contemporary Lithuanian.” Another article from the category of adverbs, “Adverbs with the Formant -(i)ai in the Northwestern Aukštaitian Dialects,” is also published in this volume.)

§ 7. The morphological structure of a language is a complex system. All morphological phenomena are interconnected. When one phenomenon changes, others change slightly as well. Sometimes a small, barely noticeable change in the morphological system can cause other, very substantial changes. The law of analogy is of great importance for the development of a language’s morphological system. Forms that constitute systems influence one another. The form of a given case in one paradigm may level the corresponding case forms in other paradigms, or paradigms of an entire different type may be leveled according to paradigms of one type. In certain cases, even the lexical morpheme changes. For example, in Lithuanian, as in other Indo-European languages, the paradigms of the first- and second-person pronouns consist of suppletive forms; that is, individual cases in these paradigms have different roots, cf. Lith. àš, manẽs, màn, etc., mēs, mūsų, mùms, mùs, etc. In the singular paradigm of the first-person pronoun, the nominative root àš differs from the root man- in the other cases; the plural paradigm is even more varied in the standard language. Here, as many as four roots can be discerned (mēs, mūs-, mum-, mùs). In the dialects, the plural paradigm of first-person pronouns is leveled by analogy. On the model of the plural dative and instrumental forms, which have the root mum-, forms of the other oblique cases are also formed with the same root, e.g.: gen. mumį, mùmi, mum̃, mumės, acc. mumùs, mumìs, mùms and mumì, mùmi, mùm (as genitives), loc. mumysè, mumisè, mumẽs, mumỹ (alongside mùsyje); ill. mumỹsna. Similar analogy occurs in the plural paradigm of second-person pronouns. Because their roots differ, the singular and plural paradigms of first- and second-person pronouns are less interconnected than the corresponding paradigms of other pronouns or nominal words. In terms of meaning, the pronoun forms àš and mēs, tù and jūs can also be treated as independent words. As a result, forms are created by analogy between the paradigms of àš and mēs, tù and jūs. Singular forms influence plural forms. For example, many of the plural case forms mentioned above, as well as others, have endings corresponding to those of the singular cases, cf.: pl. gen. mumį (by analogy with sg. gen. manį, with a nasal vowel on the model of the singular accusative case of nouns), mumės (by analogy with sg. gen. manẽs, with the ending of ė-stem nouns), mùm (perhaps

9

perhaps on the model of the structurally similar (consisting of one lexical morpheme) sg. gen. mán, which has been shortened phonetically from manė), mūsų (by analogy with mano); pl. dat. mūmienai (by analogy with sg. dat. mānienai with the old ending -ie <ei, cf. Old Prussian mennei), pl. acc. mūmi (by analogy with sg. acc. mànį) and mumį, mūm, as plural genitives, pl. loc. mùmy, mùsyje (by analogy with sg. loc. manỹ(ję)), mumės (by analogy with sg. loc. munė (Samogitian), with the old ending of i-stem nouns -ė, to which the plural marker -s has been added), pl. adessive mùsip (by analogy with sg. adessive manip), and so on.

The distinctive declension of first- and second-person pronouns in Lithuanian has been greatly influenced by the declension of nouns and third-person pronouns; cf. first-person pronoun forms modeled on corresponding case forms of i-stem nouns: sg. gen. munės (Samogitian), sg. instr. manim(i), sg. loc. manyje, munė (Samogitian), pl. loc. mumys(ė); modeled on corresponding case forms of third-person pronouns: pl. instr. m umais (by analogy with jais), pl. loc. mūsuose (by analogy with juose), pl. dat. mūmiem (probably by analogy with jiem), and so on. The declension of non-third-person pronouns involves a great many diverse, interweaving analogies; investigating them is a task for a separate article.

It should be noted that changes in one area of a language often extend to another, for example, from phonetics to morphology. Because some case endings have become phonetically identical in individual paradigms, the declension of u-stem nouns and adjectives is disappearing in Lithuanian, as is consonant-stem noun declension; i-stem noun declension has also been significantly affected. As a result, a- and ia-stem declensions are becoming more widespread and dominant.

§ 8. As the morphological structure of a language develops, over time some forms or systems of forms emerge as productive, while others remain alongside the productive forms as secondary alternatives or as exceptions. Thus, throughout the history of a language’s morphological system, there are so-called doublets of certain forms. Productive and most widely used forms are generally recorded in grammars as normative. However, the productivity of forms, and consequently some grammatical norms, also change. In every period of a language’s development, some morphological phenomena are more stable and others more liable to change. In areas where changes occur, grammatical norms may change even within a relatively short period of language development. For example, compared with J. Jablonskis’s 1901 grammar, different forms of certain cases of u-, i-, and consonant-stem nouns are now considered normative; cf. in J. Jablonskis’s grammar pl. nom. ãkmenės, šėsers, dùkteres, but mėnesiai (now ãkmenys, šėserys, dùkte-rys), sg. loc. sūnūje, žmogūje, vaisiūje, puōdžiūje (now sūnuje, žmoguje, vaisiuje, puōdžiuje), sg. instr. patimi (now pačiu), sg. loc. patimė (now pačiame), and so on.

When investigating the morphological structure of a language and its development, it is important, for each period of language development, to identify productive and nonproductive forms and to determine the direction of development of particular morphological phenomena and of the morphological system as a whole.

10