Valdymas ar šliejimas: kilmininku reiškiamas nederinamasis pažyminys ir prielinksninė konstrukcija

Daiva Šveikauskienė. Control or forging: the nederinamasis pažyminys ir prielinksninė konstrukcija nobleman is expressed 209 DAIVA ŠVEIKAUSKIENĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas ORCID id: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7570-9132 SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH DIRECTIONS: computational linguistics, syntax and morphology of Lithuanian language. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2024.97.10 MANAGEMENT OR SPRAYING: A CERTIFICATE OF INCOMPATIBILITY EXPRESSED BY A PRODUCENT AND EXTENSIVE CONSTRUCTION ESMINIAI ŽODŽIAI: sintaksiniai ryšiai, valdymas, šliejimas, kilmininkas, nederinamaisis žyminys, prepositional construction. ANNOTATION The article reviews the assessments of the connective link in the scientific literature. The opinion of other authors on the management and weaving relationships, especially in controversial cases, is examined in more detail. The author draws attention to the relation of the noun pronoun, which goes with the incoherent sign, with the marked word. Cases of this verb control and fusion are discussed separately, while the question of syntactic relationships of prepositional constructions is discussed together. ABSTRACT The article reviews the estimation presented in the scientific literature regarding the subordinating relation in word combinations. The opinion of other authors on the relationships of control and adjoining are examined in more detail, especially in contested cases. The author draws attention to the relationship of genitive case of the noun, which is a non-agreeing attribute, with the head word, and also discusses cases of control and adjoining the genitive of the noun. Prepositional constructions are also discussed separately in aspect of control and adjoining. INTRODUCTION Computerized language sometimes creates problems due to different evaluations of the same language phenomenon in grammar. When we started to develop the syntactic part of the Lithuanian Language Grammar Information System (LIGIS), it became 210 GENERAL LANGUAGE | 97 Some cases of syntactic connections are not treated equally in mathematics and in various works on syntax. Here we would like to look more closely at the relationship of the incompatible sign with the indicative word. It is quite common to regard it as control, but when processing Lithuanian language by computer it turned out to be rather inconvenient to do this. The father’s hat hung on a nail, but not the child’s curiosity” (Babickienė, faktas. Kompiuterizuojant lietuvių kalbos sintaksę, atsižvelgiama į valentinVenckutė 2013: 169). Valentinity, as is known, is the decisive feature of the word atspindinčias tiek sintaksinį (plg. labai geras pasiūlymas, bet ne *labai pasiūmeaning to open a certain number of free spaces, which in the sentence (or word combination) are occupied by words of a certain meaning and their forms or their lenting dictionaries or other works on the issue of word valency allow to decide about the control of verbs (e.g.: Sliženė 1994, 1998, 2004), adjectives (e.g., Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė 2001), as well as some derived nouns (e.g., atitikmenys (pvz.: Sližienė 1994: 16; Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė 2023: 182). VaVaičiulytė-Semėnienė 2023), but they do not specify that the incoordinate sign is controlled. In computerized language, the control of certain words (nouns, adverbs, numerals) can be determined by the semantic characteristics of the word, but the controlled incompatible sign cannot be detected by any means available to the computer. Therefore, the aim of this article is to examine more closely the relationship of the incompatible sign with the sign word, i.e. to consider whether it is a control or a fusion, as well as to draw attention to the syntactic relationships of prepositional constructions and to indicate what solution will be followed in the Lithuanian language grammar information system. The article is of a critical analysis nature, written using the deductive method. 1. TYPES OF SYNTACTIC RELATIONSHIPS IN DIFFERENT PUBLICATIONS In the discussion of the relationships between the words that make up a sentence, meaning and syntactic relationships are usually distinguished, and the latter are usually divided into two main types, e.g. : The words that make up a sentence have certain connections with each other. In general, the relationships between words are divided into two parts: 1) internal, or meaning, relationships and 2) external (formal), or grammatical (syntactic), relationships. Internal connections between words are objective, naturally existing relationships. <...> In traditional linguistics Daiva Šveikauskienė. Control or fusion: The 211 external (formal) connection represented by the adjective is called the grammatical connection. In linguistics, the term syntactic relations is often nederinamasis pažyminys ir prielinksninė konstrukcija used for him. Syntactic connections can be of two types: 1) conjunctive; 2) connective1 (Aliyeva 2014: 41–42). Perhaps the most controversial opinions are expressed about the interconnection connections. In Lithuanian syntax, according to the formal expression of the connection, three ways of connection are usually distinguished: coordination, control and fusion (see Babickienė, Venckutė 2013: 171). Harmonisation does not seem to be a major disagreement. This relationship is described very similarly in various literatures: "Adaptation is the adaptation of the connected word form to the main one according to the morphological category. The conjugated form of the joined word acquires the indicators of the verb, number, gender category characteristic of the main form” (Ambrazas 1986: 8); “Adjusting is the adaptation of the form of the dependent point to the form of the main point” (LKG 1976: 11); “Conjugation is a method of joining where the genus, number, and verb of the main word are restricted. Only in recent, Western-oriented works is conjugation of verbs restricted; only the combination of number and gender is considered clear (Holvoet 2009: 110). Here, discussing the example of I want a tasty cake, Axel Holvoet mentions that according to syntax theory, it would be affirmed that attention was drawn to the fact that the way of syntax description or the nature of syntax analysis that is perfectly suited to the syntax nis lemia priklausomojo žodžio atitinkamą formą“ (ŽS). structure of one language does not necessarily convey the syntax features of another language (Šveikauskienė 2013). Vitas Labutis has also drawn attention to these differences, i.e., he has written that the basic principle of the phrase grammar created by the Americans to describe the language taking into account only the linear structure of the sentence, i.e., by combining groups of linksnį gauna visas sandas skanaus pyrago: „Priklausomybių gramatikoje logiška manyti, kad būdvardis linksnio požymį gauna iš daiktavardžio, o šis – iš veiksmažodžio. Sandų struktūra paremtoje sintaksėje būtų teigiama, kad skanaus pyrago sudaro sandą, kuris kaip visuma gauna linksnį iš veiksmažodžio“ (Holvoet 2009: 111). Tačiau šio darbo autorės jau ir anksčiau words into sands according to the surrounding of the word, is not suitable for the Lithuanian language: „Neturinčioje griež1 “Words, which are combined and constitute a sentence, should have some link relations between each other. Usually, the relations between the words are divided into two parts: 1) the internal or the meaning relations and 2) external (formal) or grammatical (syntactical) relations. The internal relations between the words are the objective relations which exist in the nature. <…> In traditional linguistics the external (formal) relationship is called the grammatical connection. It is often called syntactic relations in linguistics. Syntactic relationship is expressed in two forms: 1) Coordinating relations; 2) Subordinating relations” (Aliyeva 2014: 41–42). 212 GENDRINĖ KALBA | 97 The surrounding principle of that grammatical word order in the syntax of the Lithuanian language is almost inapplicable” (Labutis 1998: 15). The dependency grammar, which is based on the valence theory (Tesnière 1959), was also developed in the 1950s. From the point of view of dependency grammar, "<...> the task of syntax is not so much to group words into phrases as to establish direct kurta Europos fleksinėms kalboms, nes jų struktūra iš principo skiriasi nuo relationships between the words themselves" (Kay, Gawron, Norvig 1994: 53). Thus, the dependency grammar spread because it suited flexitive European languages with a free word order much better than the phrase grammar that operates by verbs: It is no coincidence that the dependency grammar suited the best to the researchers of those languages in which the word order is relatively free and in which the concept of phrase seems less important, because the main element of the word combination and the dependent elements of the sentence are not always arranged in the same order, they may not even be next to each other2 (Kay, Gawron, Norvig 1994: 55). That the nature of syntactic analysis can be very different and it depends on the language, linguists from other countries also write. For example, it is pointed out that in Russian a lot is determined by the conjugation and the verb forms, some information can also be obtained from the word order, while in English almost everything is determined by the word order, and the variants of the noun and verb forms can help little in the syntactic analysis (Henisz-Dostert, Macdonald, Zarechnak 1979: 116). In English, syntactic jais, pvz., I know Danny and Toni knows me ir I know Danny and Toni know connections are only very rarely determined by endings (Winograd 1983: 136), so kalbą, visiškai nenumatytas informacijos paėmimas iš žodžių galūnių, kurios turi lemiamą įtaką atliekant lietuvių kalbos sakinių sintaksinę analizę. Tačiau naujausiuose lietuvių kalbos sintaksės darbuose derinimas, kurį parodo žodžių galūnės, nebelaikomas vienu iš trijų sintaksinio ryšio būdų. in theories focused primarily on English, a model focused on two types of connective connection is being developed (e.g. Holvoet, Judžentis 2003; Holvoet 2009). Such a model as syntactic relationships provides for complementation and modification; The combination according to it tends to be considered not a syntactic but a morphosyntactic relationship or an indicator of a syntactic relationship. More about this will be written 1.3, and now we should discuss management and casting, because perhaps the most differing opinions are precisely about them. 2 “It is no accident that dependency grammar has appealed most to students of languages with relatively free word order where the notion of a phrase appears less important because a head and its dependents may not always appear in the same order or even adjacent to one another” (Kay, Gawron, Norvig 1994: 55). Daiva Šveikauskienė. Control or forging: the nederinamasis pažyminys ir prielinksninė konstrukcija nobleman is represented by 213 1.1. Description of control In some earlier works of Lithuanian authors, the characteristic of control characteristic only of the verb is highlighted, for example: “Verbal compounds are accepted to be classified according to the nature of the controlled verbs or verbs with a preposition” (Grenda 1964: 137). Later, we will discuss more extensively the control characteristic of other parts of the language: Words of various parts of the speech can be controlled: verbs (make a bonfire, be afraid of a wolf, tell a friend, be interested in music, sit in a tent, be angry with a brother, go through the forest, agree with a neighbor), nouns (dogs c o v a s u v i l k u, pot without pots, a bag of potatoes, a tree branch...), some adjectives and adverbs (full of water, good for children, wonderful in that, a lot of trouble...), numerals (a hundred books, two horses, ten of you...) <...> (Labutis 1998: 34). As for the definition of general control, there is apparently agreement: “Control is the choice of a variable form (usually different) of the connected word, depending on the conjunction of the main word” (Ambrazas 1986: 8); „<...> when the form of the dependent word is determined by the property of the main element to join a certain syllable, <...> both elements are connected by means of control (Babickienė, Venckutė 2013: 172); “The management of words in a sentence is such their relation, when one word acquires such a form (syllable), as another word requires according to its meaning” (Žiugžda 1960: 16); “The characteristic of management” (Holvoet, Judžentis atveju vienas žodis primeta kitam tam tikrą formą, kuri jam pačiam nėra 2003: 18). However, there are differences of opinion on the treatment of individual verbs in terms of management or weaving. For example, Vitas Labutis (1998: 35) gives the local as an example when describing the control of verbs: sitting in a tent. In the tritomy of the Lithuanian Grammar (hereinafter – LKG) it is written that “only with a certain reservation one can talk about the control of the locality” (LKG 1976: 12) and verb combinations with locality are discussed in the context of the fusion. And Aldona Paulauskienė states that “the pronoun is certainly not a controlled verb, because its meaning (as with the adverb) does not depend at all on the verb with which it forms a compound” (Paulauskienė 2002: 25). As an argument to deny that the pronoun is controlled, the author presents the fact that in a verb-word combination, when this vowel is replaced by an adverb, for example, there, a fusion is already obtained. In school, syntactic relationships are taught by asking questions. To live where? is not control, would be shown by the following sentence: Then they beautifully and happily 214 COMMON LANGUAGE | 97 kelių 2009: 81). About living can not be said that it is semantically inadequate. The sentence They lived happily ever after is quite mingai gyveno. Tačiau norėti taip pavartoti negalima. *Jie labai norėjo – be papildinio nepakankamai aiški sakinio reikšmė, trūksta informacijos. Papildymo reikmės priežastis – „žodžio semantinis nepakankamumas“ (žr. Vasclear. Thus, from such examples it would be concluded that the verb want to controls the nobleman, and the verb live does not control the local. 1.2. Description of the application The most primitive definition of casting is given by Narmin Aliyeva: “<...> if ryšys tarp dviejų žodžių nėra derinimas ar valdymas, vadinasi, tai yra casting”3 (Aliyeva 2014: 43). LKG fusion "is called such a connection when the dependent node joins the main, the latter is not required; it is not formally defined, only logically connected to the main focus” (LKG 1976: 12). Similarly, other authors describe this interrelationship of words: “<...> weaving is such a way of expressing the connective relationship, where the word or its separate form does not formally indicate the syntactic relationship, it is determined only by meaning” (Labutis 1998: 36); “This is a type of connection that is not related to the change of forms (formally unmarked), is based only on the semantic connections of words and is not conditioned by the connectedness (valence) of the main focus. In this way, unchangeable words or their unchangeable separate forms are usually added: adverbs (written correctly, very far, black-spotted, late at night), communicative (began to write, right to learn, desire to please), participles (arose at dawn, parėjo susėdus)” (Bučienė 2014: 30). It is added that weaving “is usually a weak connective link” (Bučienė 2014: 31), because “the word weaving is not necessary for the meaning of the main point (slept while reading, read aloud, thought while awake)” (Bučienė 2014: 31). The weak and strong, by the way, also divides the management, e.g. : There is a distinction between necessary, or strong, control, when verbs necessarily require a certain form of the syllable that supplements their meaning, and non-necessary, or weak, control, when a certain form of the syllable is not necessary for verbs, but only optional. <...> However, it is not possible to draw a strict boundary between strong and weak control, as well as between weak control and melting (LKG 1976: 12). 3 “<…> if there is no concordance and control relation between two words, then it is the adjoining relation“ (Aliyeva 2014: 43). Daiva Šveikauskienė. 215 It is true, A. Paulauskienė draws attention to an overly broad concept of management, the weak management, in her opinion, should be nederinamasis pažyminys ir prielinksninė konstrukcija considered as a management: It is clear that the adverbs, which answer the questions who?, to whom?, what?, with whom?, are managed, that they are simply ir teigia, kad valdymu turėtų būti laikomi tik stipraus valdymo atvejai, o required by the verb in the predicate, and they are complements. But how to call not the objective, but the circumstantial connection between the verb and the verb. After all, adverbs denoting circumstances are cast <...>. When the noun itself is ja, it is not the possessive but the participle, especially the pronoun. Perhaps this is why there are different degrees of strength of control (strong reiškia ne daiktą, o aplinkybę, kai kurie linksniai suprieveiksmėja. Ir prieveiksmėand weak). And the pronoun is certainly not a controlled verb, because its meaning (like that of an adverb) does not depend at all on the verb with which it forms a compound (Paulauskienė 2002: 25). In essence, this opinion is also expressed in the latest literature: “Weak control in terms of semantic relations is no longer control, because the dependent word is not required” (Judžentis 2022: 148). 1.3. Comparison of interconnection description models As revealed by syntactic theories developed abroad, they operate not on the concepts of control and fusion, but on those of complementation and modification. Complementation and modification are distinguished as two types of syntactic relationship (syntactic dependence). This is also evident from the definition given by Christina Biava, who defended her dissertation in theoretical and applied linguistics at the University of Illinois in 1991: complements are elements that supplement the meaning of the words in a sentence, which are necessary, and modifiers are considered non-necessary elements in the sentence. She also provides the following information: "Modifiers usually follow adverbs and adjectives. Complements are usually nouns or pronouns”4 (Biava 2020). Based on this concept, modification should include the combination and fusion distinguished in the Lithuanian language syntax, and the main criterion for the assignment of complementation and modification is the requirement or non-requirement of addition. Such a criterion is also mentioned in Lithuanian „Užsienio kalbotyroje sintaksiniai ryšiai paprastai apibrėžiami ir skirstomi linguistic works: according to one criterion – the requirement or non-requirement of the main focus.” (2003, pp. 145). 4 “Modifiers are typically adverbials and adjectivals. Complements are typically nouns / pronouns” (Biava 2020). 216 GENERAL LANGUAGE | 97 In the latest works on Lithuanian syntax, the model of description of connective links that envisages complementation and modification is also applied to the representation of connective links in Lithuanian: „<...> two types of syntactic connection (syntactic dependence) can be distinguished: complementation and modification <...>. This distinction of syntactic relationships can also be formulated on the basis of a syntactic requirement: the complement is a syntactically required addition and the modifier is not required” (Holvoet 2009: 72). To illustrate the modification, examples are given with an adjective and an adverb: book the semantic relationship between words is determined by the modifier interesting; The meaning of <...> būdvardis įdomi MODIFIKUOJA daiktavardį knyga. <...> Junginyje įdomi the noun book itself does not require the expression of the attribute, but if the attribute is expressed, it is clear that it is defined by the modifier. A similar relationship can be observed in the combination interestingly tells, where the adverb interestingly describes the narrative, but the verb itself, as summarized in Ramunė žodžio pasakoti reikšmė tokio apibūdinimo neapima ir nereikalauja (Holvoet, Judžentis 2003: 14–15). Iki pateikiant tokį modelį lietuvių kalbos sintaksėje buvo įprasta skirti tris prijungimo būdus, t. y. derinimą, valdymą ir šliejimą, o jiems skirstyti, kaip matyti iš čia pateikto derinimo, valdymo ir šliejimo aprašymo ir Vaskelaitė’s dissertation, applies two criteria: “The model of connective connections presented in LKG [Lithuanian Grammar] is based on the following two criteria: 1) the criterion of the requirement of a dependent element arising from the meaning of the main element; 2) the criterion of the formal expression of the dependent point” (Vaskelaitė 2009: 101). This distribution model of connecting links could be shown in a diagram (see Figure 1). There is one common characteristic of adjustment and control (it is marked in green in the diagram) – the addition is represented by forms. They differ in that in the case of control, complementation is required, while in the case of alignment, it is not required. Matching and blending have a common feature (shown in violet) – in both cases, the addition is not necessary. Only in the case of matching the connection is expressed in forms, and not in the case of blending. The model of conjugation distribution used in the latest Lithuanian bracket syntax works provides for complementation and modification as two types of conjugation. It is shown in Figure 2. One could ask which model is more suitable for revealing the syntactic structure of Lithuanian language. English has almost no endings, so the language Daiva Šveikauskienė. Control or fusion: the 217 noun-adjective combinations typical of the Tuvi language are also absent (see Figure 2). Even in the singular or plural case, when a noun nederinamasis pažyminys ir prielinksninė konstrukcija acquires the endings -’s, -s’ or -s, the adjective that denotes it does not acquire any ending (e.g., big dog and big dogs). Agreement is sometimes referred to here as what is understood as correlation in some works on Lithuanian syntax (e.g., Labutis 1998: 38, DLKG 1997: 478), i.e., the choice of the conjunctive form according to the noun-expressed factor, as in the given example Danny and Toni know me and Toni knows me. “The relationship between a verb and its noun factor is often described as a system of coordination in which certain noun forms correlate with specific verb forms”5 (Bowers 2001: 25). This correlation is not the equivalent of the term harmonization used in Lithuanian syntax. "The relation between a verb and its subject nominal, for example, is frequently marked by an agreement system in which specific morphological forms of the nominal correlate with specific forms of the verb" (Bowers 2001: 25). 1 PAV. Tuning, control and casting 2 PAV. Unit of connective structure providing for complementation and modification of connective links. – Lithuanian Linguistics Questions 25, 4–44. Babickienė Zofija, Venckutė Regina 2013: Fundamentals of Language Science: textbook, Vilnius: Mykolas Romeris University. Balkevičius Jonas 1963: Syntax of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. Biava Christina 2020: What is the Difference between Modifier and Complement? Accessed online: skirstymas https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-modifier-and-complement. ryšių skirstymas 224 GENERAL LANGUAGE | 97 LITERATŪRA IR ŠALTINIAI A li y eva N a r mi n 2014: A View on the Syntactical Relations. – American Journal of Linguistics 3(2), 41–45. A mb r a z a s Vy t a u t a s 1986: Lietuvių kalbos sakinio sintaksinės ir semanBowers John 2001: Syntactic Relations. Online access: https://conf.ling. cornell.edu/bowers/SyntRelCompl.pdf. Bučienė Laimutė 2014: Syntax of Lithuanian language. Theory and Practice: komoji knyga, Vilnius: Lietuvos edukologijos universiteto leidykla. moDLKG 1997: Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian Language, Vilnius: Institute for Publishing of Science and Encyclopedias. 1964. pp. 194. "About the classification of verb compounds". – Scientific works of higher education institutions of the Lithuanian SSR. Linguistics 10, 137–142. Henisz-Dostert Bożena, Macdonald Ross R., Zarechnak M ic h a e l 1979: Machine Translation. – Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 11, ed. W. Winterk, Hague, Paris, New York: Mouton Publishers. Holvoet Axel 2009: Basics of General Syntax, Vilnius: Asociacija "Academia Salensis". H ol vo e t A xe l, Ju d ž e n t i s A r t ū ra s 2003: Types of Syntactic Relations. – Lithuanian Language Grammar Works 1: Syntactic Relations Studies, Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute. Ju d ž en t i s A r t ū ra s 2022: Connective connection in Lithuanian syntax works of the Soviet occupation period. – Common Language 95, 133–161. Kay Martin, Gawron Mark, Norvig Peter 1994: Verbmobil: A Translation System for Face-to-Face Dialog, Stanford: CSLI. K al i n a us k a s B ro n iu s 1961: The word combination as an object of syntax. – School Journal 5: 31–39. K al i n a us k a s B ro n i u s 1963: Words and word combinations in a sentence. – Some questions of grammar and stylistics: material for teachers, Kaunas: Valstybinė pedagoginės literatūros leidykla. Kalinauskas Bronius 1972: Syntax of word combinations in Lithuanian language: a teaching aid, Vilnius: State Pedagogical Institute. 1998: Syntax of the Lithuanian language, Vilnius: Vilnius University Press. Daiva Šveikauskienė. Control or forging: the nederinamasis pažyminys ir prielinksninė konstrukcija nobleman represents 225 LIGIS – Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos informacinė sistema. Prieiga internete: https://ligis.lki.lt. LKG 1976: Lithuanian Grammar 3, Vilnius: Mokslas. Paulauskienė Aldona 2002: Separation of syntax from morphology in 20th-century linguistics. – Language Studies 3, 23–26. PZJ – Connective word combinations. Access online: https://mokslai.lietuviuzodynas.lt/lietuviu-kalba/prijungiamieji-zodziu-junginiai. 1978: Sirtautas Vytautas 1978. 2001. The New York Times: The Editorial Board. Lietuvos TSR aukštojo ir specialiojo vidurinio mokslo ministerijos Leidy1994: Dictionary of Lithuanian Verb Conjugation 1, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. 1998: Dictionary of Lithuanian Verb Conjugation 2(1), Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Sližienė Nijolė 2004: Lithuanian Verb Conjugation Dictionary 2(2), Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute. Spevak Olga 2014: Noun Valency in Latin. – Noun Valency, ed. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 183–213. Šveikauskienė Daiva 2013: Syntactic Traction of Words. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 69, 130–153. Tesnière Lucien 1959: Elements of structural syntax, Paris: Klincksieck. Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė Loreta 2001: The valency of adjectives in Lithuanian language: doctoral dissertation, Vilnius: Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto leidykla. Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė Loreta 2023: “Prieraišus”, “prieraišumas” valenting in the current Lithuanian (written) language. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 88, 181–205. Online access: https://www.lituanistika.lt/ content/103312. 2009: Models of Syntactic Relationships in the Syntax of Lithuanian Language: doctoral dissertation, Kaunas: Vytautas Didysis University Press. Vaskelaitė Ramunė 2003: Noun compounds in Lithuanian language from the point of view of syntactic relations. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 48, 143–158. VLEe – Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia. Online access: https://www.vle.lt/ straipsnis/valdymas-1/. Winograd Terry 1983: Language as a Cognitive Process 1: Syntax, London: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. 1960: Grammar of Lithuanian Language 2: Syntax, Kaunas: ValsŽS – Word tybinė pedagoginės literatūros leidykla. Relations. Access on the Internet: http://www.šaltiniai.info/index/details/606. Retrieved 2023-12-13 Adopted 2024-11-04 226 GENERAL LANGUAGE | 97 DAIVA ŠVEIKAUSKIENĖ CONTROL OR ADJOINING: THE GENITIVE MEANS NON-AGREEING ATTRIBUTE AND PREPOSITIONAL CONSTRUCTION Summary When discussing syntactic relations in their most general terms, opinions usually do not differ much. Everyone admits that agreement is such a subordinating relation, when the dependent word acquires the forms of the head word (genus, number, case). Disagreements arise when defining control. There are different views on the control of the locative: from providing examples of this case in the control section to strictly stating that the locative cannot be controlled. In most publications, adjoining is defined as a relation when the dependent word joins the head word, the latter is not required and the adjoined word is not necessary for the meaning of the head word. In works representing or oriented towards Western linguistics, two types of subordination are distinguished – complementation and modification. The criterion for their designation is the requirement or non-requirement of complementation. The requirement of complementation arises from the semantic insufficiency of the word. In the syntax of the Lithuanian language, three types of relations are distinguished: control, agreement and adjoining. Due to the differences in opinions regarding subordinating relations, the relationship of a non-agreeing attribute with a head word is also assessed differently. It is customary to consider it as a control, but the noun expressed by the (noun), therefore, when defining control as genitive in this case is not needed to supplement the meaning of another word such a relationship, when a requirement is made, it should be considered only the relationship of certain nouns (denoting measure, capacity) with the genitive, and the relationship of an nonagreeing attribute with a head word should be assessed as adjoining. The prepositional construction, like the cases, can be controlled and adjoined to the head word, for example, the prepositional construction to+accusative in the word combination dip in water is controlled, and it is adjoined in the word combination send to Vilnius. A preposition cannot control a case, because syntactically related words are only content words. When a verb controls several cases, all of them are equally necessary and can all be in one sentence – dovanoti ką? (give what? – accusative) kam? (to whom? – dative). If a preposition is applied with several cases (už – behind+genitive, for+accusative; po – after+genitive, what+accusative, under+instrumental), then the preposition is not used. Daiva Šveikauskienė. 227 it is always used with only one case, and which case is used determines the verb, not the preposition itself. nederinamasis pažyminys ir prielinksninė konstrukcija KEYWORDS: syntactic relationships, control, adjoining, genitive, non-agreeing attribute, prepositional constructions. DAIVA ŠVEIKAUSKIENĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius [email protected] DAIVA ŠVEIKAUSKIENĖ MANAGEMENT OR SPRAYING: CERTIFICATE OF NON-COMPATIBILITY AND APPENDIX OF THE MANUFACTURER CONSTRUCTION Summary When discussing syntactic relationships in the most general terms, opinions usually do not differ much. Everyone recognizes that the combination is such a connective connection, when the dependent word acquires the forms of the main word (genus, number, verb). Disputes arise in the definition of governance. There are different views on the management of the viceroy: in one place examples of this verb are given in the management section, elsewhere a strict opinion is expressed that the viceroy cannot be managed. In most publications, the term is defined as a relationship where a dependent node joins a parent node, the latter not required, and the node word is not necessary for the meaning of the parent node. The works representing or oriented towards Western linguistics distinguish two types of connective connection – complementation and modification. The criteria for their allocation is the requirement or non-requirement of replenishment. The semantic insufficiency of the word requires the addition. There are three ways of connecting in Lithuanian syntax: controlling, matching and blending. the relationship Skiriantis nuomonėms dėl prijungiamųjų ryšių, nevienodai vertinamas ir neof the coordinating mark to the designating word. It is customary to consider it as a control, but the noun represented by the adjective is not necessary in this case to supplement the meaning of another word (a noun), therefore, when interpreting control as such a connection when a requirement is raised, it should be considered only the connection of certain nouns (denoting measure, capacity) with the adjective, and the connection of the incompatible adjective with the adjective should be considered as a fusion. 228 GENERAL LANGUAGE | 97 The prepositional construction, like the inflection, can be both controlled and joined to the main element of the word combination, for example, the prepositional construction in + the ending in the word combination immersi in acqua is controlled, and in the word combination siųsti į Vilnius – joined. In the Lithuanian language syntax, the preposition does not control the verb, only words with independent meanings are connected by syntactic links. When a verb controls several participles, they are all equally necessary and can all be in one sentence – darovat komu? What? If a preposition is used with several syllables (for – what?, what?; after – what?, what?, what?), it always appears in the sentence only with one syllable, and with which – is determined by the verb, not by the preposition ESMINIAI ŽODŽIAI: sintaksiniai ryšiai, valdymas, šliejimas, kilmininkas, nedeitself. rinamasis mark, prepositional constructions. DAIVA ŠVEIKAUSKIENĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius [email protected]