Prijungiamasis ryšys lietuvių sintaksės darbuose (XX a. pirmoji pusė)

BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 THE MOTION OF ARTHUR Vilniaus dailės akademija ADAPTIVE RELATIONSHIP IN LITHUANIAN SYNTACSIS (FIRST HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY) 1 KEY WORDS: connection, coordination, management, Jurgis Ambraška, Leonardas Dambriūnas-Dambrauskas, Mykolas Durys, Jonas Jablonskis, Alfonsas Kalnius, Petras Klimas, Zigmantas Kuzmickis, Petras Skardžius, Juozas Žiugžda. ANNOTATION The article reviews how the connective connection is divided in Lithuanian syntax works of the first half of the 20th century, how many types of it are and what they are distinguished. It begins with Jonas Jablonskis’ Lithuanian Language Syntax (1911) and ends with Leonardo Dambriūnas’ Lithuanian Language Syntax (1946 and later editions). The concept of the types of connection, their definition and application in characterizing and dividing sentence parts are examined. INTRODUCTION Harmonization and control – traditional variants of connective connection – are mentioned in the first Lithuanian grammar in 1653. Daniel Klein sees coordination as “when words are combined in the same syllable and person”, and control as “when one word controls another word of a different syllable or person” (Kroopas, ed., 1957: 511). It can be seen that even in these first definitions syntactic phenomena – variations of connection – are not distinguished from morphological phenomena, i.e. their marking with morphological forms of dependent words. Unfortunately, this was typical of the Lithuanian language syntax for almost a quarter of a century – until the end of the 20th century, and often until today. 1 The article was written in the framework of the project Syntactic Relations of Lithuanian Language (2020-01-31 agreement no. K-16/2020), supported by the State Lithuanian Language Commission. Arthur's Revenge. Connective connection in Lithuanian syntax works (first half of the 20th century) | 2 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2021.94.05 BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 In an attempt to understand how the current school system of three connection variants – coordination, control and weaving – was created, it was decided to take a closer look at syntax works from the beginning of the 20th century – mainly higher school textbooks and reference books for the public. From other reviews of similar nature (e.g., presented in the dissertation of gramatikoje apie rūpimus dalykus nieko nepasakyta. Ramunė Vaskelaitė, see Vaskelaitė 2009) this work differs primarily in other theoretical bases of origin: syntactic relations are perceived by the author as a phenomenon of the sub-level of syntax, which can be expressed in the sub-level of morphology. Therefore, it examines more closely the similarities of the concept of syntactic phenomena. The aim of this review is to discuss once again the origins of one of the main concepts of Lithuanian syntax of the 20th century, to look at how the concept of syntactic relations, which still prevails today, was formed, paying more attention to the distinction of semantics, syntax and morphology. Having established such a goal, the research tasks become obvious: to describe the syntactic relationships distinguished by each syntax work, to compare them with previous (in terms of inheritance) and later (in terms of possible influence) works, to highlight the implied origin of the theoretical bases. Research methods are common for similar types of work. Initially, each of the works under review is examined (analytical method); then it is compared with previous and subsequent works in order to determine its place in the development of syntax theory (comparative method); Finally, a more general look at the works of the investigated period is given, the features of syntactic thought development are distinguished, the tendencies of theoretical bases (deductive method). The works are presented chronologically. The article consists of three sections according to the time of publication of the works reviewed: “Dawn”, “Time of Independence” and “Years of War”. It concludes with a summary of the review. I. PREAMBULE In Jon Jablonski’s Lithuanian Language Syntax (1911), the variants of connection – coordination and control – are not discussed separately, nor are there any definitions of them. However, there is talk of harmonization in the work. In the 25th column of the section “Composition and variations of sentence parts” the combination of adjectives with a factor is mentioned: “The Arthur's Revenge. Connective connection in Lithuanian syntax works (first half of the 20th century) | 3 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2021.94.05 BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 pure adjective (and the conjunction of a compound adjective) in person and number is combined in speech with a factor”, e.g. : We don't know each other. 1957. pp. 462. (in Polish). Column 26 states that the noun part of the compound participle is also combined with the factor: “The vowels of the conjugable parts of the language, which have appeared in the place of the conjugable part of the participle, are combined in their origin and numbers with the factors of the sentences”, e.g. : God's goodness is incalculable. Pr. (Palionis, sud., 1957: 462). As can be seen, in these statements syntax (the syntactic relationship itself) and morphology (its notation by gender, number and verb morphemes) are inextricably confused. lygmenys. Further (in column 27) Jablonskis also speaks about the combination of adjectives and participles of the so-called non-substantial genus, which are the substantive part of the compound participle, in impersonal sentences: “Where the subject of the sentence is grammatically unclear, where there is no subject of the grammar (in all impersonal sentences), where it is replaced by an adjective or pronoun of the non-substantial genus, where the subject is replaced by an indeclinatory expression [= a common noun], alone or with the noun of the conjugated word, – in all such sentences the conjugable participles (adjectives and participles) assume the gender of the non-substantial genus”, e.g. : Now the day is short, the night long. St. (Palionis, sud., 1957: 463). In addition, adjectives and pronouns of the genitive, which are part of the noun of the adverb, can be combined with the noun of the substantive or the genitive, alone or with the noun of the conjugated word, e.g. : From hunger and cottage cheese delicious. St. (Palionis, sud., 1957: 464–465). In these cases, when the content of the category of the factor is unclear or the meaning of the sentence is generalized, the adverbs, although they are called conjugated, do not combine but select the unnoun genus that goes through their substantive part (they "inherit" the unnoun genus). In addition to syntax and morphology, the meaning of the sentence is important in such cases. J. Jablonskis also talks about harmonization by dividing certificates into harmonizable and non-harmonizable ones. In the 29th column he writes: “We represent the coordinating sign by adjectives, participles, pronouns, numerals, times and certain nouns, which are coordinated with their respective indicative [words] – the genus, number and syllable” (Palionis, ed., 1957: 467). This is a common grammar combination in Lithuanian linguistics. It is also mentioned in the Lithuanian Grammar of 1922 (Palionis, ed., 1957: 407–408). In the Lithuanian language syntax, there is also mention of “combining of meaning”, when combining “we look not at the grammar origin, number and syllable, but at the whole meaning of those statements”, e.g. : The family left one bitch, another craftsman... (Palionis, sud., 1957: 467). In this statement, J. Jablonski emphasizes the importance of the component of meaning, its priority over morphology. Arthur's Revenge. Connective connection in Lithuanian syntax works (first half of the 20th century) | 4 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2021.94.05 BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 A combination mark expressed by a noun is called a prefix. In addition, the word is used to refer to a single person, e.g. : The stepmother-witch dug a pit of glow-in-the-dark. Ps. (Palionis, sud., 1957: 468). Management is not only undefinable, but its concept is not used by J. Jablonski. It would be reasonable to expect that the management will be mentioned when writing the plugin section. kalbama apie papildinių reikšmę, o ne sintaksės ypatybes: „<...> tie papildiniai rodys dar kitus However, it contains objects with which the above-mentioned <...> actions are linked” (Palionis, ed., 1957: 470). The adjectives are used to describe “what other objects, apart from the factor, are, in one way or another, involved in the action or the position” (Palionis, ed., 1957: 470). These statements describe the content of the complement as part of the sentence. The concept of an adverb is not associated with the syntactic management of the main word, or the requirement. It can be said that J. Jablonski’s Syntax of the Lithuanian Language set the guidelines for the development of Lithuanian language science. It was the foundation on which the young language science of Independent Lithuania stood. As can be seen, this work does not contribute much to the theory of syntactic relationships: coordination is perceived as the coordination of morphological forms (pure adverb, conjunction of adverb and noun with substantive, indicative with indicative word) with the lining of semantic coordination (in impersonal sentences), and control is not even mentioned in the concept. Such a concept of coordination was adopted and developed and refined in all syntax of the Lithuanian language of Independent Lithuania, while control as a specific variation of connection was perceived and defined not quickly and not easily. In Peter Klim’s Syntax of the Lithuanian Language (1915), which he wrote using the contents of J. Jablonski’s Syntax, there is no innovation in the matter of our concern. P. Klimas, like J. Jablonskis, discusses the harmonization of certificates and certificates, and does not talk about management at all. In his opinion, the adverbs only supplement the meaning of the adverb: "Without the adverbs, the action or position in the sentence would very often not come to fruition" (Klimas 1915: 13). His Syntax only deals with verb complements. II. 1998-1999 TIME OF INDEPENDENCE Mykolas Durys’ textbook Lithuanian Language Syntax (1927) was distinctive and bold from the point of view of syntax theory. Her ambition to overcome the logicization of grammar, to abandon “philosophical speculation”, “dead scholasticism” is fascinating. The author admits that when Arthur's Revenge. Connective connection in Lithuanian syntax works (first half of the 20th century) | 5 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2021.94.05 BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 writing the textbook he relied on young grammarists and Russian linguists, and mainly on the syntax of the Russian language by Alexander Matveevich Peshkovskiy (Пешковский 1920). Syntactic relationships are not discussed separately in this textbook. However, the combination is discussed in the section “Combining the taric with the factor” (Durys 1927: 22–23). Even the predicate itself is defined by M. Durio not on the basis of meaning, but on the basis of coordination: “We call the predicate, first of all, the verb of the sentence, coordinated with the factor” (Durys 1927: 21). In the aforementioned section, this combination is clarified: “Number and person are the forms in which the preposition usually (at least most often) adapts to the forms of the factor in our language” (Durys 1927: 23). And here is also the definition of harmonization: “<...> adaptation, by which, namely, one word form follows another word form, in syntax is called harmonization” (Durys 1927: 23). This is probably the first definition of harmonization in Independent Lithuania. It, by the way, reveals the syntactic nature of the connection quite well – it does not mention any specific morphological forms in which the combination is expressed, but speaks in general terms about the “word form”. Furthermore, following J. Jablonski, M. Durys discusses two variants of conjugation of taric: the pure conjugation and the conjunction of the compound taric with the factor are combined by person and number, and the noun parts of the compound taric and taric compounds (M. Durys’ term) are combined by gender and number. Cases of non-alignment are also discussed. In the textbook, adjectives are defined based on their conjugation: "We call an adjective-participle that stands next to a noun and is conjugated with it adjective" (Durys 1927: 29). It only concerns the harmonisation of certificates. The forms mano, tavo, savo, going with nouns, are called non-grammatical signs (Durys 1927: 76). M. Durys does not provide a definition of separate management. However, he mentions management when he talks about plug-ins. In particular, when defining them, one relies on dependency: "Additives are not self-contained forms, but dependent; they depend on the other words in the sentence” (Durys 1927: 25). There is a distinction between managed and free add-ons. “The controlling suffixes are those that are necessarily required by the verb of a certain form (verb), e.g., Strani smogi oči gniją R. J., while “[L]osnymi dodatkami nazywamy te dodatki, których pewnego rodzaju (wersa) verb niekoniecznie wymaga”, e.g.: rozmawialiśmy całą godzinę (Durys 1927: 26). As can be seen, the definition of managed add-ons is quite close to the concept of management itself. Although control is associated with the requirement of a morphological verb form, this form (or ARTŪRAS JUDŽENTIS. Prijungiamasis ryšys lietuvių sintaksės darbuose (XX a. pirmoji pusė) | 6 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2021.94.05 BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 form) is not identified. Many of the examples of free add-ons given by M. Durio are, in today's eyes, nothing more than circumstances. Furthermore, Durys’s complements are not only associated with verbs – they “can depend on every full word of the sentence”: nouns, adjectives, adverbs (Durys 1927: 27–28). The suffixes that accompany nouns can also be possessive and free, but “[T]hermously bound to the noun, the truly possessive (dependent) suffix is only a noun verb”, e.g., father’s house, and “all other suffixes of nouns are only free suffixes that are only adjacent to the nouns” (Durys 1927: 29). Thus, the definition of harmonization is presented for the first time in Independent Lithuania in M. Durio Syntax. Moreover, it is not associated with a specific morphological expression. Although management is not defined in the manual, the term management is used (management add-ons). The concept of management is associated with belonging, and management is generally perceived as a requirement of the verb form. The novelty of M. Duri's textbook apparently did not succeed. In 1930, Zygmantas Kuzmickis' Syntax of Lithuanian Language was published. It was popular in schools: five editions of this textbook were published in a decade. The textbook of Z. Kuzmickis follows not the formal path ("a purely formal direction of grammar is not acceptable to us in the meantime"), but the path of logical-psychological grammar that was common at the time: "Writing this syntax, I paid a lot of attention to grammatical forms, their relationships, but I tried everywhere to link them with psychologically logical thinking" (Kuzmickis 1930: 5). The new structure of Z. Kuzmickis’ textbook: he not only devotes a separate section to syntactic relations, “Word combination and management”, but also moves it to the introductory part of syntax (Kuzmickis 1930: 11–15). His definition of harmonization is similar to that given by M. Duris: “The arrangement of word forms in a sentence where one word form, separated from another, is reconciled, reconciled with that other form, is called harmonization” (Kuzmickis 1930: 13). It also does not mention specific morphological forms, but speaks in general terms about the word form. Furthermore, harmonisation is associated with priklausymu (pareidama). In the textbook, perhaps for the first time in Independent Lithuania, management is defined, but it is defined not by raising the characteristic characteristics, but by denying the coordination: Arthur's Revenge. Connective connection in Lithuanian syntax works (first half of the 20th century) | 7 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2021.94.05 BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 “Such arrangement of sentence word forms, where one word form, coming from another, is not reconciled, is compatible with that other form, is called management” (Kuzmickis 1930: 13). When examining the syntax of a continuous sentence, not the predicate (as M. Durio does), but the factor is defined on the basis of coordination (and expression and meaning): "<...> the factor is the noun's verb, coordinated in its form with the predicate, or any other word that replaces that noun's verb and means that to which the action or characteristic of the predicate is assigned" (Kuzmickis 1930: 17). The combination of the verb with the predicate is also discussed in the dedicated section, which deals with the pure and compound predicate. Z. Kuzmickis adds a noteworthy remark: “The vowel of the noun part of the participle is sometimes not combined, but only controlled: it is usually controlled by the participle conjunction (not grandmother)” (Kuzmickis 1930: 22). It is well observed that the verb of a noun in the participle part depends on the negative conjunction. Consistently developing this insight, and the positive connection should manage the corresponding denominator (is / was grandmother)... Z. Kuzmickis's certificates are divided into coordinated and controlled. There are adjectives, which are combined with adjectives by gender, number and syllable, and nouns, or suffixes, which are combined only by syllable. The dominant signs are either nobleman's or noblewoman's verbs, e.g. silver (dew), yellow flowers (flower) (Kuzmickis 1930: 27). The concept of managed certificates obscures the distinction between certificates and supplements (supplements are usually considered managed, not certificates). This concept gives priority not to the syntactic relationships (because it allows both complements and indicative verbs to be controlled), but to the morphological expression of these parts of the sentence. In this respect, the Syntax of M. Duri was more "syntactical". But when describing the add-ons, Z. Kuzmickis does not even mention the management. He is satisfied with their expression and role in the sentence: “<...> those words that are expressed by conjugated words or other words replacing them, with or without prepositions, and that do not form any circumstance in the sentence, we will call complements” (cf. Kuzmickis 1930: 43–44). In the course of the reprinting of the book, the author made some changes, particularly in the definitions. Here, in the fifth edition of the textbook, probably published in 1939 (the date of valdymas apibrėžti taip: „Jei vienas žodis priklauso nuo kito žodžio ir yra su juo suderintas, tai publication is not specified), the combination and such a relationship of words is called combination.” “If one word depends on another word, but is not in harmony with it, then such a relationship of words is called control” (Kuzmickis [1939?]: 13). Both syntactic relationships are defined by the concept of belonging, as if they were its variants. The syntactic nature of debugging and control is well revealed. Only tuning is defined by faulty closed loop order Arthur's Revenge. Connective connection in Lithuanian syntax works (first half of the 20th century) | 8 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2021.94.05 BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 (when the definition uses the same word in both the usual and the term meaning: is coordinated, is called coordination), and the definition of management is based on coordination. The definition of the factor has also been revised – there is no combination with the preposition: “the factor is the noun verb, which tells who the preposition is assigned to; with the factor is a preposition combined” (Kuzmickis [1939?]: 18). The discussion of the combination of the factor and the participle, the distribution of marks and the definition of suffixes remained unchanged. As can be seen, Z. Kuzmickis took advantage of M. Durio’s work and consistently extended it when defining the types of connection. It seems quite modern to Z. Kuzmickis the dependence of the factor (adaptation) from the taric, which was later abandoned. However, the designation of the substantive part of the controlling verbs, as well as the controlling signs, shows that the syntactic nature of the word connection is not yet separated from their morphological expression in Z. Kuzmickis. Let us now look at higher education. Pranas Skardžius’s lectures “Historical grammar of the Lithuanian language: syntax”, written probably in 1935–1938, deal not only with historical syntax. As the book’s editor Albertas Rosinas notes, “they are essentially devoted to the problems of synchronous syntax and reflect the achievements of European syntactic thought in the 1930s” (Rosinas, ed. et al., 1998: 15). In the section “Groups of words” P. Skardžius divides the syntactic connections of the words that make up them into coordinated (connecting) and subordinated (connecting) based on semantic relationships: “By groups of words we indicate the mutual relationship in a different way, namely: just as individual roles can be either coordinated (i.e. equally compared with each other) or subordinated (i.e. connected to each other), so also the linguistic expressions of those roles can be coordinated or subordinated” (Rosinas, ed. and par., 1998: 520). The interrelationships of the words forming subordinate groups are not discussed separately in the lectures, but the concept of control is approached in the section “Verbal group”, when speaking about the fact that verbs “must” (i.e. require) or “do not have to” adjective: “<...> there is a distinction between finalized and non-finalized verbs, i.e. those that have a strict adjective” (Rosinas, ed. and par., 1998: 526). privalo ir kurie jo neprivalo, pav.: mušti, siūti ir miegoti, šokti. Bet šis skirtumas ne visados yra In the chapter “Congruence” (Rosinas, ed. and par., 1998: 544–546), after having already discussed the subordinated and coordinated groups of words, the formal combination of words is Arthur's Revenge. Connective connection in Lithuanian syntax works (first half of the 20th century) | 9 doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2021.94.05 BENDRINĖ KALBA 94 (2021) http://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba ISSN 2351-7204 discussed separately. Jame trumpai aptariami įvairūs derinimo atvejai: priedėlio derinimas su pažymimuoju žodžiu, sudėtinio tarinio daiktavardis (tarininis daiktavardis) ir būdvardis (tarininis būdvardis) su veiksniu einančiu daiktavardžiu, pažyminiu einantis būdvardis (pažymininis būdvardis) su pažymimuoju daiktavardžiu, pažymininio ar tarinio būdvardžio su keliais daiktavardžiais, tarininis pažyminys su veiksniu einančiu daiktavardžiu, pažyminiu einantis būdvardis su pažymimuoju daiktavardžiu ar keliais daiktavardžiais ir, galiausiai, veiksmažodis su veiksniu einančiu įvardžiu. In the latter case, for example, only the combination of a verb by person and number with the person or persons passing the factor is mentioned. In other words, only the various cases of morphological expression of coordination are reviewed. Syntactic connections are not mentioned in the section “Main sentence parts” (Rosinas, ed. and par., 1998: 559–563). When examining compound sentences, the rough division of syntactic connections is also taken into account: connected and connected compound sentences are mentioned, the connection and connection of the sentences that make them up, e.g.: “Collateral sentences are connected to the main ones by certain connecting elements, so their relationship is much closer and clearer than that of connected sentences” (Rosinas, ed. et par., 1998: 567). As can be seen, in his lectures P. Skardžius only dealt with the division of syntactic connections into connective and conjunctive. From his lectures, students learned almost nothing about word management and only general things – about their combination, the latter not even related to the aforementioned types of syntactic connections (interrelationships of words). The syntactic nature of the combination was not evident, because only various cases of its morphological expression were reviewed. Leonardas Dambrauskas in his article „Word relations in the sentence“ (1939) mentions coordination and control, but the term control, in his opinion, is not accurate, because it applies only to a part of the connective (he calls them connective) words groups, although „all connective groups are ‘controlled’“ (Dambrauskas 1939: 86). Therefore, he proposes to divide the connectable groups into compatible and non-compatible. Such a skirstymą Z. Kuzmickio vadovėlyje. Matyti, kad M. Dambrauskas valdymą suprato labai classification recalls the broadness of syntactic connections – roughly like the relationship of dependence between words, which in connecting groups “is not of equal strength” (Dambrauskas 1939: 85). Such a broad and not very well defined understanding of control in Lithuanian syntax had no continuation. The relationship between the subject and the predicate seems to M. Dambrauskas to be “closer to the relationship of the connective groups” (Dambrauskas 1939: 85), but it is not said which depends on which.